This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I think suggesting that WTC 7 was deliberately dynamited amounts to a conspiracy theory. It is, well, a theory about a conspiracy. That is more specific than just "researcher" - he could be researching the DNA of unidentified victims, for example. JFW | T@lk 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"Some people" = Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing scientific about this 9/11 stuff. JFW | T@lk 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing this section:
"Hoffman received a Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher best-of-2005 award; however, there is evidence [1] that as Hoffman presents 9-11 information he conceals much of the same exculpatory evidence omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report."
Tom, the 'evidence' this person is talking about is from Gerard Holmgren. Please read at least the front page on his website. Here's an excerpt:
He has many many attacks of Hoffman all over the internet and you will understand what he is about once you start to actually read them -- please do read them before restoring these links. Holmgren believes that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers and that Hoffman plagarized all his ideas. Holmgren is probably best known for his belief that none of the eye witnesses to the Pentagon attack are believable - over 100 testimonies all documented online - although he himself admitted to never having even been to DC (he lives outside the US). He claimed that one of the witnesses probably didn't exist and unfortunately this information was used to attack David Ray Griffin on his one and only Democracy Now! interview -
And Tom, the Digitalstyledesigns award link is not significant relative to the other information about Hoffman on here. It is a list that Jan Hoyer came up with on her own and is not a recognized award by a particular organization oustide of her own website. She is a photographer and activist and it is out of place on this page given the other citations.
Those who support missiles, holograms, UFOs and such will likely attack this page increasingly over time because Hoffman is one of the few researchers to take on the 'no-plane' scenarios of 9/11. I'll consider adding a section on that aspect if it becomes necessary. Bov 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Jan Hoyer left this comment on my talk page: [2]
Tom Harrison Talk 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph copied from 911research.wtc7.net. That page says it's copyrighted. If we have permission to use it, we can discuss putting it back in. Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is put in the category "Articles lacking sources". Which part of the article is lacking ressources?
And which criteria are there for putting someone in the "conspiracy theorist" category.?
-- EyesAllMine 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I find hte use of the word conspiracy POV. According to Wikipedias own article "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." Which point on the source missing list does Jim Hoffmans research fits?-- EyesAllMine 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well - maybe Morton Devonshire has something to say then? -- EyesAllMine 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I haven't read the book, so I dont know if that is true, but by that criteria we should also label the official theory a conspiracy theory, wouldn't you agree? Just to clarify even more: The official explantion has for example not been peer-revieved. -- EyesAllMine 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you ... I must not call it "the official theory"? But all the reports are funded by the government, arent they? And actually, there is a group forming now to make a peer-reviev of the NIST report, as far as I remember. So it will eventually be peer-revieved. But ... I need more proof of Jim Hoffman being a conspiracy theorist. Everybody can label everything, but we must be able to verify it, right? And I stil find labeling someone/body a conpiracy-whatever is POV. Ive looked at his website and it seems to be a large collection of evidence etc. Could you point out the conpiracy part for me? -- EyesAllMine 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No ... but I haven't found anybody else stating the book as a conspiracy book. A lot the reviews goes on about the facts, and exposing the lies, the book is asking questions and beeing critical to the official main stream account. But being critical and asking questions is kind of healthy, kind of a peer-review process. It not "conspiracy-theorizing". If he is a conpiracy theorist - then he would also be one at his website - but I can't find his conpiracy-theory - I can see that he askes a lot of questions though -- EyesAllMine 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually his being attacked from others for not supporting the pod-theory, and is being called a disinfo agent! I find his site very sober. -- EyesAllMine 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Morton: I still find the use of the word conspiracy POV. According to Wikipedias own article "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." Which point on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Features does Jim Hoffmans research fits? -- EyesAllMine 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the "Conspiracy theorist" label, if it doesnt fit. Do you think Bush is a conspiracy theorist as well? -- EyesAllMine 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Bush and the government, the CIA etc is also working with a conspiracy theory. But we dont label them conspiracy theorist do we? I don't. -- EyesAllMine 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly ... Alien predatores ruling the world secretly would be easily labeled a conspiracy theory. But why should a critical review of the story of 9/11 be labeled thus? -- EyesAllMine 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
He clearly doesn't fit. Not even according to this list (lacking proper citation) that has come up a couple of times. There is actually not one point on the list that matches the work of Jim Hoffman. So please, if Morton or you can't come up with a more precise argument, I can conclude that just because Morton thinks he is an conspiracy theorist, that doesn't make him one.-- EyesAllMine 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
He, he - that's sweet :) -- EyesAllMine 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean anything other than that he created a website? Leaving it here for a week. If I don't get a response in 7 days I'm editing this pompous piece of bull.
-- Mmx1 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing 'bull' about it. It means that Hoffman developed the site with a unique use of code to facilitate its function as research tool. No other website like these exist except the ones that Hoffman has created. It was modelled off a design for Hoffman's 'Justice For Woody' site, used during a murder investigation in Vermont in 2001. Bov 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
First, that was a copyvio, as it's ripped right from his site, which is not public domain. Unique use of code? Name one. Pages linking to other pages. Huh. never heard of that before. -- Mmx1 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
>>First, that was a copyvio, as it's ripped right from his site, which is not public domain I'll reword it. 24.4.180.197 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I was impressed by the website's excellent design. Sources and quotes are properly attributed and easy tho follow and research. Wikipedia is special in that it is an easy to use well designed resource, and so is wtc7. Perhaps good site design isn't unique per se but it is special. Speaking of site design, that is what the end product of the implementation of the site serving system. And while the end result may be spewcial but non-unique, apparently the implementation is unique. I suggest leaving the paragraph as is. It is clear and can't be much better within the limits of the ambiguous English language. 24.118.99.41 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The site 911 Research says that there is no wesbite configured to the address. Is it temporarily down? If its permanently gone, we should remove or correct the links on the page.-- Bill 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be having a revert war over these blogs. Well as they all were written by Jim (see http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/about.html) and the audio blog is an interview with him. To me they all seem on topic for this page. -- Salix alba ( talk) 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I added several citations and info per the recent requests. I don't yet know the format for references, so did them as external links. Please correct them or explain how here (or link) and I'll correct them. 24.4.180.197 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The nexus of the dispute seems to center around
