User talk:Jc-S0CO/Archives/2008/3

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith Assumed
In my defense I would like to point out that I never once accused anyone of being a troll or zealot on the talk page of the 9/11 article, nor did I on Xiutwel's talk page. What I was actually referring to was a comment he made on my talk page about a group of biased editors who were apparently banded together. I have no idea whether those editors are still there, nor who those editors are. I was simply discussing the phenomenon in general. It was you who assumed that I was referring to people who disagreed with me.

Another point I would like to make is to clarify that I have not made any kind of point or statement or opinion with which there can be any kind of agreement or disagreement, since it is technically impossible to disagree with a question. My question was whether the language of the opening statements should be changed with regard to the verifiability of Al Qaedas involvement. I do not follow the 911 thing closely enough to know whether they've proven it or not, and as far as I know it's still no more than a claim of responsibility from Al Qaeda. What the answer to that question is makes no difference to me, and the rules will dictate how the matter is dealt with either way. ▫Bad▫ harlick♠ 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda drafts
With regards to verifiability, this does not apply because we are not adding new information or new claims, we are removing an unverified claim until sources can be provided that prove otherwise. There is a difference between verifiable consensus/majority opinion, and proven fact, and this has to be reflected in the content of an article as per policy and guidelines. If we were adding a new claim, EG: "Al Qaeda were definately NOT involved", then you are correct that we would have to obvserve WP:V, however this is not the object of the draft or intended edit. ▫Bad▫ harlick♠ 10:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

a comment
You said on the Killian talk that things fall apart because people raise too many issues concurrently. That's only a side-effect, IMO, of zealots leaping on every new face as a possible lever to get their mass of rejected suggestions inserted. Of course, I am a cynic. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is quite possible. What I was referring to was what I observed in the 9/11 discussion page, where one user at one time opened twenty-three separate topics and sub-topics, then assumed that consensus was on his/her side in any area which did not receive an immediate response. ~ S0CO ( talk 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11

 * Talk:9/11 For future reference, Xiutwel, if you want your opinions here to be respected, please return the favor. 

I was under the impression I was doing pretty well, but you show me I can still improve on that. I am being very patient with dozens of editors who are extremely frustrated and rude, and violate wikipedia policy all the time, erasing facts whereever they find them, because they have some dogmatic belief in their government's virtues. Despite this irritating behaviour, I am doing my utmost to remain polite. Please let me know specifically when you feel I'm being unrespectful, if you want me to be able to change. (You might wanna consider giving the same pointer to some other editors on that page, though.) &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The wording of your post here is yet another example of the incivility which I originally called you on: you have consistently failed to assume good faith. If you cannot be brought to see the meaning of this, I shall not waste my time trying to explain it to you. As it is, the matter in which this dispute arose has now been closed. ~ S0CO ( talk 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to help, S0CO. Thanks. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

