Talk:Loose Change/Archive 2

Changed some non-objective verbs

There were a couple points where the narration was skewing towards the subjects' opinions and presenting them as fact.

For example, the filmmakers made revisions " to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to remove inaccuracies and copyrighted material."

My edit: ". . . each time to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to remove what the filmmakers believed to be inaccuracies and copyrighted material.

Similarly,

Soon after this, Avery recognized that "there were inconsistencies that needed to be fixed and improvements made"

I changed to

Soon after this, Avery decided that "there were inconsistencies that needed to be fixed and improvements made" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.208.72 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

None Wiki compliant references

I have had a quick read through this and notice that much of the criticisms section cites non wiki compliant references. Ie,

Screw Loose Change

Internet Detectives

These two sources are quoted extensively throughout the criticism section yet do not follow WIKIs reliable source guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS Anyone explain why they have been included? Really2012back (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Convenience as they include many reliably referenced criticisms in one place. If we look at Policy it specifies:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The "field" in question here is "Loose Change". Based on my past research on the subject, Screw Loose Change and Internet Detectives are routinely referenced in third-party publications. Further, Internet Detectives takes care to reference many of its claims (making it a "secondary source", not self-published in many instances). If you believe something has not "already been published by a reliable source", please point it out. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Which reliable third-party publications has this information been cited in? I'm not critisising but trying to get my head around their inclusion Really2012back (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was careful to not specify "reliable" above. I've done some searching and have not found any reliable sources as yet. So what may have to happen is replacing those refs and tweaking the section to use primary sources used by those secondary sources. Should I go ahead with that? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as they are "reliable" sources Roy. At the moment a large part is nothing more then critisms from two critical sites - at least one of which seems to have been set-up diliberatly to "debunk" the docu. Its obviouse to me that they can't be left in place. I am not saying that they may or may not be valide but must be reliable sourced. This is a must to make sure:

1 the article is acurate

2 Anyone is to take seriously the cristisms. Really2012back (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If we were restricted to conventionally reliable sources, we'd have to delete the article. I don't want to see that. Do you? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? That's a nonsense argument and I am sure you are well aware that it is. If you are suggesting that there are no reliable sources for parts of the critique then they simply need to be removed. if they are valid criticisms - and they they are based on either historical, journalistic, government or scientific sources - then they should be available. If they are not then they are simply untrue - or at least cannot be verified.. This is hardly difficult. Really2012back (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for the content of the film. (The author's web site doesn't count.) Without criticism, we have nothing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Arthur but you are mistaken - however, I must add an easy mistake to make so understand. There doesn't have to be reliable source for the film external to the film for an article about it to exist - all that is needed is notability for an inclusion of the films article in wiki. The fact that the United States Department of State published an article called "Loose Change Debunked" certainly makes it notable and oddly supplies information for a criticisms section (By the way, an encyclopedic article does not actually need to be critiqued to exist). My issue is that a large section of the criticism of the film is based on a site set-up specifically to cristisis it. Again, this is not an issue, for if these criticisms are correct, then that body must have researched them and the original reseerch must be available. If we cannot find these then this can be nothing more then the views of a "blog" - hardly reliable sources. If these orginal sources cannot be found - and I shall attempt to do so myself - then the criticism section will need to be edited to take this into account. Obviously this will take some time for people to do and I will thus give good time to allow this before an such edit. Really2012back (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that there is clearly nothing notable about the film except criticism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing but that notability comes from a department of the American Government taking the time to produce a critique of the movie - "Loose Change Debunked" (an unusual occurance I think you will agree) not due a couple of other conspiracy theorist and counter-conspiracy theorists putting up non wiki compliant websites and blogs about it. There is plenty of material available from the Government report - and other reliable sources - to critique the movie without having to base much of the criticisms on internet blogs. Really2012back (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Is the state department article available online? (It's probably copyright-free, as an official government publication.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur, considering some of the articles I have been involved with recently it is good when two editors can come to a speedy agreement :-). The article is available here http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2007/March/20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245.html. i was hoping one of the existing editors would look at this as I am involved in so much other stuff at the moment - and to be honest don't know a great deal about this movie.