As to the first I'd prefer to call Jim a 9/11 researcher as thats how he describes himself. As to the second I don't really mind. Oh and can everyone please use some edit summaries on their edits, it helps to keep track of whats going on. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloane keeps reverting each version after any changes are made, to a version that includes, for example, a claim about nanotechnology with a citation request next to it. Why does Sloane continue to include a claim that has no citation?! I am making an effort at dialog on here because I'm tired of having to revert his changes over and over while he continues to revert to versions which are packed with citation requests that were fulfilled after the versions he keeps reverting to! He seems to be intentionally wasting the time of people trying to sort out the citation requests. bov 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
bov 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Those are just links to his site, no independent claims that he discovered them. 3. One website is linked, and the other is accessible through the site linked. Wikipedia is not a web directory. 4. Internal links were removed according to the layoutguide. 5. Actually in my last version he wasn't even called a CT. 6. I don't mind adding more, I'm just reverting the constant full reverts of the page. -- Sloane 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. The links are on his site because he created them. 3. There is a section that supposedly describes what sites he has created so why can they not be listed? How is it making it a web directory to list 3 sites in the section that is for that? 4. what layoutguide are you referring to? Does it say that each person can only have one internal link? Jim is a researcher, is in the 9/11 truth movement and has been referenced extensively by 2 other researchers. These links were all there previously. 6. Let's no one do reverts. bov 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:LAYOUT "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." and
WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". Why list three sites that are entwined? One is sufficient. --
Sloane 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give an example of another page I have worked on extensively: googol. Yes, believe it or not, I like to edit wikipedia for things other than 9/11, and mathematics is one of my interests. Googol is a pretty simple concept, yet, in my opinion, the article is interesting and covers a few side topics without getting bogged down in minutiae; take a look at the page. You'll see that the article text mentions large number and googolplex. These are then repeated in the "See also" section. Why? Well, because they are core concepts regarding googol that deserve to be mentioned in a summary section that the "See also" links represent. I think a strong case has been made by myself and others in this discussion that the links under "See also" for Jim Hoffman are core concepts of the page. They say to the reader: if you want to learn more about the topics central to this person, then these are the links to follow. I will persistently replace those links on the "See also" section of this page. Kaimiddleton 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have switched back some of the old "see also" parts. In all the various pages I've edited I've regarded "see also" as a section for major further references regarding the subject at hand. These references have stood on this page for a long time and there is a strong concensus for having them as far as I can see. This is a short article; there's no strong reason to edit down, I think. Kaimiddleton 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Links in the "see also" section are constantly being removed. I have replaced them and list these with my justification for including them:
Hoffman states he is a part of this movement
This is the section of the conspiracy theories page his work is relevant to
Hoffman is listed on this page
Hoffman has worked closely with Steven Jones
Hoffman has worked closely with David Ray Griffin
These are all sufficient conditions to warrant inclusion. There has been no discussion here when these links have been removed. I consider that an aggressive editorial action. Stating that the last three links above should not be included due to WP:NOT or WP:NPOV or WP:LAYOUT are unsupported and in my opinion incorrect. Kaimiddleton 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is correct that we should not link in 'see also' what is already linked in the body of the page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In wikipedia edits I have done on various articles I have used the "See also" section to see related topics of central interest. Cf. googol which mentions googolplex in the text as well as the "See also". A pedantic adherance to WP:LAYOUT does not serve here. The articles I've listed above under "See also" are quite naturally what a reader interested in Hoffman's central work would be directed to next. To limit these is unnatural and thus falls under this editor's interpretation of WP:IAR. I could name another debate I've seen lately. I've done lots of work on Timeline of evolution. The rules say that a related topic should only be wiki-linked at its first occurrence. But the page is rather long, so it made sense to give some topics a second list if the first occurrence was far up in the article. In this case, after some discussion, it seemed to make sense to ignore the rule where it prevented us from maintaining wikipedia's quality. Kaimiddleton 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that I'm attaching myself to the changes that User:Levi P. is reverting -- apparently the content of the changes has zero value if they are not summarized -- let's talk about the content and why you think they must be reverted. bov 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hoffman has been writing about the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) and other 9/11 conspiracy theories."
That doesn't make sense at all. The collapse of the WTC is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just something that happened.-- Sloane 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Kaimidletion you still haven't given one good reason why this article should repeat links. Why does this article have to break with the manual of style guideline? -- Sloane 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloane, if you're so concerned with repeating links, why do you not address the repeated links issue on Berlet's conspiracy theories page, which clearly has a much higher impact that this page? Why does that article have to break with the manual of style guideline? Locewtus 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloane, you asked me about the manual of style guidelines. They are just that, guidelines. I and others have argued conclusively that slavishly following a guideline is not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about presenting a useful, informative and encyclopedic resource to the reader. If the "see also" section only has one link in it, then why even have a "see also" section. It makes much more sense to have a group of links that connect to the core points a reader might want to follow up on. If I were to put 20 links in this section then I would agree that this was an inappropriate number, unless the entry for Jim Hoffman were to grow enormous. But as it stands the article contains some 1200 words. I hardly think six or seven links constitutes some lavish spreading of links upon the author of one of the very highest ranking 9/11 websites on the internet. How can you disagree with that? Unless you're just being legalistic and trying to find a technicality upon which to hinder the documentation on wikipedia of this important topic. Kaimiddleton 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim Hoffman (born 1957) is a software engineer from Alameda, California who became notable for his coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes were carried out by the United States government. His work has been classified by various media under 9/11 conspiracy theories.
What's wrong with this? It clearly states his beliefs and notes that he has been described as a conspiracy theorist.
Current lead is bad, "who has become notable for his 9/11 research and/or conspiracy theories" makes little sense and is too ambiguous. Either it's "and" or it's "or" -- Sloane 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
SALON ARTICLE, PAGE THREE-- Sloane 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index2.html
So here's from the Salon article:
Many of "Loose Change's" most vociferous online critics actually agree with its principal conclusion that the government is behind the attack, and only disagree with the film's specific 9/11 story line. Deep down the rabbit hole one day, I found Jim Hoffman, a 49-year-old software engineer in Alameda, Calif., and one of the most diligent 9/11 researchers in the movement. Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis, has looked into the film's claims more thoroughly than just about anyone else online. Though he agrees with Avery that the government was behind 9/11, he finds much of "Loose Change" wanting. "Sifting Through 'Loose Change,'" Hoffman's point-by-point critique of the movie, is withering. He discovers flaws in just about every second claim in "Loose Change," and he points to a mountain of evidence to rebut two of the film's central arguments, the idea that passenger planes didn't crash into the Pentagon and into a field in Shanksville.
Kaimiddleton 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you guys explain the debate that's going on here?
