User talk:Xiutwel/Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes

Introduction
The purpose of this discussion page is to establish a Guideline on 911-related subjects.
 * The revert wars on 911-related articles, as well as deletion debates are costing a tremendous amount of energy of wikipedians, authors and administrators alike. I think this energy can be spent elsewhere on wiki, to make wikipedia even better.

Let's not fight!

I've identified several concerns with other wikipedians, which I myself feel slightly different about, though I can well imagine their concerns &mdash; I will not start by attempting to speak in their place. On the other hand there are wikipedians who, as do I, argue that the official government position on anything, let alone 911, need not correspond to the truth 100%.

I suggest we start with listing our concerns, and then see if we can come to guidelines, to which we can refer in the upcoming disputes. There must be enough experience by now for some general conclusions?
 * Are there any 911 guidelines already? &#151; Xiutwel (talk)

&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

emotive
I think the rationale for focussing on 911 separately, is this: the 911 debate affects us all. From the standpoints of everyone of us, the subject is more than a matter of making a good wikipedia. It touches on core values we have in our daily lives. The debate is not on some ancient history or distanct place, it is about something very dear to us.
 * most of us believe that the US government was in no way complicit. Those believe it is all nonsens, and extremely hurtful.
 * quite a few of us believe that the US government was complicit. Since 911 was a serious and cruel crime, no matter who committed it, it is only natural that those wikipedians are especially tenant about it. The idea of treason is very disturbing.
 * (there will be some agnostics as well, shifting their opinion now and then when new insights emerge.)

Therefore we could benefit tremendously from reaching a general understanding of each other, and a common guideline. The difference between us, wikipedians, will likely never go away, but we can learn to live with it in stead of living in war.&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

=Two conflicting sides:=

"Stop promoting the Cruft"

 * No one can dispute that. From Guide to Deletion, cruft is shorthand for "This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc." If something does not meet this definition, the word cruft should not be used. Many 9/11 items have this applied to them, although they obviously have a much wider interest than "hardcore fans". Tyrenius 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, we're past the discussion on whether to "promote Cruft". But the discussion is, of course, what is cruft and what is not? Could you give any criteria to distinguish between 911-cruft and valid 911-phenomena? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Give the facts - all the facts"

 * I think wikipedia should give all the facts that could be relevant to a user (reader) of wikipedia to make up their own mind on any subject. Any wikipedia article should not be written from within a single Paradigm, but should in stead shed light on the existing paradigms, sourced, and with helpful commentary - but not a final judgement as to which side, which paradigm, is correct. Only the facts, and the sources, so the information is traceable for researchers. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)
 * On notability: I feel that when an article is listed for deletion on grounds of notability, and "survives", it should not be listed for notability again, unless there is some new reason that it would have become unnotable in the meantime. Re-listing the same articles is a waste of energy. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)
 * On quality: some articles on 911 have remained stubs. I think this might leave a bad impression on readers. Nonetheless, if an article has more than 2 or 3 bits of information, it might be helpful to a reader. Perhaps a solution can be found by including the stub into another article, and redirecting. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy where we take decisions by voting, but by discussion. We try and convince each other of the best solutions. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)

