Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 24

message: Just to bring everyone up to speed on the natrue of an NPOV dispbute and when a template can be removed, please take a look at this from the  NPOV dispute tag article.
Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not.  In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.
--Cplot 06:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: please change MEDRES to HIGHRES on the commission cover image. --Ysangkok 13:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like that should be non-controversial, so I went ahead and did that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say, how come that we always have some image(inary) problem in the nick of fiery discussions? Lovelight 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: The discussion has more than demonstrated there are serious doubts about the article’s adherence to the NPOV policy. Could we get an administrator to add the  template to the top of the article.
After that we should try to focus on specific edits to the article to bring it into compliance. This means we stop trying to convince one-another about what we think is factual or credible in the article and work on including verifiable sources and what they have to say about these attacks. Again, it doesn't matter if I think the NIST report is wrong, I'm not going to try to convince anyone of that. Rather the proper way to proceed is to include cited criticisms of the NIST report and other cited count-criticisms. --Cplot 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with including criticism of the NIST report so long as they are as credible as the NIST.  Anything from a reviewed Civil or Structural engineering peer reviewed journal is acceptable.  Anything less is undue weight.  --Tbeatty 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all this was only an example. And you're already moving the debate in the wrong direction. It's not up to only you to decide what sources are credible. A significant number of editors here find Jones paper credible (for many editors more credible because of it's independence from the Bush Whitehouse), so it belongs in a NPOV article. Besides the NIST report does not even meet your criterion, so we'd have to throw out all mention of that. Again, we need to end the stone-walling. Too many editors have expressed their interest in fixing these NPOV problems. Just because a minority of editors have the time to spend here guarding a NPOV violating article, doesn't make it OK to violate the policies of Wikipedia. For those disruptive editors still have trouble understanding how to work towards a NPOV compliant article, I'd suggest you also take a look at the Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.. --Cplot 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're suggesting is never going to happen, so save yourself the frustration.  The 9/11 Truth Movement has ZERO credibility, and you have no credible sources to cite to support these incredible claims.  Morton DevonshireYo 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You're missing the point.  The sources you might cite to to support 9/11 Truth Movement/LIHOP/MIHOP/Controlled Demolition claims do not meet the reputable sources requirements of our policy WP:RS.  I'm talking about Wikipedia rules here, which prevent citation to blogs and self-published web sources.  Incredible claims require extraordinary citation.  Morton DevonshireYo 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are always some exclusive (or eccentric) tags looming over main article, administrators would you be so kind to remove full protection, or recognize the nature of this dispute at the entrance point. Lovelight 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The discussion has NOT proven that there is dispute about the article beiong NPOV. All your siggestions about chamnging it is about going AWAY from a NPOV fact-based article, and put in MORE POVs. That would make the article LESS NPOV. You have not been able to point out what in the article is not NPOV, and you have constantly confused opinions and facts. The discussion has, if anything, proven that the article IS POV, thanks to your unability to point to how the articles would be NPOV. You need to accept that the article as a whole is NPOV and factual. If there is some details you find POV, you can discuss them,. but the article as a whole is clearly NOT POV. A neutrality dispute is not you saying "It's not neutral" over and over. Or, to quote some mor notable sources on this issue:
"An argument is not just contradiction".  http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm. --Regebro 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: As has been pointed out above, I have established a new talk space for editors who do not want to deal with the disruptive editors standing guard over this article and talk page.   Here you'll find a draft rewrite of the article that is meant o conform with Wikipedia's policies. I ask that the disruptive editors here to please leave this spacea alone for the other editors to craft a more encylopedic article conforming to the NPOV policy. All others are welcome to join in the drafting and associated discussion. If the disruptive editors comply, discussion should be much lesss disruptive, frustrating, intimidating and abusive. --Cplot 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I nominated that for deletion as it is a POV fork of this article. You have already been blocked twice in the least week for 3RR on this article and would likely have been blocked agin on the rtelated Steven E. Jones article had I not protected it on your preferred version just today. If anyone is being disruptive, it's most definitely you.--MONGO 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mongo, you know full well that the disciplinary actions taken against me are part of a vindictive approach, by a small group of relentless editors, to punish editors they disagree with. The admin who blocked me was involved in these debates and so did so inappropriately. This is not a POV push, this redraft is to make the article comply with NPOV policy All civil editors are invited to join intio the discussion and redraft. My position is that the conspiracy theories have no place in the article or even to have their own artilce. They're not notable enough around 9/11 attacks. Finally, I was the one who requested the protection on the Steven Jones article to avoid a potentially libelous editor to the article. Disruption does not mean disagreement as you seem to think it does. --Cplot 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer assumes that the article as it stands is POV, something that you and many others in several long discussions now and earlier has completely failed to show. Thus, the consensus is that the article IS NPOV, and therefore it does NOT need a rewrite to become POV. If you make a fork of an article that consensus agrees is NPOV, to change it's POV, that must reasonably be because you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redraft to comply with NPOV 

message: Does anyone want to start discussions on the areas of the article that they believe are POV - one at a time - or do we just want to argue in general terms?  This is degenerating into, "It's POV.", "No, it's not.", "Yes, it is."--PTR 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess no one actually wants to discuss the article then. --PTR 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't want the conspiracy section in the article but you do want to put the alternate theories throughout the article?  Is that right?  If so, can you start with one item, start a discussion and work from there? --PTR 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently there can be appropriate section called  "Additional issues to be mediated" where involved parties can refine their concerns? There is also some mentioning of it on chairman's talk page. Lovelight 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion/RFM/NPOV 