Kaimiddleton 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I also don't think a video link should go in the first 2 lines, and I don't see that being done for other people's bio pages. If someone wants to find a picture and add it that's fine with me, but a video is bizarre to put there. I don't have any pictures myself. bov 05:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The page will not stand as all of Hoffman's work being referred to only as "conspiracy theory" when the majority of it is scientific research of the attacks and analysis of the demolitions. We'd already agreed on here to include both forms of the descriptions of his work. Additionally, the demolition hypothesis page does not use the term "conspiracy theorists" throughout because, as stated by Tom B.,
The majority of Hoffman's work is not conspiracy but analysis, thus to ONLY refer to it as "conpsiracy theory" is incorrect, regardless of what those who disagree with the theories believe.
Secondly, Hoffman is referenced on a number of 9/11 pages on here and those should either be included in the page or listed in the See Also section. Deleting all references to articles which include references to Hoffman is not part of the policy as described at WP:LAYOUT, specifically, on the See Also section. bov 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This "connecting the dots" stuff has got to come to an end -- violates Wikipedia policy in spades to try to advocate in favor of "controlled demolition" here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Please stop. Also, I'm concerned that editors are trying to use a subject's notariety in one field in order to bootstrap the subject's credibility in the field of 9/11 research. Whether Hoffman has or hasn't published in Nature is of no consequence to his opinions about 9/11 theories. Surely you're not claiming that his 9/11 research was published in Nature or Scientific American, are you? Morton devonshire 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Tom and Sloane want the quote on here, the rest will stay to provide context and links. bov 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that I'm having to be on here all the time to delete the quotes attempting to malign Hoffman, I guess it's time to start some pages on more 9/11 websites. If I'm going to have to be constantly on here, I might as well make better use of my time and get started on the page about the top ranked website exposing the ommissions and cover-ups of the 9/11 attacks. Or maybe things will die down and I can go back to other things. Don't think about connecting any dots here and becoming a CT yourself; I'm just thinking aloud, nothing more. bov 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the badly sourced nonsense once again. Unless you find better sources, they go.-- Sloane 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The nice thing about "rev to agreed upon version" is that it is an edit summary anyone can use. I think I will assemble a collection of Universal edit summaries. Tom Harrison Talk 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about Prison planet or no Prison planet but Hoffman will not be described solely as a "conspiracy theorist" on here and I will revert versions which attempt to paint him as such. His site is a RESEARCH site and is not ONLY a so-called Conspiracy site. The vast amount of the information on there is in the form of an archive with links to so-called verifiable sources. Locewtus 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"Hoffman says he knows exactly why the government is being stingy with the videos -- not because it has something to hide about the Pentagon, but because it wants to feed the no-plane theory. It's all part of the plan to "divert attention from the core fraud of the attack -- the Big Lie that the Twin Towers collapsed due to impacts and fires."' [4]
“This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.” [5]
"The execution of the September 11, 2001 attack required means possessed only by insiders in the U.S. government, and not by the alleged perpetrators, Osama bin Laden and his minions." [6]
The issue is not whether or not he is a so-called conspiracy theorist but whether he must ONLY be described with that term. My version does not DELETE CT, but includes the more correct version of also describing him as more than a CT. The websites are not solid CT, they are much more, so to limit the description to ONLY CT is simply wrong. Locewtus 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
I seems to me that we have a case of POV pushing here. Sloane et al are intent of pushing a POV of applying the prejoritive term conspiracy theorist and are really dredging the barrel trying to find sources to suport their claims.
If we just write the facts: hes been researching 9/11, he does not beleive the official line, he has proposed alternative explinations. We avoid any POV problems and allow the reader to reach their own conclusions.
I've now listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream sources that write about him (and there are not that many) describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and his work as conspiracy theories. To the extent that he is at all notable, it is for that. The sources that describe his work as conspiracy theory are using an accurate descriptor, not applying a pejorative. Tom Harrison Talk 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Locewtus, you consider conspiracy theorist "prejoritive". I simply consider it to be an accurate term of describing one's occupation. We have categories and articles on conspiracy theorists and theories on wikipedia, pretty much all other biographies on conspiracy theorists label the person as one so I don't see the big problem. It's sourced, and that's what counts. "My version does not DELETE CT, but includes the more correct version of also describing him as more than a CT." Unless I missed it, I don't think you have a reliable source describing Hoffman as "more than a CT". I'll try to broaden the scope of the description a little, if that will satisfy you guys.- Sloane 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is saying that Hoffman hasn't been cited as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media -- Pop Mechanics is used as a source directly by the State Dept to attempt to prove it's case for a gravity-driven collapse. Thus PM naturally will be a source for the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" against its opponents - sure helps if you can label your opponents in a debate. And the goal of 99% of the articles about those who question or challenge the official version is to 'debunk' and make fun of them, so naturally using labels like "9/11 deniers," "conspiracy theorists," etc., serves to further their cause of making the reader believe they inherently deny reality or are likely just inherently paranoid, as all CTs are, as Chip Berlet has so clearly explained in his CT treatise on here.
The fact is, if those who were using the term "conspiracy theory" weren't so frantic about adding it to every possible place they could while at the same time erasing any mention of any other way to describe them, then it wouldn't be so transparently an effort to smear. If they were fine with saying things like "so and so is sometimes referred to as "x" and also referred to as a conspiracy theorist," then it would suggest they had no special agenda except the truth. But it is clearly not. People getting on this page to wipe away any descriptor besides the single phrase of "conspiracy theorist," dozens and dozens of times, make it clear what the intention is - labeling, branding via a particular pov to try to show how 'nonsensical' and 'paranoid' this person must be to not only disagree with the official version of the collapses as put forth by the (Bush appointment led) NIST group, but having the nerve to suggest a different explanation. bov 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I found your page on Rfc, bio. I'm not sure if you all have decided on calling Hoffman a CT or researcher. I found this site and maybe it will help. [13] Bye, pK--its Good to be the King 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This works,
and you can follow it with
and get another reference to the same citation. This by itself
does not work, and just produces a blank footnote. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was the biography article on Don Paul bulldozed and shipped overseas (apparently to be melted down at mirror sites), just like the rest of the evidence from the 9/11 crime scene? Ombudsman 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This endorsement of Hoffman's film by his partner in the film is essentially advertising: "He shows beyond question, I think, that all three buildings were taken down by different methods of controlled demolition," according to Paul, who added "The Twin Towers were exploded as no buildings have been before or since and about seven hours later World Trade Center Building 7 was imploded in a classic, conventional demolition." Brainster 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph is a cited fact about Hoffman which seems to be being removed because of a difference of opinion see this diff.
Since the role of a Wikipedia article is to report on cited facts in WP:RS and since that removal is being made without edit history, and is being made by the same editor, I feel that a consensus should be built for or against this citation. It is a clear citation, referenced accurately, and in a valid publication. The reference is as follows:
Now the 9/11 Truth movement tells me I saw much more. According to Jim Hoffman, a software engineer and physicist from Alameda, California, where he authors the site 911research.wtc7.net, what I saw was a "classic controlled demolition." This was why, Hoffman contends, 7 WTC dropped so rapidly (in about 6.6 seconds, or almost at the speed of a free-falling object) and so neatly, into its "own footprint."