"Why Bother?"
In order to have a guideline, it needs to be enforceable. In order for it to be enforceable, it needs people who are willing to make the tough calls and sanction users who break the policy. We don’t have that. What we do have are plenty of people on both sides of the isle who are willing to do whatever it takes to promote their side at the expense of the other side. They don’t follow the existing rules we have on these topics. What good is one more rule going to do? Like I have said before, its nice to work on consensus, but doing so requires that all parties be willing to work under a set of basic ground rules. This whole situation has become a great, big ignore all rules for all the wrong reasons festival that seems to have no end in sight. Unless something fundamentally changes, there is no solution to this issue and it will continue unchecked. I think the best thing to do is simply take everyone to ArbCom who violates the existing polices until it stops or until there is no one left to violate a policy because they have all been banned. --Shortfuse 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The point being that if enough of us on either side of the aisle can agree what is and isn't notable, and what should be deleted as cruft, we can avoid acrimonious AfDs and work off of that consensus. If we're all on the same page and working from the same criteria, we're more productive.--Rosicrucian 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well put! &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rosicrucian, the problem that exists today is there seems to be two extremes and fewer people in the middle. Extreme one is those who will create an article on every lunatic idea regarding the events (think there was some lunacy about holographic planes or some garbage like that), without any good, reliable source.  Extreme two is those who will attempt to delete articles that don't agree with the "official story" and completely disregard valid sources for notability and other requirements.  Both are being intellectually dishonest and not acting within policy, nor in good faith.   I don't know that it can realistically be resolved.  Sparkhead  20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While I can accept that as a possibility, my wikistress isn't so high that I'm unwilling to at least make an effort at establishing dialogue on this. It's worth a try, I think.--Rosicrucian 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. But I predict that certain class of users who are always involved in these disputes will not be interested in finding a better way.  They believe their actions don't need changing. I hope I'm not correct.  Let's see if they show up here.  Sparkhead  20:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * not acting within policy, nor in good faith I would agree that both extremes are violating policy, but let's not get into the good-faith issue. A persons intentions cannot be deduced logically from his actions; I've come to the conclusion that people whom I believed to be in bad faith were on other occasions contributing fairly, so I find it hard to believe that I was right initially. There are some actions which I still believe were in bad faith, but what's the point of making this accusation? I can gain more by expressing why the person's action is unfavourable for my wikiwork than engaging in a morality debate. Peace. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it cant hurt anything to try. Who knows, we might get lucky. However, I disagree with the comment above regarding us not getting into the bad faith area. This issue is key to this whole thing and if we are to work through this in this informal matter, we absolutely MUST address it thoroughly and conclusively. The fact that people who behave with bad faith towards the 9/11 articles but not towards others is probably correct, but irrelevant none the less as this does nothing to lessen the damage that their bad-faith portion of conduct causes. Is an editor who constantly disrupts a group of ten articles but contributes positively to a group of one hundred helping or hurting Wikipedia? Its tempting to say he is overall helping, but this simply isn’t true. That ten percent of bad conduct has a lot of collateral damage beyond what meets the eye. For example, other editors (who behave 100% of the time) may be driven away from the project entirely when confronted with the other user’s 10% disruptions. I know I almost was, as I almost posted a nice essay in my user space on my thoughts on this issue and announce my departure. Those who look at my edit history will see that I contribute to many other areas in what I consider to be a positive manner. (Note: I added some indents to the comment above, to re-align the thread. The author can feel free to remove them if he/she actually intended for them to be there.) --Shortfuse 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was not that they exhibit good faith in non-911 related articles, but in 911-related articles as well. Of course there will exist bad faith edits also, but How Could I Tell At First Glance? I've learned that my initial judgement was often wrong. I'll make a proposal for it. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No by default
By default, I disagree with any proposed guideline unless it is demonstratively shown that the nature of 9/11 articles warrants a departure from EXISTING guidelines. If anything, I agree with Arthur Rubin that higher standards are required due to the sensitivity of the subject. I doubt that was the intent of the creation of this page. So please, AGF, "check stubs", NPOV is immutable, new notability guidelines...HELOOOOOO, it's not as though guidelines for those ....DON'T ALREADY EXIST. Unless you have a NEW idea.....don't waste your breath. --Mmx1 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are already guidelines. There are also policies. One policy in particular you might want to investigate is WP:CIVIL.  Sparkhead  04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's with jumping on WP:CIVIL? Just because I used caps in a few places? I am advising people against wasting their time trying to reinvent the wheel, which seems to be a common theme on this page. --Mmx1 04:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this discussion is to: (a) come to some general interpretation of existing guidelines, which will make interpretation issues of the existing guidelines less cumbersome, and/or (b) perhaps come with proposals to amend existing guidelines (debate eventually to be ported overthere) &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Part of the reason tensions and wikistress are so high on 9/11 articles is because neither side can seem to agree on how to apply existing policy. Thus, a reiteration of existing policy and a discussion of how it applies to this family of articles is a valuable thing.--Rosicrucian 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose in all forms
Given the form that this guideline appears to be taking, unless it changes from a guideline designed to create a walled garden of conspiracy articles that are not expected to follow NPOV, V, and OR, I will be forced to oppose it categorically. JBKramer 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Could someone please explain why and how our existing policies and guidelines are insufficient to deal with articles related to the 9/11 attacks?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot prove they are insufficient. It is, however, reasonable to claim that there is a lot of dispute on 911-related issues. I believe that authors on both sides of such a dispute refer to wiki-guidelines to justify their edits. Therefore it is logical to look at the guidelines. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed Guidelines/-interpretations for Controversial articles=