RoyBoy, I know that you said you would look at re-editing it following my query - and that you have worked on this in the past. Would you still be OK looking at this on the principles we have discussed? I will help when possible of course - simply leave a message on my talk page although I have stuck this on my watch-list anyway due to what seems continued vandalism. Really2012back (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One problem is a previous editor removed reliable sources such as the NIST, because those sources were debunking/discussing the theories; rather than criticizing the documentary directly. Come to think of it, I never challenged that rationale... and am now thinking where Wikipolicy stands on this. Of course Synth keeps us from extrapolating from sources, but at the same time those sources are criticizing the very same theories/arguments Loose Change asserts. This is another reason I transitioned to those less reliable sources. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Roy I think it would be better just basing the criticisms on the Gov doc we have discussed - it is already cited at the beginning of the crisism section so should be OK. The critical sites are simply so unwiki - they simply seem to propagate the conspiracy theory itself - and they are simply not reliable. Sorry Roy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I consider the NIST link very instructive on common engineering and science misconceptions on the WTC collapse. I'd think its an aspect we need to cover. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC produced a documentary covering the same points two years ago Roy - perhaps we could use a transcript of this as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've completed updating the references. I added your America.gov ref as a additional notable reference; specifically on the Pentagon. - RoyBoy 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

History section and "terrorist" term

I was doing some research and tried to find the scope of blame. Interestingly, when someone says "terrorist" they tend to associate any media to someone outside of the U.S. area. That kind of confuses the scope, but the film Final Cut reports about it being an "inside job." Perhaps, it is a different scope then previous films. I ran across a sentence in the history section that could be worded slightly different to expressed this kind of scope. "In May 2002, Dylan Avery began researching the 9/11 attacks and based on his research he concluded they were not a terrorist attack involving only members of al Qaeda, but that they were, rather, a terrorist attack orchestrated by members of the United States government." I added terrorist where it seemed appropriate for Final Cut. I didn't make the change on the article because the first two films may have come across differently. Even without pointing fingers, we can't deny that there was a terrorist attack. — Dzonatas 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy and the name

The term "9/11 truth movement" is misleading. It is a conspiracy theory (just like the North American Union), and even if it is true, it is not generally accepted as a fact. This article shouldn't be biased in favor of a conspiracy theory that says a legitimate government murdered thousands of it's own people.

Again, even if it is true, mostly radical groups like code pink think it is true and not the general populace. And no actual evidence. Contralya (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The general population are a bunch of idiots who couldn't care either way. They're morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.69.117 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is rubbish. The "911 Truth Movement" is not a conspiracy theory, it is an organisation which works with the aim of uncovering what they believe is the truth behind 911. Next time you make a post, consider aiming yourself with accurate information first. This website should tell you what the 911 truth movement actually is:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061014120445472

82.34.244.60 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Although Contralya may be wrong as to the origins of the "911 Truth Movement", its aim is to uncover evidence that the mainstream theory is false. Its aim is not to uncover the truth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, I don't see the distinction between between your definition (its aim is to uncover evidence that the mainstream theory is false") and that of talk ("the aim of uncovering what they believe is the truth behind 911" evidence that the mainstream theory is false"). It matters not whether you consider it a valid standpoint; if the movement considers itself a "truth movement," then that language should be reflected here.M. Frederick (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We're conflating two issues over the past 6 months. There's no doubt that the 9/11 Truth Movement is a conspiracy theory, but I'll fight attempts to change the name. It's what they call themselves, and (usually) what others call them. (Also, shouldn't this discussion be in Talk:9/11 Truth Movement, rather than here in Talk:Loose Change (film)?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, I don't see the distinction between between your definition (its aim is to uncover evidence that the mainstream theory is false") and that of talk ("the aim of uncovering what they believe is the truth behind 911" evidence that the mainstream theory is false").

I’ve encountered self-labelled members of the Truth Movement who espouse multiple – even conflicting – accounts of what happened on 9/11. They conduct very little if any research of their own, choosing instead to nitpick and cherrypick through existing research.