As you can see it is a full reference. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this case active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The template should be in this article until the existence of the template is settled. I'm placing in this section as a placeholder. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was meant to be restarting my current 'wikibreak' today but since Bov contacted me, I thought I'd leave a few comments. I'm not going to engage in the debate any further, but I thought I'd present a view. Bear in mind that this is just from a 5/10 minute overview. My comments shouldn't be taken as being as well proven as those of you who have spent months looking at this page and the various souces!
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. -- Robdurbar 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting a discussion on the issue of including the phrase "he says" in the introductory paragraph. Please indicate what material you are referring to when you use that term since the use of the term "conspiracy theories" is already included. Exactly what material is not a conspiracy theory but also does not document the attacks. If you cannot show what part is disputable in terms of documenting the attacks but not being part of a conspiracy theory - since that's already accounted for - then I am removing it. bov 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
from http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/repudiations.html
FACT: I do not accept the label of "conspiracy theorist", and consider it an inaccurate and derisive description of myself.
Wikipedia editors that patrol my biography page on Wikipedia.org have repeatedly tagged me with the label of "conspiracy theorist", most recently with the inclusion of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. My request that the template be removed because it falsely implies that I endorse such productions as 9/11: In Plane Site and 9/11: The Big Lie was met with silence. Wikipedia editors have used the following passage from an article in Salon.com to justify their labeling me a "conspiracy theorist". (See the discussion behind my biography page.)
"Hoffman has disputed the no-crash theory concerning The Pentagon and in an interview for Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on conspiracy theorists, stating, "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be." The 9/11 deniers Salon.com.
The quote may be literally accurate. However, it does not convey my tone of voice, which clearly indicated that I was using "we conspiracy theorists" facetiously.
Quite apart from twisted interpreations of words attributed to me, it is clear from a survey of my work that the application of the "conspiracy theorist" label to me has no factual basis. The vast majority of the material I have written for the websites WTC7.net, 911Research.wtc7.net, and 911Review.com, reports on well-documented facts of the attack and aftermath and critiques both official and alternative conspiracy theories of the attack.
<end block of quoted text>
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_O%27Donnell#9.2F11_-_7_World_Trade_Center Rosie O Donnell believes building 7 was "imploded; by your argument she is a "conspiracy theorist" and should be catagorized as such.
Also your labling of Jim Hoffman as a conspiracy theorist is redundant as his page is under the catagory "Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11" which is a sub-catagory of "conspiracy theorists"
76.48.17.241 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Guest
What's interesting to me about Jim Hoffman's page on here is the tenacity and speed to which certain editors respond to even single word changes. They are frantic to label him in a derogatory manner and have the page set up with alerts so that they can respond within a time frame of less than an hour in many cases. Meanwhile, many many others who do similar work to Jim Hoffman have no such labels of conspiracy theorist nor does anyone respond so adamantly. I hadn't ever really considered how important Jim must be for such a level of attention to be bestowed upon his page, but apparently, it's one of the most important tasks of sites such as this to attempt to take down the leadership of ideas that threaten the powerful, in any small manner possible.
Another amazing but true story of wikipedia, the encyclopedia that has maintains an open door for US intelligence agencies to edit at will without fear of blocking or reversions. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
in doing as the tag requests.
Since I'll soon have the legions of admins after me for merely responding to this tag and not allowing a baseless revert to occur, maybe we should consider talking about the content of the first paragraph, and how many lines are necessary . . . that sort of thing. We should at least pretend to be doing what we pretend to do on here. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The calls for citations seem pretty meaningless -- if one says that the site has cached many original news articles all one has to do is look at the site and see that yes, indeed it does have a lot of cached news articles. Do we need the New York Times to tell us that news articles are cached there? This is classic circular wikipedia reasoning to waste time for the sake of clogging a page with citation tags.
The Salon article that references Hoffman states, "Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis." I don't want to repeat that reference since it's already in the article once. bov ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You ( Bov) have made multiple errors. I'll explain why I believe each one is an error....
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
First you say I'm not including the book or video for some nefarious reason, then when I do you add citation tags as though every noun on the page needs proof of existance, then you remove the whole mention of either of them when challenged to *yourself* do the work of the proof that only you are calling for. A google search for the authors names and the video name returns 23,400 hits but you still don't believe it exists . . . and you call the "truthers" paranoid or delusional? It appears this dust-up and blocking and reverting on your part serves mainly to waste time. Of course, it appears this might all be more interesting for you than reverting vandlism on the page 2008. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This article presents Hoffman as an opponent of the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon without mentioning that this was his original view:
No 757 Hit the Pentagon Evidence Precludes Flight 77 having Impacted the Pentagon
While Hoffman has the right to change his mind like anyone else, a complete article which is supposed to be about Hoffman should state clearly something like "Hoffman was an early advocate of the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but subsequently changed his mind and began accusing people who held to his own previous view of being CIA agents." That would be a more honest account of his development. As it is, this article just misleads the reader into thinking that Hoffman was originally a critic of theories that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That is obviously not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.21 ( talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Back to the "conspiracy theorist" debate again, in an effort to label Hoffman. Note that world renowned conspiracist David Icke, who says that the WTC was demolished and claims that people in power are actually lizards, has no such label on his lead --
David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is a British writer and public speaker who has devoted himself since 1990 to researching "who and what is really controlling the world."[1] A former professional football player, reporter, television sports presenter, and spokesman for the Green Party, he is the author of 20 books explaining his views.
Icke argues that he has developed a moral and political worldview that combines New Age spiritualism with a passionate denunciation of what he sees as totalitarian trends in the modern world, a position that has been described as "New Age conspiracism."[2]
At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]
According to Political Research Associates, Icke's speaking engagements can draw a substantial audience in Canada.[6] During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a four-hour speech at the University of Toronto,[7] while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress.[8]
If Icke's lead can say "a position that has been described as . . . conspiracism," there's no reason that Hoffman's page must instead say he has conspiracy theory websites instead of websites that have been described as "conspiracy theory" sites. 76.102.212.231 ( talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the label is being applied inconsistently -- when all these other pages have the tag, then Hoffman can too. To say that he is somehow especially in need of the tag when people as popular as Icke are not makes no sense. Reader2010 ( talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we all agree Meigs being a part of Entertainment Weekly has no relevance to this article at all, so I deleted it to make that sentence much less clunky. Spotle99 ( talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I think suggesting that WTC 7 was deliberately dynamited amounts to a conspiracy theory. It is, well, a theory about a conspiracy. That is more specific than just "researcher" - he could be researching the DNA of unidentified victims, for example. JFW | T@lk 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"Some people" = Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing scientific about this 9/11 stuff. JFW | T@lk 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing this section:
"Hoffman received a Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher best-of-2005 award; however, there is evidence [1] that as Hoffman presents 9-11 information he conceals much of the same exculpatory evidence omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report."