"When forking, make sure the new article is NPOV"
An eye to NPOV needs to be applied when forking an article due to space concerns. Make sure the resulting article presents both supporting and detracting opinions, and looks at the broader picture as opposed to giving undue weight to any one thing. While WP:BOLD is all well and good, the best way to do this and avoid dispute is to discuss proposed forks on the talkpage and any attending issues prior to forking. Doing so establishes a consensus for the fork, and reduces the risk of AFD on the resulting new article.--Rosicrucian 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * About POV fork, I was not aware of this term but I think it is not right to believe that some articles would be subject to different guidelines than others. I think the forks are not to allow for cruft theories, unsourced, but to keep the main article readable, because elaboration of every doubt would destroy readability. To keep wikipedia consistent, however, the main article should be formulated cautiously where the Fork article would dig deeper into the specifics of the doubts. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anyone of spreading cruft so much as I'm saying that some sections, if forked, are definitely POV unable to stand on their own merit. I'll give an example:
 * Bad Fork- Controlled Demolition Theory forked from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories for space concerns. This could easily be interpreted as a POV.
 * Good Fork- World Trade Center Collapse Conspiracy Theories forked from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Broader topic, can encompass a wide variety of theories without giving undue weight.
 * See what I mean?--Rosicrucian 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, Rosicrucian. Besides the change in title and the slightly more issues that would be covered (e.g. the alleged third commercial airliner circling around WTC?) the result would be pretty much identical, correct?--JustFacts 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To some degree, but the difference in namespace means that the article can expand more naturally without having to be moved later on if its focus changes. When worrying about undue weight, try to broaden the article's focus. It's a contrast in emphasis and one at least has the potential to become a stronger article, while the other is somewhat hamstrung by focusing on just one theory.--Rosicrucian 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is not Wikipedia's job to support or debunk a given theory."
Per WP:OR, we shouldn't be sourcing out things like time-temperature curves, and we shouldn't be debating collision physics. Wikipedia exists to cite reliable sources and summarize their views. We can cite supporting opinions, and we can cite detracting opinions. We just shouldn't include anything in an article without properly sourcing it as a viewpoint or scientific finding. It is not our job to determine whether a claim is true or not, and if there is dispute we must present it honestly. This is especially important in 9/11 articles where original research often runs rampant.--Rosicrucian 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Q: what does "sourcing out" mean? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. Oftentimes on talkpages and the articles themselves editors can get caught up in physics equations, material properties, melting points, and so forth. The point is that if you can reference a researcher pointing out a flaw or strength in an argument, do so. Don't attempt to prove or disprove the argument yourself, because that's OR.--Rosicrucian 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"When an item survives XfD..."
"When an item survives XfD, nominating it for an XfD process again within a year without first checking around to see if consensus has changed as required by WP:CCC is an abuse of XfD and should be dealt with by voiding (removing) the XfD on sight by any user (regardless of who or how many have voted or what the vote seems to indicate as the consensus ATM) and warning the offender. The second violation should be a one week ban from editing any 9/11 articles in any manner and no votes in XfD either. The third and every subsequent violation should result in a one week block from all editing. Additionally, the editor seeking XfD within a year and after having checked around, shall place a notice on the talk page of the five most active contributors to the article linking to the discussion about whether consensus has changed, if there are five active editors." Shortfuse 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * These are unofficial rules of thumb enforced only by mutual agreement. I think expecting bans to come out of this is unrealistic.--Rosicrucian 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true. However, if we have a guideline we can point to, an a request can be made and it would be up for the admins to do it or not. I'm sure that in every case we could find one admin to enforce an agreed upon guideline. This thing has to have some teeth if it has any shot of working at all. People need to have a reason to follow it. --Shortfuse 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's not be vindictive. I can agree with some of your points though. I do think we need to put a finer point on it and add an exception for "no consensus" results. An article that has an AfD closed with "no consensus" hasn't so much survived an AfD as delayed one.--Rosicrucian 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For items that have went through XfD and been closed with a finding of "no consensus" AND have run the full amount of time (what is it, five days??), they have survived but to a lesser extent. I think the one year timeframe talked about above - for these such items only - could be made much shorter, like thirty or sixty days - this is a compromise I would support. However, I would not support an outright exemption because that is a nice way for someone to game the system because many, many XfDs end without a consenus being declared.


 * Having an article put up for XfD right after it just got closed (no matter what the finding) is disruptive, pisses people off (I get extremely upset when I see it because to me it results in an incredibly wasteful duplication of efforts and emotions - we have to start all over, everyone has to vote and make their arguments and all of the BS that goes with them, has to keep watch on the item and the debate to make sure everyone behaves themselves, etc, etc ad nauseum) and should not be permitted. I would also point out that the ONLY thing needed to avoid running afoul of this reg is that someone simply discuss (and allow a reasonable amount of time for responses) before re-starting the cogs on the XfD. If the article truly needs to go, everyone will agree quickly (I am always amazed at how fast self-appointed anti-cruft warriors move into a situation and start up with their… “operation”) and then it can be nominated and dealt with in the normal manner. Waiting the 12 to 24 hours it will take to do this wont hurt anyone but it will help protect the integrity of the process, the encyclopedia and help save all of us one heck of a lot of time not to mention stress. --Shortfuse 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One year is much too long, in most cases. 6 months is the longest acceptable time (IMO) for a guideline, reduced to 30 days if the result was "no consensus", or if the proposer has a new argument (not discussed in previous XfDs) or new information discrediting an old argument for keeping.
 * Furthermore, requiring "the five most active contributors to the article" to be informed is completely unreasonable, aside from the inevitable arguments as to which five they would be.
 * Finally, the penalty should only apply if the guideline is "accepted" and after the XfD proponent is informed, and should be limited to 24 hours for the first violation after proper notice. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see where there might be a problem with determining the five most active contributors. What if we said "place a notice on the last five users to contribute to the article that are not annon IP accounts and who have edited at least two other articles under said account"? That would be alot easier to determine and not really open to argument. I would say that in the case of a user having an argument that discredits the old argument for keeping, they should still discuss before proposing, because to some people "new evidence" means nothing more than "I'll recraft the argument I used last time, cite two more policies and run the merry go ground again". I think six months would be OK but no shorter than that, and 30 days for no consensus closures is OK per my previous post. I think we should also clarify the "proposer has a new argument not previously discussed in the AfD" to specifically state that it truly means not discussed anywhere in the AfD thread, not just that the person who nominated didn’t use that argument when it was used later down the page, perhaps by another user, and state that any AfD started up can be removed on sight if they can point to where the argument was used. This would have the effect of making someone read the previous AfD to ensure that their argument wasn’t already used, which means they will probably more carefully consider their actions after reading the debate. --Shortfuse 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