The so-called “Truth” movement has no interest in finding any objective truth. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur is correct. What 9/11 conspiracy theorists call themselves is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources call them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm not sure what I'm missing, but why was the title "Loose Change"? Wikidea 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Removing scare quotes from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Media outlets is cited as one opinion piece, so I'm going to clear that up. It's George Monbiot, and if you look at his site, it seems he's a debunker; I'll be sure to label it as so. Also, I don't know that Popular Mechanics is more than yellow journalism in this case. To say they are the whole scientific community is a bit of a stretch. —Slipgrid (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, it was an interview from the Popular Mechanics book tour. I wouldn't call that "prominent members of the scientific and engineering community," but activist debunkers, who were peddling a book. I'll clear that up real quickly.—Slipgrid (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The way it's used, "small number" a weasel word, and has no reason to be in an encyclopedia, without citation. —Slipgrid (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One opinion piece is not media outlets! Look at George Monbiot's site, that is linked in the reference for media outlets. He is an activist debunker! Here are some topics he covers:

• The Lunar Conspiracy
• The Great Global Warming Swindle
• The Self-Justifying Myth (People just want to believe)

To use an opinion piece by him, and apply it to media outlets in general is absurd! Don't do it!—Slipgrid (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Popular Mechanics guys wrote a book called Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. They are activist! If it's independent researchers, it has no business here. They are activist trying to peddle a book. That was their book tour. Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

Find better sources, or call them what they are.

Furthermore, if you want to change longstanding language in other parts of the article, please address you changes here. —Slipgrid (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling them all debunkers is, shall we say, "bunk", and probably actionable. It may be that the professional credentials were exaggerated in the previous text, but the replacement term is improper. I'll tag, rather than remove, "academics", though. Even though S911TJ may be the only source for the claim that they are academics, it's possible that they really are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find balancing text, instead. Shall we call the critics "debunkers" and the supporters "true believers"? Perhaps the paragraph in question should be removed entirely, if we cannot find an WP:NPOV way of phrasing it. It's an unusual solution, but may be required, even though an apparent violation of WP:LEAD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The text doesn't belong. I commented it out. It's still there, but not visible.

Give me a second. I want to show you why I came to this article. I'm going to post a link for you in a second. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the link I want to show you right now. May've been removed because of trolling. It was unsigned IPs bragging on another talk page about how they messed up these articles. It said they ran them, and got their POV in, and they want to do it on the other article I was reading. Then, I come here, and see the whole media is represented by Monbiot, when he's about the only one who will write on the subject.

I haven't read beyond the lead, to see if the lead matches the rest of the article. I just noticed it looked poorly organized and is full of scare quotes. But, IMHO, the article should be about the movie, and the controversy, but not a forum to promote or dispel the controversy. But, reading the comments I saw last night, is seems like some really want to use this as a forum or outlet for their POV. That's what I was trying to remove. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On the term debunker, I was reading that article and talk page. They say there are scientific skeptics, and then there are debunkers. The debunkers are skeptics who are activist, and there seemed to be agreement for that term. That's why I'm using it here. They are skeptics who are paid to write about it, and they go to the media and practice activism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipgrid (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, referring only to the comments on IP WP:OWNership above.) That's appreciated. It seems unlikely that this article would be notable enough to be a target for such trolling, but that's quite an acceptable approach on your part. On the other hand, there is a group of indef blocked and/or banned editors, all of whom who have edited as IPs after being blocked, who want the 9/11 conspiracy theories to have more, shall we say more, Wikipedia "mainstream" recognition than they deserve have at present. I'm not suggesting that you're one of those, but some admins have blocked on suspicion.

It might have been better if you reported the diffs to WP:AE, referring to the 9/11 ArbCom decision. It might be turned down, but it would leave a better impression. On the other hand, with all the conspiracy theories around, the IP discussion might be a false flag operation, run by the conspiracy theorists, in order to provide cover for pro-conspiracy theory edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe about half of what some of the 9/11 CT or Truthers believe, but I don't believe it matters. I don't believe Bush did it, or he even knows what's happening. He was a target that day. I believe leaders are figureheads, and the last set of truly powerful people were thrown out of power around Nov. 2007 after about 25-30 years in power, and new people are in power now. So, my beliefs are not mainstream, but I have no interest in promoting 9/11 Truth, only because I don't think it matters anymore.

