`   == Conspiracy theorist v. theorist ==  Doesn't NPOV stipulate that editing should refrain from smearing someone as a ``conspiracy theorist`` because they disagree with the ``official`` government version? And a sizable segment of Americans agree that the official story is phony, given all the unanswered questions... ...not that I agree with Griffin, but tarring him a ``conspiracy theorist`` does not obey NPOV. *Does he advance conspiracy theories? Yes. Thus, he is a conspiracy theorist. ***Um *Sigh*. How many times do I have to stress this to everyone? Whether or not you believe the government endorsed-theory, we are ALL conspiracy theorists. The official account of 9/11 is ALSO a conspiracy theory. If you're confused about the actual definition of 'conspiracy theory', look it up in a good proper dictionary. The only difference between the official conspiracy theory and the alternative conspiracy theory are the agent provocateurs.. Other than that, both sides to the story are ALL conspiracy theories.  Vlag    **That's your opinion, subjective slant and a smear and insult against him. Calling him a ``conspiracy theorist`` is akin to calling him crazy. You may disagree with his research, but tarring him a ``conspiracy theorist`` is to pronounce judgment against his character. We don't label critics of global warming conspiracy theorists, even though all the peer reviewed journals (100%) sway against them. It can be written that many consider his research to be ``conspiracy theory`` but even 30-40%+ of Americans do not believe the official 9/11 commission reports. It's not a conspiracy theory because you say it is, as like you could call something black red... ***I'm not calling him a CT, the washingtonpost is.   ****And that is opinion too. Since when is Washington Post gospel? Maybe it's a shade bettter than Pravda, but official truth it is not. So please, please adhere to NPOV and drop the namecalling  it is an insult (negative material) and your editorial input injected. *****You consider it an insult. Washingtonpost is a reliable source who claims he's a conspiracy theorist. Reflecting that in the article is perfectly ok.   ******Please stop reverting my edit. First, just because a reporter or editorial lobs an insult of ``conspiracy theorist`` does not make it so. It is negative material and does not adhere to NPOV. It is generally accepted that ``conspiracy theorist`` is an insult, and a genetic fallacy argument  it is disrespectful of accomplished author, and YOU are the one injecting editorial, non-NPOV content. If you must add ``conspiracy theorist``, you must preface it by stating that ``many people feel/believe`` or qualify it. You've reverted my edit multiple times and keep injecting your editorial slant whereas I corrected with proper link and adopt NPOV and removed insult. Good Lord, since when has the Washington Post been gospel? Just like Malaysisan Times or Pravda? ******Again, please cease and desist from reverting my edit that removes negative material and violates NPOV.   The Washington Post is not Pravda.  It's a reputable source according to Wikipedia standards.  See WP:RS.    * It's still reporter opinion and negative material for an accomplished author. Not a reliable source and opinion that violates NPOVand hurls insult at author without citing any FACTS. -   ::Please sign your posts.  Also, this is not ED.  Here on Wikipedia, we use colons to separate our comments.  Just add one more per response.  Thanks.     It is not that the quote appears, so much as its placement that is problematic. It would be like starting an article on Barry Goldwater by leveling the ``warmonger`` label at him in the first paragraph. It doesn't matter how well you cite it or from where. It is, by its placement, predjudicial. Move it.    ::So moved.    It would be OK to write that ``the Washington Post refereed to Griffing as a 'conspiracy theorist''... `` and then duly provide a verifiable citation. It is a violation of the NPOV neutral language policy to use the language in the article without a quotation. Apparently, Wikipedia has a higher standard than the Washington Post. If you don't like the policy,, write for the Washington Post instead of Wikipedi