alt: keep it simple

 * If an article is put up for XfD within a year after reaching a "no consensus", it is obligatory to notify/invite all those who "voted"/commented the previous time.

Of course it is good practice to see if new facts/new opinions have arisen; it would be good practice to know that at least one person has changed their mind or new arguments have been discovered. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat onerous on 9/11 AfDs in which 40+ people may have voted, many of which may no longer be active due to being called there by websites and/or not really having any interest in 9/11 articles outside of AfD.--Rosicrucian 14:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, under the "consensus can change" directive, someone who wants to re-open a XfD debate, could take a little extra effort. They should under existing guidelines have some indication that consensus could have changed. If you want to burden the wiki community with a notability discussion, say, a month after the previous one, one could at least invest some time in alerting those present in the previous debate. (When editors are no longer active, so be it, no problem). Remember it's not voting, it's consensus-building, discussion. If you "pitch till you win" the system hollows out to voting, which is not what wiki should be about.&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree that we shouldn't allow "pitch till you win" tactics. I just think that one shouldn't have to notify 40+ users that may or may not even be actively editing the article if one wants to repropose AfD 6+ months later. It can be argued that in most AfDs the active editors will see it immediately, and those who feel passionate for one side or the other will likely hit the talkpages of those they know are sympathetic to their side. So I don't see the onus being upon the nominator. It's superfluous and needlessly difficult. Wikipedia already has procedures in place to deal with editors using "pitch till you win" tactics, and it just seems better to go through dispute resolution because it seems fairly limited to only a handfull of editors I've seen on 9/11 articles.--Rosicrucian 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources/Notability
proposals for (objective) notability standards, to lower dispute overhead