Tom, the 'evidence' this person is talking about is from Gerard Holmgren. Please read at least the front page on his website. Here's an excerpt:
He has many many attacks of Hoffman all over the internet and you will understand what he is about once you start to actually read them -- please do read them before restoring these links. Holmgren believes that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers and that Hoffman plagarized all his ideas. Holmgren is probably best known for his belief that none of the eye witnesses to the Pentagon attack are believable - over 100 testimonies all documented online - although he himself admitted to never having even been to DC (he lives outside the US). He claimed that one of the witnesses probably didn't exist and unfortunately this information was used to attack David Ray Griffin on his one and only Democracy Now! interview -
And Tom, the Digitalstyledesigns award link is not significant relative to the other information about Hoffman on here. It is a list that Jan Hoyer came up with on her own and is not a recognized award by a particular organization oustide of her own website. She is a photographer and activist and it is out of place on this page given the other citations.
Those who support missiles, holograms, UFOs and such will likely attack this page increasingly over time because Hoffman is one of the few researchers to take on the 'no-plane' scenarios of 9/11. I'll consider adding a section on that aspect if it becomes necessary. Bov 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Jan Hoyer left this comment on my talk page: [2]
Tom Harrison Talk 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph copied from 911research.wtc7.net. That page says it's copyrighted. If we have permission to use it, we can discuss putting it back in. Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is put in the category "Articles lacking sources". Which part of the article is lacking ressources?
And which criteria are there for putting someone in the "conspiracy theorist" category.?
-- EyesAllMine 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I find hte use of the word conspiracy POV. According to Wikipedias own article "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." Which point on the source missing list does Jim Hoffmans research fits?-- EyesAllMine 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well - maybe Morton Devonshire has something to say then? -- EyesAllMine 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I haven't read the book, so I dont know if that is true, but by that criteria we should also label the official theory a conspiracy theory, wouldn't you agree? Just to clarify even more: The official explantion has for example not been peer-revieved. -- EyesAllMine 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you ... I must not call it "the official theory"? But all the reports are funded by the government, arent they? And actually, there is a group forming now to make a peer-reviev of the NIST report, as far as I remember. So it will eventually be peer-revieved. But ... I need more proof of Jim Hoffman being a conspiracy theorist. Everybody can label everything, but we must be able to verify it, right? And I stil find labeling someone/body a conpiracy-whatever is POV. Ive looked at his website and it seems to be a large collection of evidence etc. Could you point out the conpiracy part for me? -- EyesAllMine 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No ... but I haven't found anybody else stating the book as a conspiracy book. A lot the reviews goes on about the facts, and exposing the lies, the book is asking questions and beeing critical to the official main stream account. But being critical and asking questions is kind of healthy, kind of a peer-review process. It not "conspiracy-theorizing". If he is a conpiracy theorist - then he would also be one at his website - but I can't find his conpiracy-theory - I can see that he askes a lot of questions though -- EyesAllMine 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually his being attacked from others for not supporting the pod-theory, and is being called a disinfo agent! I find his site very sober. -- EyesAllMine 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Morton: I still find the use of the word conspiracy POV. According to Wikipedias own article "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." Which point on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Features does Jim Hoffmans research fits? -- EyesAllMine 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the "Conspiracy theorist" label, if it doesnt fit. Do you think Bush is a conspiracy theorist as well? -- EyesAllMine 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Bush and the government, the CIA etc is also working with a conspiracy theory. But we dont label them conspiracy theorist do we? I don't. -- EyesAllMine 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly ... Alien predatores ruling the world secretly would be easily labeled a conspiracy theory. But why should a critical review of the story of 9/11 be labeled thus? -- EyesAllMine 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
He clearly doesn't fit. Not even according to this list (lacking proper citation) that has come up a couple of times. There is actually not one point on the list that matches the work of Jim Hoffman. So please, if Morton or you can't come up with a more precise argument, I can conclude that just because Morton thinks he is an conspiracy theorist, that doesn't make him one.-- EyesAllMine 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
He, he - that's sweet :) -- EyesAllMine 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean anything other than that he created a website? Leaving it here for a week. If I don't get a response in 7 days I'm editing this pompous piece of bull.
-- Mmx1 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing 'bull' about it. It means that Hoffman developed the site with a unique use of code to facilitate its function as research tool. No other website like these exist except the ones that Hoffman has created. It was modelled off a design for Hoffman's 'Justice For Woody' site, used during a murder investigation in Vermont in 2001. Bov 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
First, that was a copyvio, as it's ripped right from his site, which is not public domain. Unique use of code? Name one. Pages linking to other pages. Huh. never heard of that before. -- Mmx1 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
>>First, that was a copyvio, as it's ripped right from his site, which is not public domain I'll reword it. 24.4.180.197 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I was impressed by the website's excellent design. Sources and quotes are properly attributed and easy tho follow and research. Wikipedia is special in that it is an easy to use well designed resource, and so is wtc7. Perhaps good site design isn't unique per se but it is special. Speaking of site design, that is what the end product of the implementation of the site serving system. And while the end result may be spewcial but non-unique, apparently the implementation is unique. I suggest leaving the paragraph as is. It is clear and can't be much better within the limits of the ambiguous English language. 24.118.99.41 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The site 911 Research says that there is no wesbite configured to the address. Is it temporarily down? If its permanently gone, we should remove or correct the links on the page.-- Bill 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be having a revert war over these blogs. Well as they all were written by Jim (see http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/about.html) and the audio blog is an interview with him. To me they all seem on topic for this page. -- Salix alba ( talk) 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I added several citations and info per the recent requests. I don't yet know the format for references, so did them as external links. Please correct them or explain how here (or link) and I'll correct them. 24.4.180.197 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The nexus of the dispute seems to center around
As to the first I'd prefer to call Jim a 9/11 researcher as thats how he describes himself. As to the second I don't really mind. Oh and can everyone please use some edit summaries on their edits, it helps to keep track of whats going on. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloane keeps reverting each version after any changes are made, to a version that includes, for example, a claim about nanotechnology with a citation request next to it. Why does Sloane continue to include a claim that has no citation?! I am making an effort at dialog on here because I'm tired of having to revert his changes over and over while he continues to revert to versions which are packed with citation requests that were fulfilled after the versions he keeps reverting to! He seems to be intentionally wasting the time of people trying to sort out the citation requests. bov 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