What does interest me is getting rid of overt propaganda, and discouraging people who would post it. Give people the facts without POV, or a hint of the fact. But, do it without weasel words and activist sources. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A laudable goal. However, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not Truth (or even facts). In some cases, the only sources for some facts are biased. Our mission is to provide balance between the biased sources. WP:NPOV does not mean no point of view, it means neutral point of view.

I agree. To be more specific, I'd like to get rid of cases where a sources are misrepresented. I don't want to mark all NYTimes articles as liberal bias. If the source is an editorial or an opinion article, but it's being passed off as fact, then I would want to remove it, or address it correctly. For instance, one wouldn't want to use Rush Limbaugh as a source for the Iraq war.

Anyway, it gets me, that even if they are using the RS, lots of times editors will add additional bias.

But, I'm also looking for other topics to cover. I like programming too. —Slipgrid (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Cuban & Charlie Sheen

I just added a sentence about Mark Cuban, who had considered getting involved in distributing Loose Change with Charlie Sheen narrating[1][2][3]. I think this was a notable event, even if they apparently never did get around to going ahead with the plan. If someone wants to clean up or move my mention of the event feel free to, just please don't delete it without discussing it here first, as I can think of no reason to outright not have this in the article Jozsefs (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Going Forward, All Changes Should Be Reliably Sourced

The following has been added to the article recently without any reliable sources being referenced:

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) is the latest, not yet released, film by director Dylan Avery and producers Matthew Brown and Korey Rowe. While it does render similar content, is an entirely new film.

Items shouldn't be added to this article without reliable sources. Although an editor has added a source, [4] it does not appear to be a reliable source. The Web site apparently reposts press releases. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's often hard to find a reliable source, especially this early in a production's status. However, I've included Yahoo News and the Jack Blood show. You're more than welcome to Google the project (or IMDB it - or even visit the official site) and find one if those aren't "reliable" enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oahufrog (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're having trouble finding reliable sources that cover something, that's usually a good sign of something that shouldn't be in an article. We have policies and guidelines regarding what is a reliable source. In general, reliable sources are third-party, published sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Press releases do not meet this definition. Yes, I looked for reliable sources that covered this topic and can't find any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Movies

I think it would be appropriate to now separate all four films, or at least combine LC1 and LC2 and separate the Final Cut (LC3) and LC4 (currently separated). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oahufrog (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It should all be in one article and the differences between the various editions should be listed. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If we separated out them out, there's a chance that they would fail notability requirements. Even now, the article on the 4th film should probably be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

It doesn't make sense for the first sentence to say "Loose Change (2005, 2006, 2007, 2009) is a series of documentary films written and directed by Dylan Avery, produced by Korey Rowe and Matthew Brown, narrated by Daniel Sunjata, and exclusively distributed by Microcinema International." Sunjata and Microcinema were only involved in the 2009 edition. Someone keeps changing this back, I have no idea why, as I was only trying to make the article correctly match imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandthefttoaster (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus these really are not a series of films but more like them correcting or removing the inaccurate information from previous ones and making up new claims to fill in the gaps. BillL1978 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is Monbiots moronic assertion included?

seeing as anyone who ever blew the whistle on a very powerful conspiracy wasn't nessecarily taken out for whatever reason -or otherwise no powerful conspiracy would have ever been revealed in the history of the world-, Monbiot's assertion is highly idiotic and in no way fit for an encyclopaedia article. I shall remove it unless someone can present a convincing argument to keep it which to me would be an impossible task. 82.132.139.224 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Judicial Watch? What does that have to do with this article?

Chris Farrell, the Director of Investigations & Research at Judicial Watch, warned in an interview that his organization "could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the "9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77."[50] He stated, "Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised."

What does this have to do with the topic which is a movie called Loose Change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.235.42 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing six months later.... 170.20.11.116 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)amy