International Coverage is Notable
"Coverage beyond a mere blip (if its an entire article, then its not a blip) by an international newspaper or printed publication, notable television or radio show (meets notability standard for radio show or TV show), one or more notable book(s) (meets notability criteria for books), more than one or two notable websites (websites that meet notability requirements for websites) or in another medium that meets notability requirements for its medium, makes the item so covered automatically notable, regardless of whether US Media has reported on it at all, and regardless of the number of Google Hits and pretty much regardless of anything else." --Shortfuse 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree that the bias towards US press coverage is an issue that needs to be addressed, but the "notable no matter what" clauses are troubling.--Rosicrucian 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone stating that anything in Wikipedia needs American media RS coverage as any qualifier on anything is automatically, without exception, 100% wrong. This is not the American Wikipedia. It's English language, which includes America, Canada, lots of Caribbean and Polynesian nations, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand... and so on. The US point of view has no more value than any other. Not to mention non-English language sources are also fine. · XP  · 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, international coverage still needs to pass reliable source standards.--Rosicrucian 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. One thing I've seen implied in some AfDs, skimming them in the past few days, was the implication that sources from non-Western nations may not be as reliable in these cases, presumably due to the "terrorist" reasons, etc. I find any such even implied implication to be racist and inappropriate on Wikipedia. · XP  · 15:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose that's less a notability/reliability concern and more one of NPOV. If Al-Jazeera is your only source, it probably does need to be better sourced.--Rosicrucian 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad choices. Some media (such as Blogs) are inherently non-verifiable, even if notable, so references in such media shouldn't count.  I agree, for the most part, that coverage (in more than in passing, even if does constitute the entire article) on more than one or two notable WP:RS, makes the subject notable.  I do not agree that a source (radio or television program, or web page) being notable makes that source reliable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the ShortFuse-proposal. At the very least I think that any mention in multiple, themselves notable (not necessarily: reliable), sources infers notability. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Coverage on 250 or More Blogs is Notable
"Coverage on 250 or more blogs makes the item so covered notable when any other coverage (notable or not) outside the blogosphere exists." --Shortfuse 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't really agree with this one at all. It doesn't pass any established standard of WP:N, and the blogosphere tends to be very self-referential.--Rosicrucian 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The actual number may need to be higher, possibly much higher. I'm pretty open on this one. Yes, I am somewhat disputing the current "blogs are not sources" line of thinking that is so prevalent here to a degree. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the blogosphere is very self-referential and even very biased. I run a few blogs myself, and I don’t mince words on them and I make no effort to be unbiased. However, But I do see a huge difference between using a blog as a source and using content on blogs to determine notability of a subject. If everyone is blogging about a given topic, that topic has significance and is notable. Doesn’t meant that what they are saying accurate, just that the topic they are speaking about obviously has some interest. --Shortfuse 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still not something we can cite as evidence of notability to assert within the text of the article, as it's unencyclopedic. We can't cite the blogs individually as they're generally not reliable sources, and we can't really cite them collectively in any meaningful way that would work within article text and meet Wikipedia standards.--Rosicrucian 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to pass on this one. However, I will say that the inability of using Blogs as RS under any circumstances is badly done. Blogs on actual news sites do have some degree of editorial oversight generally, or at least review. · XP  · 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's a case for revising the standards on what sort of blog can be considered a citable source. Personally, I feel that if a blog passes WP:WEB it can at least be cited as evidence of a supporting or detracting opinion. However most blogs also cite their sources, and thus it's perhaps best to just read the blog entry and see who they cited.--Rosicrucian 15:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine a number of blogs which could actually be verified as covering material as being adequate. I think 10,000 blogs might be adequate, but someone has to look at all 10,000 to see if they are covering the material or just referencing other blogs which quote the material.  250 is not adequate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am no expert on the blogosphere, I cannot judge if 250 is a reasonable number. However, large exposure in the blogosphere should help in establishing notability. The fact of the blogosphere being self-referencial does not matter. What matters is, whether blog-editors independently of each other, get interested in the topic at hand. That they subsequently would all say the same thing without checking facts does not matter for notability. (But it matters for reliability!) &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

More Than 100,000 Google Hits is Notable
"An article that returns more than 100K Google Hits (of any kind, except those that are obvious spam) is notable. The method for deterring this is to search for the proper name of the item, film, book, movement or whatever "in quotes" and noting the returned hits. Searches that have "911" in the search term shall be tried with all possible reasonable variations, i.e. "9-11", "911", "9 11" or "9/11" as all three options are widely used and there seems to not be a standard on this. If any reasonable query returns the required 100K hits, its notable." --Shortfuse 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This also seems to be redefining notability in a manner unsupported by any current Wikipedia standard. Unless you can point to existing standards that imply this.--Rosicrucian 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No policy for this, but rather precident. People often cite the number of ghits about an item as an indication of its notability or lack of it. Something dosent just get 100K Ghits in google without being a notable subject. --Shortfuse 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a precedent that I feel will stand up under most AfD conditions. We already have decent standards of what is notable which will.--Rosicrucian 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already an ancillary test related to this for Google results. Raw numbers can't be the sole qualifier, but a part of it. · XP  · 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Marginally acceptable to me, provided that a large majority of the hits are "real" (which excludes any phrase containing "911", "9/11", "9 11", or "9-11" at the beginning or end.) Simple google hits are not adequate, because google disregards punctuation.  As an example "9/11 conspiracy theories" will catch web sites which contain. "... 9-11.  Conspiracy theories." &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * XP, can you point me to this test you mention? Arthur, I agree the hits must be real. I would endorse such a criterion, unless it would be established that unnotable subjects somehow manage to fool Google into providing 100K hits. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh...No
I don't see why separate standards are needed or desired for 9/11 articles. There are existing standards for notability that apply quite well, and 9/11 related articles are no exception. I am also very disturbed by the low bar requested. What is it about 9/11 articles that opens them to such drastically lower bars for inclusion? --Mmx1 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmx1, I would oppose to lowering the bar for 911 related articles. But, *are* these standards lower? Can you please refer to the high bar standards, then? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some notability standards for films, for instance, which all rely on support by the establishment. How can it be that something would only be notable when supported by establishment? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the most current proposal for film notability standards only requires either distribution in commercial theaters or major media attention. Both of which are reasonable standards of notability. The standards which Shortfuse has proposed fall well short of this, in my opinion, and are skewed towards promoting cruft.--Rosicrucian 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think that 911 articles deserve a lower bar. But for all films: commercial theaters or major media are ofcourse sufficient to establish notability. But are they necessary? Not all films are cinema, they might just as well be aired on TV. Or in the case of Jones, be distributed via download. What if major media would shy away from a notable film, for fear of being laughed at? Should wikipedia follow suit, or should we decide as a community what is notable. Can we, the people, make up our own minds about what to note, or is this in the hands of experts? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS agreeing on this would mean revising the established wikipedia guideline for notability. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)
 * For me the answer is easy. Though the present guidelines for films are only proposed, they are not appreciably different than the notability requirements for most other types of media. Unless reliable sources can be cited that assert the notability of the subject of the article, how do we tell if it's notable? If a film has not seen commercial release, is not viewed in any brick-and-mortar theaters, and has not received major media attention, by what standard would we even attempt to assert its notability?--Rosicrucian 01:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to go along with proposals along the line of Shortfuse, above: international coverage, of blog hits, or google hits. If these are way above the average for unnotable films, it gives a clear, objective indication. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Mmx1. The current policies and guidelines apply across the board, including 9/11-related articles. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research or thoughts, and not a soapbox. Verifiability, reliable sources also apply to 9/11 articles. And WP:NPOV applies to 9/11 articles, as does notability. What about these existing policies is insufficient? If you have a problem with onoe of these, you should address it on the talk page for that policy or guideline, as is currently happening with Notability (books). I don't ever see there being consensus for guidelines or specific set of rules for 9/11 articles. --Aude (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for lower notablility standards for 911 conspiracy articles; one could make a case that, because of the "walled garden" effect, a higher standard should be applied, as most members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have links to many other members. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Aude and Arthur. It's disturbing enough that to some extent we already have that "walled garden" at 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Morton devonshire 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything, as Arthur Rubin stated, due to the inflammatory nature of the topic, the standard should be higher.  Sparkhead  02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: especially because of the inflammatory nature, the standard should be exactly the same. Not lower, not higher. We should not here try to find different standards, but, more exact standards which will make future judging easier and prevent unnessary debate. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

