User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/003

Is this true?
An editor stated this in the mediation-discussion section of AETruth.


 * Given the fact that many of the English language sources Cs32en has used don't even mention this group ...

If you want, reply on my talk pg. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your answer to that question now in the discussion itself. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Dollar bill images request
Hello!

I saw your answer about the images... It´s possible to put then in the 9/11 Attacks article..?!? and..what do you mean in crystal balls article...?! :-/

Best regards --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two problems with this:
 * You need a source to establish notability and to avoid original research. See WP:RS and WP:OR.
 * If it's not a kind of theory related to 9/11, then it should not be in a page about theories about 9/11. Cs32en  01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
Hey, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on this dispute between me and another editor:

It started here:
 * Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society

And spilled over here: — NRen2k5 (TALK), 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Editor_assistance/Requests
 * 2) Wikiquette_alerts
 * 3) Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Hi NRen2k5 -- Sorry, I've been away from Wikipedia for two days. I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Cs32en 22:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so easy for me to comment here, because I'm not a native English speaker. "Violence against property" is a politically loaded term in Germany, as the law is about "destruction of property". Maybe "by the use of force" would be a description that editors can agree on. If the group acts in a way that puts peoples' lives in danger, there are probably reliable sources that use language to describe such acts, and this language can and should be used in the article. With regard to the info box, I think that the description should not be too detailed, so I rather would stay with "direct action" here. "Direct action" means action that does not primarily seek to influence public opinion or to influence the political decision making process. The question of how this action is being carried out is not unimportant, but subordinate, so I'd put that in the lead rather than in the info box. Cs32en 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reynolds
FYI, I noticed you added a section to the 9/11 template for scholars and professionals that includes Morgan Reynolds. Are you aware that he claims that real planes never hit the WTC, but that *cartoons* did?? This former Bush Admin official declared that on the 5th Anniversary of the attacks on FOX News. There is no reason to highlight him in a section of any template on 9/11. He is not a scholar of 9/11 but a con artist or sufferer of dementia. He is openly rejected in the movement by anyone who knows anything about him. Please | read about these people so you are familiar. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There could be a section about "Notable proponents of September 11 conspiracy theories that advocate minority viewpoints within the 9/11 Truth movement". Unfortunately, detailed information about this is rather hard to find in media that are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. (I think that I am aware about the differences between the more well known people that are considered to be part of the 9/11 Truth movement.)  Cs32en  22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

911review.com
Do you know who runs 911review.com? Is that one of Jim Hoffman's sites? Is it run by a group of people? There doesn't seem to be an About page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have inside knowledge about this website. There should be some info about this on the page itself. Cs32en  13:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11 talk page

 * The talk page of the 9/11 article is for editors to discuss how to ameliorate the 9/11 article. It is not a place to post inappropriate comments. Inappropriate and disruptive comments are erased from the talk pages. AdjustShift (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking to Cs32en. AdjustShift (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment was a kind of meta-comment on the discussion about the article. It was related to the article, not a general comment on the subject of the article. If such a comment is considered disruptive by an editor, dispute resolution is the correct way to address the issue. Cs32en  13:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In most cases, such comments may not be considered as disruptive, but in this particular case, those comments were disruptive. There is a consensus to call those terrorists "terrorists" and multiple reliable sources call them terrorists. Not calling them terrorists will be a POV. AdjustShift (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarage
As someone who appears to thake an interest in 9/11 article please note a severe case of WP:OWN by Tarage on the 9/11 talkpage; he is now threatening to remove comments on the "Long term effects" section of the 9/11 article. I have removed his rude/threatening comments but you really  need to point out to him that he does not own the talkpage. Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My humble apologies...I assumed you were an Administrator. Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany (terminology)
Good deal, thanks for the informative edit summary. – ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The terminology should be discussed in the context of the respective period of German History. This way, the reader will more easily understand what different terms are actually referring to. There are a lot of possibilities to convert a standalone terminology article into a POV fork, and - as there are valid reasons to merge the article anyway, and no compelling reasons to keep it separated - we should not run the risk. Cs32en  22:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

media bias
I remember someone tracking 'mainstream' media use of language that seemed oddly pejorative (theory, wacko, denier) regarding people who question government claims about 2001. If you know of major examples, offhand, I can add them to my list. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)