neutrality
Dear Jc-S0CO, we have now discussed the matter for a long, long time. I would appreciate if you could tell me which of the 12 points at Talk:9/11 you can agree on, and which not, so we can move ahead. Thx &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll address them one at a time.
 * Your Interpretations
 * There exist in the world several views on the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks; let's call the dominant view: "A" and all the other views: "B". When describing 9/11, one can assume that view A is correct (perspective A), or take a neutral perspective: "C". (Perspective "B" would be out of the question for Wikipedia to use.)
 * View A is held by most, if not all, Reliable sources (RS).
 * The RS are usually presenting facts which they deem relevant in their perspective.
 * The proponents of view B, in the world, form a significant minority (not a tiny minority).
 * Wikipedia policy dictates to use for establishing notability only reliable sources; this holds for article topics and for facts.
 * Wikipedia policy dictates to have verifiable sources for each statement or fact in an article.
 * Notability is eternal: something cannot suddenly stop being notable.
 * Wikipedia is bound to use the narrative in the neutral fashion: describe all sides of the debate fairly and sympathetically.
 * Coverage of views should be proportionate: a significant minoriy view should not receive as much attention as the majority view.
 * There is difference of opinion between editors on what the above means for the selection method of: which facts to include in this article and which facts to omit.
 * The current 9/11 article is written from perspective A.
 * My Interpretations
 * Agree
 * Agree -- with RS including most mainstream news sources and most of the world's intelligence communities, engineers, and witnesses to the actual event.
 * Partial disagree -- They present their facts on what they deem notable, not necessarily on what they deem relevant to a view they may or may not be trying to push.
 * Disagree -- The degree of consensus which can be found in proponents of view A does not exist in view B. To gather them into a single group in this context, IMO, is fallacious. Similarly, grouping the limited scientists who are opposed to the IPCC consensus on Global Warming as if they were a consolidated movement would be fallacious when considering the variety of oft-contradictory views they hold.
 * Agree, as explicitly stated in policy
 * Disagree -- Wikipedia policy dictates to have reliable sources for each statement or fact in an article.
 * Agree, as explicitly stated in policy
 * Disagree -- "sympathetically" has no place in this context. Viewpoints must be accurately conveyed, with reliably cited criticism included as WP:WEIGHT allows.
 * Agree
 * I'd have to agree, although as I have noted you have been the only steady contributor on your side of the argument.
 * The current article is written from what reliable sources have reported. If this happens to be "perspective A," maybe that's because it's the truth.
 * I am not addressing you in particular with what I am about to say, but I think for us to move forward it's important for you to understand my beliefs about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I believe that there are two primary motivations to support 9/11 conspiracy theories:
 * The first is emotion surrounding the situation. Many people were deeply effected by what happened on that day, even beyond people who met with the direct loss of loved ones as a result. From a psychological perspective, I think it's very possible that there exists a need in many people to have someone more immediate to blame for what happened than terrorists hunkering in a cave halfway around the world, and the U.S. government, a powerful and local authority, makes for a convenient scapegoat.
 * The second, of course, is politics: there are those who so despise the U.S. government (if not just the present administration) already that they simply want a way, any way, to blame the government in some capacity for what happened. The facts of the situation fit in as they may, as long as they support their predetermined conclusion. For these, the pursuit of truth has been so blinded by this desire that they are willing to dismiss any evidence or testimony which contradicts their beliefs. They're out to prove something, which is not the attitude to take if looking for the God's-honest truth.
 * Bad decisions were made that day. The government was unprepared for what happened. But consider Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can equally be explained by stupidity. A person can be smart. People can be brave. But bureaucracy is usually panicky and slow to adapt to new circumstances. It is my belief that September 11th, 2001 demonstrated the truth of all these statements. Get high enough up the bureaucratic ladder, and the system begins to collapse under the volume of information it is trying to process. Stick a small group of people on a plane with four men standing between them and survival, and they know exactly what they need to do.
 * This conclusion is not all-encompassing, but the reason I have come to it in regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories is the steadfast refusal by the theorists I have interacted with to even consider the possibility that the so-called "mainstream account" is the one which actually happened, through and through. Too often I have seen counterexamples presented, only for them to be dismissed as "influenced by The Man," or worse, immediately claimed to be part of the wider conspiracy (ex: the BBC report) with no further evidence to support the assumption and complete unwillingness to consider otherwise once a conclusion has been reached. So it's difficult to take debate like this serious at times, especially when the fundamental policies which separate Wikipedia from the trash that can be so readily found on the Internet are challenged in the process. ~ S0CO ( talk 02:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! My response here: (Xiutwel)
 * ok.
 * ok, when by witnesses you mean witnesses appearing in RS coverage.
 * ok.
 * I agree with you the degree of consensus which can be found in proponents of view A does not exist in view B. This forces me to refrase; there are many elements of theory in common; at least they have in common they accuse the government of malice.
 * ok.
 * ok, let me refrase to reliable, verifiable sources.
 * ok.
 * "sympathetically" : let me quote: The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. WP:NEUTRAL // [is it] possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively[?] WP:NPOVFAQ
 * ok
 * true, but I am not alone in thinking the article is a-neutral.
 * could be, could be not. It's not neutral to take a side.
 * Ad 8.: linking to a subarticle can hardly make an article neutral. If the article is based solely on RS holding one view, should there not be a warning at the beginning of the article to notify readers? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. Do not forget the third option. I have believed the official version between 2001 en 2004 en never lost any sleep over that. I started losing sleep when I thought it was false, starting 2004. I am not partisan; I believe Republicans and Democrats alike are pawns in a bigger game. And believing so, as a Dutchmen living in the Netherlands, I have no interest in who wins or loses the elections. Even when a President would steal an election, does it matter to me? Yes, a bit, but I'm not partisan. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Partisan' is not limited to Republican or Democrat. Deny it all you want, but you just contradicted yourself ("steal an election") with your last sentence. Moreso, you neglected to elaborate what this "third option" of yours was. How or When one converts to C/T is not the issue I raised here. The question I posed was Why, and What compels this belief. But to address your points:
 * 2. Reliable sources are the only type of source which is accepted in Wikipedia. What else matters?
 * 4. That is exactly the point I outlined above. The existence of seething anti-government rage alone is meaningless. Without something solid to back it up, it has no place here regardless of how many people subscribe to it.
 * 8. No. The policy you just quoted says that it can't be sympathetic.
 * 10. I'm aware of that. "Steady" was the key word in my previous statement.
 * 11. There's the truth, and there's non-truth. If a person's beliefs are untrue, that's unfortunate, but we as an encyclopedia cannot rewrite history to accommodate them. If no reliable sources exist to back up the content, then it can't be included, plain and simple.
 * ~ S0CO ( talk 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad 8. I'm taking that problem to the policy talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view
 * Ad 4+11. There is a lot of disagreement between views B1, B2, B3,... Bn. However, they have in common: "A cannot be true". This is a known common trait, which is well documented in RS (let's call it: claim 1). Ofcourse, this often goes accompanied with a negative connotation that Bx is rubbish, for all x, but that is a second claim. "To gather them into a single group in this context, IMO, is fallacious." It is indeed oversimplifying, but does it make the argument fail? If you look at prominent adherents of view Bx, they will mostly agree with view By. For the sake of WP:NEUTRAL, I think it would be fair to state that there is de facto 1 significant minority view in stead of n tiny minority views. How about that?
 * Ad steal an election: If I think Gore might have helped Bush steal the election, do you think that is partisan? (No offense intended).


 * I notice you never answered this... &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been quite busy lately, and last I checked the debate from which this discussion stemmed had already ended quite some time ago. But to respond to your above argument (4+11), yes: That's why they have their own subsection in the article. The conspiracy theorists are notable as a social movement, but the concepts they have promoted have not been accepted in respected academic circles as having any legitimacy. So yes, the "truthers" deserve mention as a movement within their own subsection (which they have), but we cannot represent their ideas throughout the main article as if they had legitimate groundings. Scattering random facts which are not notable in and of themselves, but are frequently touted by conspiracy theorists, for the sole purpose of generating innuendo is not the purpose of this encyclopedia: to do so would merely be a roundabout attempt to promote CT ideas by sidestepping established policy.
 * Gore v. Bush: To clarify, "partisan" was perhaps the wrong choice of words. I am not talking about republicans and democrats, I am talking about people who already held a political grudge against or dislike of the United States government (American or not), and were looking for a way to blame 9/11 on them in order to reinforce their preconceived bias. ~ S0CO ( talk 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have named you as an involved party at Requests for arbitration. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)