An Item Which is Completely Inaccurate Can Still Be Notable
"A film, book, website or other publication or production can still be notable even though it is considered by a few, some, most, or all people to be wholly inaccurate." --Shortfuse 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems self-evident. It would be good to have explicit consensus on this one, nonetheless. (Though maybe I just sometimes get confused by people saying: "This is completely unnotable. Nonsense-cruft.", where the second statement may have been made as a seperate claim in stead of evidence of the first claim.) &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability != Accuracy and Accuracy != Notability
"Notability != Accuracy and Accuracy != Notability" --Shortfuse 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary repeat of previous section. But we need WP:Notability and WP:V (that the subject exists, not that it's accurate.  In the case of some films which are not yet available, the existence of the film is in question.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems more to me to be a correlary to my proposed guideline that it's not our job to prove/debunk a given theory.--Rosicrucian 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
I believe that the 911 subject is so emotive for most editors, on either side, we need to Assume Good Faith more often (even though we may be temporarily convinced of the contrary). A simple guideline: Rationale: calling 'bad faith', when inappropriate, only costs a lot of extra discussion. On the other hand: if one mentally assumes bad faith, one might as well express it, get it out in the open. The point therefore is really: not to assume bad faith even internally, privately. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF
 * do not assume bad faith till after at least:
 * you have tried to reason about it via talk 3 times
 * you have examined the edits of your "oppononent" in related subjects. Are they all 'bad faith'?
 * Remember that people can have completely different lines of thought, so as to totally incomprehend each other's reasoning or motives.


