Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Blnguyen
2. Charles Matthews
3. FayssalF
4. FloNight
5. FT2
6. Jdforrester
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
9. Sam Blacketer
10. Thebainer
11. UninvitedCompany

Recused:

1. Jpgordon
2. Newyorkbrad

Away/inactive:

1. Deskana
2. Paul August

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Accurate as of opening, at 19 March 2008. AGK § 19:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding a proposed remedy

This proposed remedy is exactly the action I did when I blocked User:Pokipsy76 back in June 2006 which resulted in an RFC being filed and which was used here (see first bullet point) as one justification to desysop me....please explain how uninvolved admins will be easily informed about the issues and be able to make a block without being somewhat involved...are we just supposed to point and tell another admin that we have a troublemaker...confused...--MONGO 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions."

There is a difference between an administrator monitoring articles that have a Discretionary sanctions remedy and being a editor or administrator that has an interest in the a topic and regularly works on the articles and clashes with other editors that have different opinions about adding content. This explains that the administrator applying sanctions should not be in a content dispute on the article. If there is any question, it is always better to find another administrator to review the situation and apply the sanction. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that one should always seek out an univolved admin. My question was more in regards to how we can easily explain when we are dealing with a tendetious editor who is POV pushing...anyway, we'll just see how it goes, but as far as a few articles, they will be very hard to get to featured level if we have to deal with CTers all the time.--MONGO 15:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(I just noticed this exchange. This is more of a footnote than another argument.) MONGO seems to have blocked Pokipsy for "trolling", when his offense was, at worst, tendentious editing. To characterize what Pokipsy is doing here as "trolling" or "vandalism", both of which assume he is more against Wikipedia than for his particular theory is the problem here. The proposed remedy seems fine to me. In some cases, Pokipsy would be warned to stop pushing his proposed edit (and to stop reverting to his prefered version), he might also be warned to keep his comments on the talk page civil. That failing, he would be blocked in order to cool the situation down. The block would refer to this decision, would have avenues of appeal (as Flo notes), and would be politely, if firmly, worded. Pokipsy would not be blocked for trolling, and he would not accused of vandalism. He would be asked to reflect on the purpose of WP and his reasons for being here (the assumption being that his behaviour is well-intended but misguided, i.e., done in good faith).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a long time ago, but the consensus on the Rfc regarding Pokipsy was that he was trolling and the block should have been done by someone other than myself. Frankly, since I find the conspiracy theories to be ridiculous, anyone who is here spending their time on this website promoting such things is a troll, but that's the way it goes.--MONGO 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposed rememedy tells us to be less frank about what we think of other editors. "A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people. There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls. The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." (WP:TROLL) On this definition, Pokipsy is clearly not a troll. Calling a promoter of ridiculous theories a troll is simply a way to insult him. I suppose one might call him such a thing if one was interested mainly in seeing how he reacted.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, are you in agreement with Thomas about this troll-definition? I am feeling sad that you called Pokipsky and others who disagree with you a troll, since I want us to be working together as collgues, not against each other. Would you reconsider?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone for 48 hours for "trolling" is not the same as defining an editor as a "troll" which would warrant an indefinite ban. Pokipsy was trolling by inserting himself tendentially into an edit war by simply reverting without comment numerous times skirting 3RR and talk page discussion. It was clearly for trolling even if he is generally not a troll. And if he was so ignorant as to not understand he was trolling, it had the effect of trolling so the block was certainly justified under the heading "trolling"--DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)ó

From the point of view of civility, I don't think we should distinguish between calling someone a troll and saying they are merely "trolling" ("behaving like a troll"). In fact, I don't think Pokipsy was trolling or having trollish effects at all. Like I say, Pokipsy could, at worst, have been blocked for tendentious editing. Since (as you agree) he didn't warrant sanctions as a troll or vandal, these terms should just not have been used. It is possible to be a revert-warring, POV-pushing crank and yet not be a troll. The difference is whether or not you care what it says in the article. Pokipsy clearly does.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read exactly what happened before expressing any judgement. There was a revert war, yes, but 1) I was trying to keep the old estabilished version of the article while MONGO was trying to change, 2) we made the same number of reverts 3) he blocked me. So it's quite meaningless to defend the behaviour of MONGO while accusing me. MONGO said there was consensus on his side but check who are the people involved in the RfC: they are almost all the editors involved in a battle against "conspiracy POV pushers".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "trolling" description wasn't an issue in the RFC. The only people called "trolls" in the RFC were the editors that opposed adding conspiracy garbage into the article. As for not using the word "trolling" as a description of editors behavior, when it is clearly "trolling" is counterproductive. Editors that simply revert without talk page comments or edit summaries really are "trolling." This is different from tendentious editing. Pokipsy warranted sanctions for trolling and that's what he got. The RfC validated the sanction but not the sanctioner. Wikipedia is outcome based, not process based (whence principles like WP:IAR) so the block is valid and the description is valid. If an editor wants to be known as tendentious instead of trolling, they can add talk page comments and meaningful edit comments to their reverts. --DHeyward (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was editing in the same identical way of MONGO & C., same kind of edit summaries and lack of discussions in the talk page, same number of reverts (I thought "if they behave like this then I suppose this is the standard here"). Are you implicitly suggesting that both me and MONGO (and his friends) deserved a sanction?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant that it is possible that editors on both sides, though obviously not trolls, sometimes do things mainly to poke fun at or even to provoke the other side. (Someone once posted their own "pet theory to make money" as a joke on an article talk page, for example; he redacted it when I pointed out that it was not constructive, but the damage was done). I'll grant, also, that that could be considered "trolling" in a sense. It's really more of a WP:POINT violation, I'd think, but I think I see what DHeyward is saying now. I don't agree, however, that not calling trolling trolling is counterproductive. The only way not to feed a troll is to ignore him.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting relevant conversation