message: That's all I wanted to say. --70.8.159.158 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To cite a famous quote, "And when did you stop beating your wife".  Can you provide any evidence that federal authorities are editing this article?  Any ipwhois or checkuser reports to backup the claim?  That's the nice thing about conspiracy theories, people can throw them out there with little or contrived evidence and then let lots of other people spin their wheels documenting that they are false.  Won't work with this claim. --StuffOfInterest 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said federal authorities, were editing this article. I just said I thought they shuldn't. Someone's got their defensive guard up. --70.8.159.158 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it flows around.., those "memorial and memorable" tags were a bit outlandish weren’t they? Look there was a discussion about it once, those tag's warned that there should be "no discussion of government ineptitude". It would be really nice if MONGO would provide a sample, sort of a reminder for us all? Lovelight 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree but also note that your use of the word "clowns" is disparaging towards other editors. --StuffOfInterest 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I'm not an administrator (I think I've said before I wouldn't want to should that much responsibility). But I think if federal authorities were editin this article in an official capacity that would be a violation of the rules. --Cplot 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rules would it violate? And what does it mean to edit 'in an official capacity?' Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I'm not an administrator. I think it involves an enormous amount or responsibility. However, I would say that it raises the same policy and guideline issues as contributing to an article about yourself. And since this article reads like a press release from the Bush administration, if federal authorities acting in an official capacity were paid to maintain it in that situation, that look to me like serious violations of Wikipedia rules. I'm just saying is all. --Cplot 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: User:StuffOfInterest  writes: 'the word "clowns" is disparaging towards other editors'. Really? Which ones? --Cplot 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal authorities should not be editing this article 

message: The preceding is just way over the top.  Please focus on the article, not editors.  Morton devonshire 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, no doubt. I have yet to see one argument why an NPOV tag needs to be put on htis article.--MONGO 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have yet to see anything that makes me think that this article is not POV--Acebrock 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then demonstrate what you think needs to be fixed to make it neutral. The editors here will decide if you have a valid argument. So far, I have seen no valid argument.--MONGO 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no evidence..do you have some evidence, or are we forced to take your opinion as fact?--MONGO 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then please clarify as the POV tag requires by starting a new section ont he talk page, which is here, and stating your points that you feel need addressing to remove the POV slant of the article. Name specific sections and paragraphs/sentences etc. Be as specific as possible to allow for a colaborative effort to tackle what you may feel is POV. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Cplot, you are one of the editors here.  There appears to be many more who disagree with you.  I see this very likely turning into an ArbCom case before too long. --StuffOfInterest 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make passive Arbcom threats, it only serves to make a bad situation worse. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making threats, and I won't be one to file an ArbCom case.  Today there has been an edit war over what the request for mediation will represent.  If the parties can't settle on what is being discussed what are the chances of it actually being settled?  When the RFM failes to materialize it seems likely that Cplot, MONGO, or one of the other involved editors (perhaps even one of the anons) will file a request as the next step in dispute resolution. --StuffOfInterest 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a RfC, not RfA --NuclearZer0 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems as if this might have been the reason for this approach in the first place.  There has been no real discussion about changing the article just a lot of pushing buttons.  No parts of the article have been presented with suggested changes and reasons why, no open discussion, no attempt to reason.  Perhaps it's just people without a talent for dealing with others but there has been a lot of off topic discussion here and I've tried a couple of times to open a reasoned discussion with no response.  --PTR 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: More button pushing and still no discussion of this article.  Strange. --PTR 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Summaries are not quite enough.  A task list is an easy thing to write but then you need to address each bullet point.  If you pull one item out to focus on it becomes much easier to discuss it with others. --PTR 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there are only two of us amateurs logged on right now, I want to be sure that I second what LoveLight says. This is becoming a ridiclous sham. Why don't you all just admit you've b een beat and go play shuffl board or something more appropriate like that. --Cplot 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article 

message: This article seems pro-Muslim.  For one, the article goes out of its way to tell the reader groups associated with Islam condemned the attacks.  Yeah, and so did about every major organization, government, and person in the United States.
Also, we are barraged with the typical "hate crime" lunacy.  Is this noteworthy?  The major response by the American public was not hate but sadness.  Most people urged restraint toward Muslims within the United States.  If the "hate crime" section is to be kept we should atleast qualify it by stating a small minority of people acted this way. Mr2b (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a new one. I'm used to getting arguments that this article is anti-Muslim because we refer to the attackers as terrorists and point out the religion involved. I'm not sure there needs to be a change, as we've gone through many iterations to get to this point. However, I suppose since this is something new we could talk about it. --Tarage (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The few hate crimes got all the attention.  This is due to one factor of Mainstream Corporate Media. They know that scary news will keep the viewers hypnotized through the subsequent commercials, probably too stunned to mute the TV, so we get a LOT of scary news and very FEW cute little warm fuzzy stories. Wowest (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation and the counter-points are a litte US-centric, but hate crimes were a notable part of the hysteria.  Peter Grey (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, more than one book states that several hundreds of civilians were rounded up in the US, most presumed Muslim, most jailed without clear cause.  My colleague says Rove and Kristol got concerned on hearing this, but how can we or they know which of the published reports are best?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Muslim?