 * Support - this too sounds reasonable. --Shortfuse 03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is immutable
The vast majority of conspiracy theorists editing regarding 9/11 are not attempting to inform using wikipedia, they are attempting to prostletize their fringe wacko POV to more people. This is demonstrated by their limited edits outside of 9/11 and other crazy conspiracy nonsence, and the tendancy towards Tendentious editing. Untill the conspiracy theorists accept that their view is in the vast minority, and that wikipedia will not allow them acceptance into the main-article space as anything other than a slim minority viewpoint, and will certainly not allow them a walled garden of crazy conspiracy articles, they will not get what they want. JBKramer 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems directly in opposition to WP:AGF and isn't enough in compliance with WP:Civil to use as an informal guideline.--Rosicrucian 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." JBKramer 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying so in the proposed guideline does not make it a good guideline. It just sounds like a contentious point and a recipe for trouble to me.--Rosicrucian 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The intent of this guideline, then, is to ignore the 800-pound gorilla. Got it. JBKramer 14:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The intent of this guideline is to reach a consensus that both sides can agree is a good idea as a general guideline for editing, merging, forking, and deleting 9/11 articles. Using language like "fringe wacko POV" is only going to antagonize people that might have something to bring to the table. Considering the document you cite is an essay rather than a policy or a guideline, I'm not sure if we can use it to justify such an attitude.--Rosicrucian 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The essay describes the behavior of a significant subset of editors extraordinarily well. The guideline on what to do with them is located at Disruptive editing. I see no reason to create a guidline to humor a desire for a walled garden of conspiracy theories. JBKramer 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:DE still suggests full dispute resolution considering most of these are content disputes rather than outright rule violations. I feel your proposed guideline significantly poisons the well at attempting to establish broad consensus and acceptance of this set of proposed guidelines. If the intent is to have a working framework so that we can head such content disputes off at the pass, the guidelines will be useless if we alienate a large portion of the people we were trying to establish this consensus with.--Rosicrucian 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any guidline that compromises V, NPOV and OR in favor of establishing "consensus" with disruptive editors is dead on arrival. A failure for this guidline to state that wikipedia is not here to promote conspiracy theories, that we will not allow fringe theories to dominate articles, and that we will not permit walled gardens of articles that are about fringe theories without contradiction demonstrates clearly where this guidline is coming from. Stop coddling disruptive editors. JBKramer 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the language itself I find fault with. If you take the time to read my above proposals and responses to other editors proposals on this talkpage, you'll find that I don't support compromising these policies at all. However your proposed guideline, as presently worded, will likely just lead those editors to ignore the whole document, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish.--Rosicrucian 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is immutable part 2
WP:NPOV states that an article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, but that it should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The viewpoint that the 9/11 bombings were not terrorist attacks perpetuated soley by agents of Al-Queda is at best, a minority view as described, and more likley a tiny-minority view. Its inclusion in articles not directly about said view should be extremely brief, if existant at all. In all articles directly related to the tiny-minority viewpoint it should be made extremely clear that the viewpoint is held only by a tiny minority, and is widely reviled by both the scientific community, and the population at large. JBKramer 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to still be an unrealistic and contentious standard to hold it to, and POV in and of itself. Consider the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, which has survived AfD and has heavy editor participation from both sides of the fence. The fact remains that there is dispute, and said dispute passes WP:N in many cases, even so far as to support articles dedicated to enumerating said theories and their supporters and detractors. I am all for avoiding conspiracy cruft, but this still seems too strongly worded and exclusive to realistically put forth as an editing guideline that won't be ignored outright by the people it targets.--Rosicrucian 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop coddling disruptive editors. If they will not abide by NPOV, they can leave. This is not a discussion of WP:N, it's about NPOV, and not describing the minority view as anything but the minority view. JBKramer 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think NPOV means: - describing the minority view 'as the minority view'; - decribing the majority view 'as the majority view' (and not 'as rocksolid facts'); - trying to have as much facts in stead of views as possible, using WP:RS. We could have a discussion on the size of the minority, I could refer to Zogby polls, or tell you there is a Dutch political party being founded just to demand a full investigation into 911, but I think that is irrelevant as it is obvious from the problems we have on wikipedia, that the minority is large enough to be a hassle. That's why we're trying to get to a summary of all the fragmented discussions into a single discussion. Maybe we can reach a guideline to which most editors will adhere, and we can save a lot of energy. You are entitled to your beliefs, but so are others, and I see editors violating established wikipedia guidelines on both sides of the debate. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)
 * If your proposed guideline is "editors shall not doubt the government story", then please rename these two sections. If you changed your mind about proposing a guideline, please move these discussions to "Why bother". Thanks ! &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I consider this the single mot important point raised to date. The goal of this guideline appears to be to create a walled garden where conspiracy theories are immune to NPOV, V and OR. This is not acceptable. All articles that discuss "alternative" theories about 911 must mention that said "alternative" theory is a tiny-minority. JBKramer 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ? So your proposed guideline would be: "there shall not be a walled garden?" Correct? (I think at first I did not get what you meant by immutable; I know think this means: 'it cannot be overruled', right?) Then I agree with you!! {except with your statements regarding the alleged tiny-ness of the 'tiny-tiny' minority. My estimate would be 5-10% of 911 editors. (In Holland I would estimate 5-10% of the general population.) } &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"If the article you are creating is stub-level, check first to see if the information would fit better in another article."
One of the main sources of the proliferation of cruft is the inclination to say "X doesn't have an article, so I'm making that article." A prime example of this would be the recent AfDs regarding the crew and production company behind Loose Change (video). This isn't to say that the production company and its members are non-notable, but they simply did not pass the notability threshold for articles of their own. Their articles were stubs at best, and they lacked notability outside of the parent article. It wasn't even really a matter of them having more information presented than their notability merited. They had exactly as much biographical information as you would expect. Thus, once the AfDs and hard-redirects were all in place, they fit cozily within the parent article.

It's a mistake I myself have made in non 9/11 related articles. For example S.R. Sidarth does not have any notability outside of this year's Virginia US Senate election, but that didn't stop me from trying to start an article about him because he was notable due to the campaign controversy. Any material has since been merged back, and I understood why it was better to keep him within the context of that article.