There is a conversation about what this proposed decision encompasses here, including some questions and concerns. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the comments. :-)

I'm still looking at the evidence and thinking about whether it supports sanctions against individual users or whether we should wait and see if having well spelled out sanctions will be a deterrent to future disruptive editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're talking about people who have been warned by administrators and other experienced editors for, in one case, 2 years on different conspiracy related topics without a change in disruptive behavior. I don't know if the wording of the sanctions is really specific enough to deter these people without individual attention. But it's not my opinion that counts, I suppose :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: could you at least be candid about the question whether your opinion is that disruptive behaviour was found on one side, on the other side, or on both sides? There seems to be an understanding without words here between parties and arbitrators... which concerns me. If you are considering sanctions against me, for instance, you will need to become a whole lot more clear about it, because I do not feel addressed by any of the vague principles or santions you have been describing. So that might answer your query "whether we should wait and see if having well spelled out sanctions will be a deterrent to future disruptive editing". Let's not be scared to tread on toes here. This is a major problem for Wikipedia, both in the 9/11 articles and other articles where significant minority views are being squeezed aside. If you think I am a DICK please say so, than we can make progress.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Would it be possible for Arbs or Clerks to duplicate their proposals to the workshop so there is opportunity for discussion by the parties? --Haemo (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to do that; but I will note that virtually all of the material here is taken verbatim from the workshop page. Kirill 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

This decision is likely to be a widely cited one. Therefore, would it be possible to devote a little extra attention to clarity of expression? I'm especially concerned about some of the long, tortuous sentences such as those in proposed remedy 1). Thanks - Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

the " irrelevancy" discussions

the emperor is wearing new clothes!

An example can be found in Archive 39b:

proposed edit

Vice president Dick Cheney and the President refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. They also insisted on testifying together, instead of separately as requested by the Commissioners'. When asked, the reason for this given by George Bush was: "It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."

• Objection by Sheffield Steel 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC):

Testimony to the 9/11 Commission [is not immediate national response]. This information is essentially trivial and irrelevant to the 9/11 attacks (the subject of this article) [...] (emphasis added, Xiutwel)

How are we to resolve such diputes? Obviously, highlighting this element of the 9/11 attacks is painful to many. The press reported it the day it happened, but then it ceased being news and with a sigh of relief it was forgotten again. Does that mean it is irrelevant, and editors should be able to block this information from appearing in this article? I would say we have an approximate 50-50 devide on this among editors. Are there any guidelines applicable, or are we on our own here?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a content decision, which the Arbitration Committee does not make, so I'm speaking an an experienced editor in this answer, not as a representative of the Committee. Disagreements about content need to be decided through discussion. The first step is discussion on the article talk page where editors exchange their ideas about why or why not the content should or should not be in the article. The reasons need to be based on writing an article that well covers the topic while adhering to our core content polices. Having an impartial experience editor or administrator mediating the discussion can be helpful. If the initial discussion does not reveal a clear consensus than seeking out more opinions through third opinions or a content request for comment is the next step. Hopefully, with more editors weighing in a clearer idea of consensus will emerge. An important part of this process is for each involved editor to listen to other editors so that they can learn whether their interpretation of the policy in this instance is the majority opinion or a minority opinion. If an editor's opinion about how policy should be applied is the minority opinion then I think it is best to follow the consensus of the larger group. This means that sometimes editors need to learn to agree to disagree to find an approach that resolves the situation for now. If that fails, then formal mediation might be helpful.