bov 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Those are just links to his site, no independent claims that he discovered them. 3. One website is linked, and the other is accessible through the site linked. Wikipedia is not a web directory. 4. Internal links were removed according to the layoutguide. 5. Actually in my last version he wasn't even called a CT. 6. I don't mind adding more, I'm just reverting the constant full reverts of the page. -- Sloane 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. The links are on his site because he created them. 3. There is a section that supposedly describes what sites he has created so why can they not be listed? How is it making it a web directory to list 3 sites in the section that is for that? 4. what layoutguide are you referring to? Does it say that each person can only have one internal link? Jim is a researcher, is in the 9/11 truth movement and has been referenced extensively by 2 other researchers. These links were all there previously. 6. Let's no one do reverts. bov 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:LAYOUT "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." and
WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". Why list three sites that are entwined? One is sufficient. --
Sloane 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give an example of another page I have worked on extensively: googol. Yes, believe it or not, I like to edit wikipedia for things other than 9/11, and mathematics is one of my interests. Googol is a pretty simple concept, yet, in my opinion, the article is interesting and covers a few side topics without getting bogged down in minutiae; take a look at the page. You'll see that the article text mentions large number and googolplex. These are then repeated in the "See also" section. Why? Well, because they are core concepts regarding googol that deserve to be mentioned in a summary section that the "See also" links represent. I think a strong case has been made by myself and others in this discussion that the links under "See also" for Jim Hoffman are core concepts of the page. They say to the reader: if you want to learn more about the topics central to this person, then these are the links to follow. I will persistently replace those links on the "See also" section of this page. Kaimiddleton 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have switched back some of the old "see also" parts. In all the various pages I've edited I've regarded "see also" as a section for major further references regarding the subject at hand. These references have stood on this page for a long time and there is a strong concensus for having them as far as I can see. This is a short article; there's no strong reason to edit down, I think. Kaimiddleton 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Links in the "see also" section are constantly being removed. I have replaced them and list these with my justification for including them:
Hoffman states he is a part of this movement
This is the section of the conspiracy theories page his work is relevant to
Hoffman is listed on this page
Hoffman has worked closely with Steven Jones
Hoffman has worked closely with David Ray Griffin
These are all sufficient conditions to warrant inclusion. There has been no discussion here when these links have been removed. I consider that an aggressive editorial action. Stating that the last three links above should not be included due to WP:NOT or WP:NPOV or WP:LAYOUT are unsupported and in my opinion incorrect. Kaimiddleton 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is correct that we should not link in 'see also' what is already linked in the body of the page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In wikipedia edits I have done on various articles I have used the "See also" section to see related topics of central interest. Cf. googol which mentions googolplex in the text as well as the "See also". A pedantic adherance to WP:LAYOUT does not serve here. The articles I've listed above under "See also" are quite naturally what a reader interested in Hoffman's central work would be directed to next. To limit these is unnatural and thus falls under this editor's interpretation of WP:IAR. I could name another debate I've seen lately. I've done lots of work on Timeline of evolution. The rules say that a related topic should only be wiki-linked at its first occurrence. But the page is rather long, so it made sense to give some topics a second list if the first occurrence was far up in the article. In this case, after some discussion, it seemed to make sense to ignore the rule where it prevented us from maintaining wikipedia's quality. Kaimiddleton 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that I'm attaching myself to the changes that User:Levi P. is reverting -- apparently the content of the changes has zero value if they are not summarized -- let's talk about the content and why you think they must be reverted. bov 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hoffman has been writing about the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) and other 9/11 conspiracy theories."
That doesn't make sense at all. The collapse of the WTC is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just something that happened.-- Sloane 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Kaimidletion you still haven't given one good reason why this article should repeat links. Why does this article have to break with the manual of style guideline? -- Sloane 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloane, if you're so concerned with repeating links, why do you not address the repeated links issue on Berlet's conspiracy theories page, which clearly has a much higher impact that this page? Why does that article have to break with the manual of style guideline? Locewtus 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloane, you asked me about the manual of style guidelines. They are just that, guidelines. I and others have argued conclusively that slavishly following a guideline is not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about presenting a useful, informative and encyclopedic resource to the reader. If the "see also" section only has one link in it, then why even have a "see also" section. It makes much more sense to have a group of links that connect to the core points a reader might want to follow up on. If I were to put 20 links in this section then I would agree that this was an inappropriate number, unless the entry for Jim Hoffman were to grow enormous. But as it stands the article contains some 1200 words. I hardly think six or seven links constitutes some lavish spreading of links upon the author of one of the very highest ranking 9/11 websites on the internet. How can you disagree with that? Unless you're just being legalistic and trying to find a technicality upon which to hinder the documentation on wikipedia of this important topic. Kaimiddleton 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim Hoffman (born 1957) is a software engineer from Alameda, California who became notable for his coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes were carried out by the United States government. His work has been classified by various media under 9/11 conspiracy theories.
What's wrong with this? It clearly states his beliefs and notes that he has been described as a conspiracy theorist.
Current lead is bad, "who has become notable for his 9/11 research and/or conspiracy theories" makes little sense and is too ambiguous. Either it's "and" or it's "or" -- Sloane 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
SALON ARTICLE, PAGE THREE-- Sloane 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index2.html
So here's from the Salon article:
Many of "Loose Change's" most vociferous online critics actually agree with its principal conclusion that the government is behind the attack, and only disagree with the film's specific 9/11 story line. Deep down the rabbit hole one day, I found Jim Hoffman, a 49-year-old software engineer in Alameda, Calif., and one of the most diligent 9/11 researchers in the movement. Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis, has looked into the film's claims more thoroughly than just about anyone else online. Though he agrees with Avery that the government was behind 9/11, he finds much of "Loose Change" wanting. "Sifting Through 'Loose Change,'" Hoffman's point-by-point critique of the movie, is withering. He discovers flaws in just about every second claim in "Loose Change," and he points to a mountain of evidence to rebut two of the film's central arguments, the idea that passenger planes didn't crash into the Pentagon and into a field in Shanksville.
Kaimiddleton 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you guys explain the debate that's going on here?