Some stubs shouldn't be articles at all. Articles can always be later forked off if the notability and/or amount of material increases to the point that it merits it. It's easier to fork later on than it is to jump the gun and suffer through a heated AfD that eventually leads to redirect and merge.--Rosicrucian 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this sounds reasonable. --Shortfuse 03:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Xiutwel and Shortfuse. Morton devonshire 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very reasonable. · XP  · 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

more patience, take it to talk
In dealing with emotive topics, more patience is required than usual. In stead of judging something as vandalism or trolling, make an honest effort to understand the other side's point of view. It may not be that alien after all. Remember that the topic is emotive for both sides, and that you as well as the other will be tempted to cut corners. Always 'take it to talk' when you feel "you cannot improve and must revert". &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

absolute truth cannot be reached
&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We must accept that on some topics, the wikipedia community is divided in view. While we all agree that an absolute truth exists somewhere outthere, none of us should acclaim to be its representative.
 * In stead, different points of view should be given fair, unbiased, proportional treatment.
 * Articles should not debate which version is the correct one, they should simply portrait as briefly as possible the relevant key points and the relevant factual claims made by both sides. Wikipedia should leave the reasoning and debating to the users of the information we provide.

=How are we doing?= Please evaluate the results sofar overhere. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think some good suggestions were made, am not sure how to proceed to try and reach consensus. &#151; Xiutwel (talk)

=General discussion=

No Special Rules
Articles dealing with 9/11 require neither exemption from nor qualifiers from existing Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. --Mmx1 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this wholeheartedly. I view this as less changing the rules and more coming up with an agreed framework of interpretations that we can work from. That's why I'm putting examples out of "this is why this was a bad fork, and this is how we could have done it better." Anything we do here is not so much a set of rules as a consensual common ground to avoid future disputes.--Rosicrucian 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree: we should not have different guidelines for 911 etc. but we should also not interpret our existing guidelines differently when dealing with 911 &mdash; which I feel is done more than once &mdash;; Instead, let's look, at a global level, at a correct and equitable interpretation of the guidelines regarding all existing 911 articles, to get some form of consensus. There already is some diffuse guideline-interpretation, in the minds of dozens of wikipedians, diffusively distributed, and I believe we can improve ourselves if we try to become aware of it and try to write it down. We need not succeed in agreeing on a 911 guideline; the process of thinking about it is helpful in itself. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Instruction creep. Having such a specific guideline like this helps to make wikipedia guidelines harder to understand. We already have too many guidelines as it is. Fresheneesz 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree that we have too much guidelines, in the sense there appear to exist doubles/forks in the guidelines. Disagree about the implicit suggestion that we should abandon this debate. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would merely be an interpretation of existing guidelines. A sort of "summarized jurisprudence". If anything, it should make the guidelines more easy to understand. (I.e.: currently, the existing guidelines are understood in different ways by different people...) &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New starting point for discussion (April 2007)
The discussion seems to be rather deadlocked, though some very good points have come out of it already, I feel !

A new angle:

In our world there is a dominant paradigm. This paradigm changes, very slowly, over time:


 * 150 years ago it was normal to have slaves.
 * 400 years ago the Earth was flat.
 * 80 years ago matter consisted of tiny grains; nowadays matter consists of waves of probability.

Wikipedia is knowledge. Such knowledge can be split into:
 * (a) knowledge which is consistent with the dominant paradigm (as can be found in other encyclopedia, schoolbooks, newspapers), and
 * (b) knowledge which is at odds with it.

I feel very strongly that wikipedia should represent both (a) and (b) fairly, accurately and proportionally - but without judgement (which would amount to original research?). It should simply state, as a matter of fact, whether any "fact" or "element of knowledge" belongs either in category (a) or (b). Then, the readers can work it out for themselves.

Wikipedia is NOT: absolute proof, or: a debating club.

We need not to prove that our articles show the truth. The information only needs to be verifiable, traceable -- which is completely different from "true", "correct", "reliable". It should be traceable to reliable sources, which are different from "true sources". It would be very, very arrogant to presume that there are no mistakes in the dominant paradigm.

&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Let's first debate this principles, and only then come to proposals on how to implement Wikipedia's principles (even) better. /X

next
Maybe it's best to create a second wikipedia, e.g. relaxpedia.org, which is not so uptight about upholding the status quo... ? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been working on it for some while, and have several articles. I will go official about it some time in the future. Wikipedia is a shill. --Striver - talk 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I am afraid it is not so much a shill as a haven for brainwashed citizens, giving all their freedoms away for the empty promise of safety. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Status Quo != Insane theories that can be EASLY disproven. --Tarage 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)