Without looking into the specific content question in detail, several general thoughts come to mind. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper or an investigative report. Traditionally, encyclopedias cover content more broadly and well after the fact when the importance of facts are better able to be sorted out by scholars. Relying on newspapers for information makes our content be more up to date, but has the unfortunate downside of allowing for the introduction of biases based on the seeming importance of a topic due to current media coverage. Using information from investigative reports, except their summary, can introduce biases because they are too detailed and information needs explanations beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry to make them follow our most important policy, WP:NPOV. So in some cases, introducing material that might make something seem more complete and well covered, and one would assume more neutral, actually has the opposite effect. Every situation needs to be looked at on an individual basis with the wording tweaked until agreement is reached on the best approach to addressing material. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, FloNight, I really appreciate your response. In fact, I already tried third opinions and request for comments. It did not help much. As for differences in interpretation of guidelines: you suggest to let the majority of editors make the interpretation. I would prefer to hear the ArbCom on it. As an example, according to how I see it, one of the matters disputed is this:

• There are (at least) 10 editors, 3 of whom admins, who like the official account, and like the current article. (The A-gang)
• There are (at least) 10 editors, who think the official account is just one account, and not necessarily the truth, and significant minority views deserve treatment (proportionately). (The C-gang)
• The 9/11 Commission is the primary source for establishing what the official account is.
• The 9/11 Commission also published a testimony from Transport Secretary Norman Mineta, in which he states that the Vice president was in command of operations long before the Pentagon got hit, while Cheney's testimony is that he did not arrive at the command center an hour later than Mineta stated.
• If Cheney's testimony is wrong, and Mineta's is right, this may give rise to all kinds of questions, which are not relevant now since no one is suggesting to put these questions into the article.
• The 9/11 Commission chose to ignore the conflicting testimony, as did 99% of newspapers, and now editors of the A-gang are claiming we cannot quote the 9/11 Commission in an article about 9/11 because that would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH, SYNTHESIS, UNDUE WEIGHT, POV, FRINGE promotion etc. etc.

This is not a view. It is an undisputed fact, sourced by the 9/11 Commission. Omitting this information from our article, when 50% of editors think it should be in there, is incomprehensible to me. But maybe that can change...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not make finding of facts about article content. Article content needs to be decided on each article by the involved editors. The Committee looks at the factors that may be causing disruption to the Community or what is causing the article to be in an unstable state due to editing disputes. Then the Committee offer remedies to the identified problems in the form of sanctions. In this instance, at least so far, we are not making a specific finding of fact against any particular editors but acknowledging the content dispute that is causing the article to be in an unstable state. All editors that are reverting content are part of the problem if problem is looked at in this way. We need for the editors to take a different approach and work together to find a way to present the content in a thorough manner that follows our core policies. Through these well spelled out Discretionary sanctions, we are giving the Community better tools to help make the articles conform to our core content policies and decrease the amount of disruptive editing happening. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I’d agree, but when a single purpose editor is engaged in longtime disruptive editing with a strong POV-focus, it is a serious behavioral problem that should be specifically addressed. While Arbcom doesn't rule on content, it's helpful to look into the content dispute a little: If this were just any content dispute, the proposed decision would be adequate. But the argument, repeated endlessly for months despite dispute resolution efforts, clearly violates policy and brings the behavioral issue to better light. This is especially true of this user, whose arguments have advocated abandoning our core policies and shown a strong POV (which has been admitted by the user). Edit warring and talk page disruption has garnered warnings from editors and administrators involved in two different pages over the span of two years (not before policy had been explained), but the user has shown no intention of stopping. That’s why I have concerns about the lack of specific sanctions here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dear FloNight, I hope you are correct that the remedies will work. I cannot understand though, how sanctions can work (diminish conflict) where not even the ArbCom is willing to express who has "been bad". Without ruling on content, the ArbCom could do much more in helping this dispute towards a harmonious solution. (I move we forget the sanctions for a while, and try and solve this dispute in harmony, not by adding more conflict.) Several editors have provided Evidence concerning TRUTH/POV based editing:

JzG/Guy

Aude

Haemo

Xiutwel

It is my conjecture that these different beliefs are leading to different cognitive evaluation of facts: a well acknowledged but far less well known psychological phenomenon which is very hard to avoid, even for experts, and even for the psychologists that are studying it. There is no shame in falling into these mental tunnels, but since we seem to be in seperate tunnels and need to work together anyhow, this has to be resolved. I have not yet understood how the proposed ruling could be helpful in this, but you have more experience than I have, so perhaps time will tell!

It is my belief that, in order to avoid Cognitive dissonance, editors are bending policy in their minds to make it fit the way they like articles to be, and have been bending the articles to make them fit their beliefs (the way they like reality to be). (Naturally, I feel pretty convinced that my interpretations are the correct ones!)

[...] An important part of this process is for each involved editor to listen to other editors so that they can learn whether their interpretation of the policy in this instance is the majority opinion or a minority opinion. [...]