Kaimiddleton 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I also don't think a video link should go in the first 2 lines, and I don't see that being done for other people's bio pages. If someone wants to find a picture and add it that's fine with me, but a video is bizarre to put there. I don't have any pictures myself. bov 05:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The page will not stand as all of Hoffman's work being referred to only as "conspiracy theory" when the majority of it is scientific research of the attacks and analysis of the demolitions. We'd already agreed on here to include both forms of the descriptions of his work. Additionally, the demolition hypothesis page does not use the term "conspiracy theorists" throughout because, as stated by Tom B.,
The majority of Hoffman's work is not conspiracy but analysis, thus to ONLY refer to it as "conpsiracy theory" is incorrect, regardless of what those who disagree with the theories believe.
Secondly, Hoffman is referenced on a number of 9/11 pages on here and those should either be included in the page or listed in the See Also section. Deleting all references to articles which include references to Hoffman is not part of the policy as described at WP:LAYOUT, specifically, on the See Also section. bov 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This "connecting the dots" stuff has got to come to an end -- violates Wikipedia policy in spades to try to advocate in favor of "controlled demolition" here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Please stop. Also, I'm concerned that editors are trying to use a subject's notariety in one field in order to bootstrap the subject's credibility in the field of 9/11 research. Whether Hoffman has or hasn't published in Nature is of no consequence to his opinions about 9/11 theories. Surely you're not claiming that his 9/11 research was published in Nature or Scientific American, are you? Morton devonshire 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Tom and Sloane want the quote on here, the rest will stay to provide context and links. bov 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that I'm having to be on here all the time to delete the quotes attempting to malign Hoffman, I guess it's time to start some pages on more 9/11 websites. If I'm going to have to be constantly on here, I might as well make better use of my time and get started on the page about the top ranked website exposing the ommissions and cover-ups of the 9/11 attacks. Or maybe things will die down and I can go back to other things. Don't think about connecting any dots here and becoming a CT yourself; I'm just thinking aloud, nothing more. bov 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the badly sourced nonsense once again. Unless you find better sources, they go.-- Sloane 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The nice thing about "rev to agreed upon version" is that it is an edit summary anyone can use. I think I will assemble a collection of Universal edit summaries. Tom Harrison Talk 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about Prison planet or no Prison planet but Hoffman will not be described solely as a "conspiracy theorist" on here and I will revert versions which attempt to paint him as such. His site is a RESEARCH site and is not ONLY a so-called Conspiracy site. The vast amount of the information on there is in the form of an archive with links to so-called verifiable sources. Locewtus 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"Hoffman says he knows exactly why the government is being stingy with the videos -- not because it has something to hide about the Pentagon, but because it wants to feed the no-plane theory. It's all part of the plan to "divert attention from the core fraud of the attack -- the Big Lie that the Twin Towers collapsed due to impacts and fires."' [4]
“This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.” [5]
"The execution of the September 11, 2001 attack required means possessed only by insiders in the U.S. government, and not by the alleged perpetrators, Osama bin Laden and his minions." [6]
The issue is not whether or not he is a so-called conspiracy theorist but whether he must ONLY be described with that term. My version does not DELETE CT, but includes the more correct version of also describing him as more than a CT. The websites are not solid CT, they are much more, so to limit the description to ONLY CT is simply wrong. Locewtus 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
I seems to me that we have a case of POV pushing here. Sloane et al are intent of pushing a POV of applying the prejoritive term conspiracy theorist and are really dredging the barrel trying to find sources to suport their claims.
If we just write the facts: hes been researching 9/11, he does not beleive the official line, he has proposed alternative explinations. We avoid any POV problems and allow the reader to reach their own conclusions.
I've now listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream sources that write about him (and there are not that many) describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and his work as conspiracy theories. To the extent that he is at all notable, it is for that. The sources that describe his work as conspiracy theory are using an accurate descriptor, not applying a pejorative. Tom Harrison Talk 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Locewtus, you consider conspiracy theorist "prejoritive". I simply consider it to be an accurate term of describing one's occupation. We have categories and articles on conspiracy theorists and theories on wikipedia, pretty much all other biographies on conspiracy theorists label the person as one so I don't see the big problem. It's sourced, and that's what counts. "My version does not DELETE CT, but includes the more correct version of also describing him as more than a CT." Unless I missed it, I don't think you have a reliable source describing Hoffman as "more than a CT". I'll try to broaden the scope of the description a little, if that will satisfy you guys.- Sloane 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is saying that Hoffman hasn't been cited as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media -- Pop Mechanics is used as a source directly by the State Dept to attempt to prove it's case for a gravity-driven collapse. Thus PM naturally will be a source for the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" against its opponents - sure helps if you can label your opponents in a debate. And the goal of 99% of the articles about those who question or challenge the official version is to 'debunk' and make fun of them, so naturally using labels like "9/11 deniers," "conspiracy theorists," etc., serves to further their cause of making the reader believe they inherently deny reality or are likely just inherently paranoid, as all CTs are, as Chip Berlet has so clearly explained in his CT treatise on here.
The fact is, if those who were using the term "conspiracy theory" weren't so frantic about adding it to every possible place they could while at the same time erasing any mention of any other way to describe them, then it wouldn't be so transparently an effort to smear. If they were fine with saying things like "so and so is sometimes referred to as "x" and also referred to as a conspiracy theorist," then it would suggest they had no special agenda except the truth. But it is clearly not. People getting on this page to wipe away any descriptor besides the single phrase of "conspiracy theorist," dozens and dozens of times, make it clear what the intention is - labeling, branding via a particular pov to try to show how 'nonsensical' and 'paranoid' this person must be to not only disagree with the official version of the collapses as put forth by the (Bush appointment led) NIST group, but having the nerve to suggest a different explanation. bov 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I found your page on Rfc, bio. I'm not sure if you all have decided on calling Hoffman a CT or researcher. I found this site and maybe it will help. [13] Bye, pK--its Good to be the King 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This works,
and you can follow it with
and get another reference to the same citation. This by itself
does not work, and just produces a blank footnote. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was the biography article on Don Paul bulldozed and shipped overseas (apparently to be melted down at mirror sites), just like the rest of the evidence from the 9/11 crime scene? Ombudsman 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This endorsement of Hoffman's film by his partner in the film is essentially advertising: "He shows beyond question, I think, that all three buildings were taken down by different methods of controlled demolition," according to Paul, who added "The Twin Towers were exploded as no buildings have been before or since and about seven hours later World Trade Center Building 7 was imploded in a classic, conventional demolition." Brainster 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph is a cited fact about Hoffman which seems to be being removed because of a difference of opinion see this diff.
Since the role of a Wikipedia article is to report on cited facts in WP:RS and since that removal is being made without edit history, and is being made by the same editor, I feel that a consensus should be built for or against this citation. It is a clear citation, referenced accurately, and in a valid publication. The reference is as follows:
Now the 9/11 Truth movement tells me I saw much more. According to Jim Hoffman, a software engineer and physicist from Alameda, California, where he authors the site 911research.wtc7.net, what I saw was a "classic controlled demolition." This was why, Hoffman contends, 7 WTC dropped so rapidly (in about 6.6 seconds, or almost at the speed of a free-falling object) and so neatly, into its "own footprint."
