Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories/archive2

Hearing the needs
7. Perhaps we can listen to each others needs, and tell each other what we've heard the other was saying.

(7) Expression by Xiutwel and partner
I believe all of us are devoted to solving this naming issue, because it is no game we're playing here, with these articles. Had it been an article on Star Trek, we would perhaps not have put so much effort in reaching consensus; we might have walked away.We're talking about an event that has taken the lives of many people and of an event that has led to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, where violence continues to the present day. Sharing a common view and respecting each others differing views is essential in bringing more peace in the world. I need this article to be respectful to all views. I am needing respect for uniqueness of human beings and the views they hold dear. &mdash; Sockrates-duet 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to repeat the needs that were being expressed just now?
 * And then voice your own? &mdash; Sockrates-duet 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(7) Expression by Oneismany
The thing is that everyone is much too attached to their personal opinion of what happened on 9/11. the 9/11-is-the-facts people are much too attached to "the facts" but Wikipedia isn't about "the facts" it's about WP:V. Most truthers on the other hand are much too attached to the "inside job" theory and do not consider "outside job" theories. I am with Xavexgoem; let's throw out the rules, particularly with regard to "reliability." For that is the rotten core of this apple. On this particular issue I think we need to relax our ideas of "reliability" or we will be fighting about this forever. How about we write about what is simply verifiable instead of what is in our opinion reliable which is just another way of saying "the truth" or "the facts"? In that vein I have a radical suggestion: Why don't we start over from scratch. Go back to the earliest 9/11 article in the history to see what I mean. There was no split between "facts" and "theory" at that point. So how about we get back into that mind set and merge 9/11 and 9/11 conspiracy theories into a single article and name it simply "9/11". Then when all the sub-sub-sub-divisions are hashed out we can start splitting the article off into separate articles that make more sense. Am I dreaming? Am I crazy? Probably one or the other. Oh well, it is good to have a dream. :) Oneismany (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed a split, not a merge. See the bottom of this case's talk page for more details on what I'm thinking up atm. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You also suggested we should think outside the box and do what is right not just what the rules say, so that is my thought on that. All the differing articles serve to do is delineate what the official truth is and what the crazy people think.  Oneismany (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside the box per WP:WIARM. Merging 9/11 and the theories article would be very, very bloated (to begin with). We contain drama, not expand it ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Oneismany, we/I are feeling happy when I see that you chose to answer my question. I am looking for solutions, and I am hoping this may help us, and it is nice to see that you take the trouble to join my effort with this "question 7". You were voicing your concerns and proposing solutions. When I hear you say such too attached to "the facts"/"inside job" theory I want to check: are you feeling discouraged because you are needing meaningful discussions, with editors having consideration for each others thoughts, and would you rather be using your creativity to contribute to the enrichment of wikipedia? When I hear you say: relax...fighting forever, I am supposing you are feeling frustrated and are feeling anxious to find a solution?(I can imagine this sounds like asking for the obvious, but in my experience it can contribute to a spirit of harmony when we repeat what we've heard the other say, and check it, before we give our own reply). &mdash; Sockrates-duet 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well my thoughts above are as much an answer to your question as to question 6, although I am not sure if throwing away all the different sub articles to merge everything related to 9/11 temporarily, qualifies as a "compromise." On this and other contentious issues such as AIDS reappraisal and Dental amalgam controversy I have noticed a disturbing trend on Wikipedia, to whit that it generally tows the industry line, only grudgingly admitting other options.  It is probably because Wiki editors are not just unemployed hobbyists, but also a fair number of them are hired by private industry and government to protect their consensus reality as much as possible; so introducing alternatives is an uphill battle.  But I accept that challenge as I am here to improve my writing and my researching abilities, not to justify my own ideologies.  In the end only Wikipedia will suffer if minority and fringe opinions are excluded deliberately, because the internet is full of other outlets for them.  The more uniform the POV on Wikipedia the less necessary it is for anyone to consult it for information.  On self-examination however, I suppose it is frustrating to find that editors are using Wikipedia guidelines to justify their prejudices rather than trying to be inclusive.  Oneismany (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

--Haemo (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, it will never be acceptable to me to "throw out" part of our core policies to make this work.

Minority viewpoint
There exist a variety of "conspiracy theories". How should wikipedia treat these? Does a view B exist? Or is it more a collection of tiny minority views we should disregard? Can we even call it a (valid) viewpoint (correct or incorrect) or is it just a social phenomenon? Even when view B would be wrong, could it still be taken seriously enough to write about respectfully on wikipedia? Does view B have (enough) prominent adherents?

Reply by Xavexgoem
I think that, generally speaking, the article does treat the subject matter with respect. But you're missing the point, which I've brought up on the talk page. We can't jump over an obstacle ten hurdles away from where we are now. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(7b) Reply by Xiutwel
These two at least seem undisputed within the "conspiracy" community. This would require wikipedia to write about them respectfully, and mention them in all articles which are assuming the opposite. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There exists a whole palet of unanswered questions, alleged anomalies and theories. A lot of them are tiny minority views. There are however some shared components, which have widespread support. Those include, among others:
 * "NORAD standing down was no accident."
 * "Warnings were ignored deliberately."

Arb Break

 * Shall we next concentrate on reaching consensus on the level of pejorativeness of the current title; on which guidelines are applicable and which should weigh heaviest; or something else?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through everything, but for the moment I'm weighing the guidelines, etc, to see what should be Question #3. Stay tuned, more after this (sorry...question #3, Door #3 :p) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)