As you can see it is a full reference. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this case active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The template should be in this article until the existence of the template is settled. I'm placing in this section as a placeholder. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was meant to be restarting my current 'wikibreak' today but since Bov contacted me, I thought I'd leave a few comments. I'm not going to engage in the debate any further, but I thought I'd present a view. Bear in mind that this is just from a 5/10 minute overview. My comments shouldn't be taken as being as well proven as those of you who have spent months looking at this page and the various souces!
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. -- Robdurbar 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting a discussion on the issue of including the phrase "he says" in the introductory paragraph. Please indicate what material you are referring to when you use that term since the use of the term "conspiracy theories" is already included. Exactly what material is not a conspiracy theory but also does not document the attacks. If you cannot show what part is disputable in terms of documenting the attacks but not being part of a conspiracy theory - since that's already accounted for - then I am removing it. bov 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
from http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/repudiations.html
FACT: I do not accept the label of "conspiracy theorist", and consider it an inaccurate and derisive description of myself.
Wikipedia editors that patrol my biography page on Wikipedia.org have repeatedly tagged me with the label of "conspiracy theorist", most recently with the inclusion of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. My request that the template be removed because it falsely implies that I endorse such productions as 9/11: In Plane Site and 9/11: The Big Lie was met with silence. Wikipedia editors have used the following passage from an article in Salon.com to justify their labeling me a "conspiracy theorist". (See the discussion behind my biography page.)
"Hoffman has disputed the no-crash theory concerning The Pentagon and in an interview for Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on conspiracy theorists, stating, "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be." The 9/11 deniers Salon.com.
The quote may be literally accurate. However, it does not convey my tone of voice, which clearly indicated that I was using "we conspiracy theorists" facetiously.
Quite apart from twisted interpreations of words attributed to me, it is clear from a survey of my work that the application of the "conspiracy theorist" label to me has no factual basis. The vast majority of the material I have written for the websites WTC7.net, 911Research.wtc7.net, and 911Review.com, reports on well-documented facts of the attack and aftermath and critiques both official and alternative conspiracy theories of the attack.
<end block of quoted text>
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_O%27Donnell#9.2F11_-_7_World_Trade_Center Rosie O Donnell believes building 7 was "imploded; by your argument she is a "conspiracy theorist" and should be catagorized as such.
Also your labling of Jim Hoffman as a conspiracy theorist is redundant as his page is under the catagory "Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11" which is a sub-catagory of "conspiracy theorists"
76.48.17.241 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Guest
What's interesting to me about Jim Hoffman's page on here is the tenacity and speed to which certain editors respond to even single word changes. They are frantic to label him in a derogatory manner and have the page set up with alerts so that they can respond within a time frame of less than an hour in many cases. Meanwhile, many many others who do similar work to Jim Hoffman have no such labels of conspiracy theorist nor does anyone respond so adamantly. I hadn't ever really considered how important Jim must be for such a level of attention to be bestowed upon his page, but apparently, it's one of the most important tasks of sites such as this to attempt to take down the leadership of ideas that threaten the powerful, in any small manner possible.
Another amazing but true story of wikipedia, the encyclopedia that has maintains an open door for US intelligence agencies to edit at will without fear of blocking or reversions. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
in doing as the tag requests.
Since I'll soon have the legions of admins after me for merely responding to this tag and not allowing a baseless revert to occur, maybe we should consider talking about the content of the first paragraph, and how many lines are necessary . . . that sort of thing. We should at least pretend to be doing what we pretend to do on here. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The calls for citations seem pretty meaningless -- if one says that the site has cached many original news articles all one has to do is look at the site and see that yes, indeed it does have a lot of cached news articles. Do we need the New York Times to tell us that news articles are cached there? This is classic circular wikipedia reasoning to waste time for the sake of clogging a page with citation tags.
The Salon article that references Hoffman states, "Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis." I don't want to repeat that reference since it's already in the article once. bov ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You ( Bov) have made multiple errors. I'll explain why I believe each one is an error....
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
First you say I'm not including the book or video for some nefarious reason, then when I do you add citation tags as though every noun on the page needs proof of existance, then you remove the whole mention of either of them when challenged to *yourself* do the work of the proof that only you are calling for. A google search for the authors names and the video name returns 23,400 hits but you still don't believe it exists . . . and you call the "truthers" paranoid or delusional? It appears this dust-up and blocking and reverting on your part serves mainly to waste time. Of course, it appears this might all be more interesting for you than reverting vandlism on the page 2008. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This article presents Hoffman as an opponent of the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon without mentioning that this was his original view:
No 757 Hit the Pentagon Evidence Precludes Flight 77 having Impacted the Pentagon
While Hoffman has the right to change his mind like anyone else, a complete article which is supposed to be about Hoffman should state clearly something like "Hoffman was an early advocate of the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but subsequently changed his mind and began accusing people who held to his own previous view of being CIA agents." That would be a more honest account of his development. As it is, this article just misleads the reader into thinking that Hoffman was originally a critic of theories that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That is obviously not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.21 ( talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Back to the "conspiracy theorist" debate again, in an effort to label Hoffman. Note that world renowned conspiracist David Icke, who says that the WTC was demolished and claims that people in power are actually lizards, has no such label on his lead --
David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is a British writer and public speaker who has devoted himself since 1990 to researching "who and what is really controlling the world."[1] A former professional football player, reporter, television sports presenter, and spokesman for the Green Party, he is the author of 20 books explaining his views.
Icke argues that he has developed a moral and political worldview that combines New Age spiritualism with a passionate denunciation of what he sees as totalitarian trends in the modern world, a position that has been described as "New Age conspiracism."[2]
At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]
According to Political Research Associates, Icke's speaking engagements can draw a substantial audience in Canada.[6] During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a four-hour speech at the University of Toronto,[7] while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress.[8]
If Icke's lead can say "a position that has been described as . . . conspiracism," there's no reason that Hoffman's page must instead say he has conspiracy theory websites instead of websites that have been described as "conspiracy theory" sites. 76.102.212.231 ( talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the label is being applied inconsistently -- when all these other pages have the tag, then Hoffman can too. To say that he is somehow especially in need of the tag when people as popular as Icke are not makes no sense. Reader2010 ( talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we all agree Meigs being a part of Entertainment Weekly has no relevance to this article at all, so I deleted it to make that sentence much less clunky. Spotle99 ( talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)