I am concerned about voting on interpretations of policy, as you (FloNight) suggested, since I agree with no page consensus can overturn policy which this could be doing. I think there is little margin for valid interpretation in the Wikipedia Policy.

I am feeling hopeful that consensus building could be stimulated when (if) the ArbCom would consider all Proposed Principles (in /Workshop) in this case. In contrast, I am feeling concerned when I read in the Proposed Decision:

[...]if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process[...]

This implies that there is "an excepted standard" from which editors are "failing". The problem is however, that the community is in a 50-50 split about this issue. This ruling will only fuel the conflict, not dampen it. Unless one side would "go away". That cannot be the solution you are seeking, can it?

The dispute is quite symmetric: both sides are claiming their POV is true, that policy is on their side. The major assymmetry is that one side has conquered the article, and has a billion dollar information industry which tries to back up what they say.

How can it be that quoting the 911 Commission is against guidelines?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When writing an article, the topic content needs to be written in a manner that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The level of detail about a topic, the tone, and the general presentation of the information in a well organized manner are factors that editors must consider when discussing the addition of content.

The article needs to be written in a manner that gives the reader an overview of the most important aspects of the topic that can be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. See how this differs from the idea that every detail related to the topic that is verifiable in a reliable source must be included?

To decide whether a particular bit of information is to be included needs to be weighed against all the other bits of information to be included in the article. This process of sifting through the information and putting it together to write the article is done by groups of editors that work together.

For some articles, the number of editors interested in the topic will be large and differences of opinion about including a particular bit of information happens. Edit waring to keep a particular bit of information in or out of an article is not a good. Instead, talk page discussion, Rfc, or third opinions need to be used to sort out which bits of information are appropriate for the article according to our core policies. Guidelines are useful when understanding why some types of articles are approached differently in regard to sourcing or style.

Approaching the discussion with the thinking that a particular bit of information must be included, as you did above, probably should not be done unless that bit of information come directly from several general reference books in articles specific to the topic. Newspapers, investigative reports, blogs, court documents, database information, personal papers and such will contain some information what might be appropriate in some instances but not always, so we need to think about content in them differently than general reference sources. If a bit of information is not included in most, many, or any general references; than experienced editors want to understand why has it not been included in the general references.

Is the information too general or too specific to be relevant to the topic? Is it a misquote that was later corrected? Is the information out dated? Are there much better examples or ways to convey that particular aspect of the subject that will be less confusing? Does the example introduce any extraneous issues that are problematic for a reader not knowledgeable about the topic, making it less clear nor more?

Keeping all this in mind, users need to approach each other during content disputes with an open mind and accept the idea that the material is included or not included based on consensus gathered during the exchange of ideas.

These are my personal thoughts as an experienced editor, not speaking as a representative of the Arbitration Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Approaching the discussion with the thinking that a particular bit of information must be included, as you did above, probably should not be done unless that bit of information come directly from several general reference books in articles specific to the topic. Newspapers, investigative reports, blogs, court documents, database information, personal papers and such will contain some information what might be appropriate in some instances but not always, so we need to think about content in them differently than general reference sources."

The Mineta testimony and its omission by the commission certainly is discussed in a lot of books, documentaries, and even articles by mainstream sources. Incidentally, David Ray Griffin discusses it at length in his new book "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press", http://www.amazon.com/11-Contradictions-Letter-Congress-Press/dp/1566567165

Shouldn't the importance of the topic also be taken into account when deciding if something is mentioned or not? The contradiction between the testimony of the Minister of Transportation - together with all the other evidence that supports it - and the commission's narrative, which does not detail any evidence for its different timeline, is a highly significant one. If the commission's report is false in this issue, a lot of very important questions arise.

I think a highly placed representative of one RS, the Washington Post, put it very well in a private email to me when he wrote: "you're absolutely right, someone should have found Minetta [sic] and tried to figure out how he sees and hears Cheney and why the 9/11 Commission ignored him." Perscurator (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just point out that this exact argument has been explained to Xiutwel a number of times, by a number of editors. Indeed, it is this exact back-and-forth which has been his main thrust of discussion for the past three months, since he moved on from other arguments. His rejoinder to this argument is that it violates WP:NPOV to "exclude" reported facts which some conspiracy theorists believe are important. --Haemo (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The contradiction under consideration here has been described as important by a bureau chief of the Washington Post (see my comment above), who certainly is not a "conspiracy theorist". Incidentally, the pejorative usage of the label "conspiracy theorist" is close to ridiculous in the light of the number of smaller and larger conspiracies revealed throughout history, and thus in most cases reveals its user's unfamiliarity with history. Perscurator (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear FloNight, I agree with you that this is how it should be done:

[...] written in a manner that is appropriate for an encyclopedia [...] level of detail [...] overview of the most important aspects [...] This process of sifting [...] done by groups of editors that work together [...] information what might be appropriate in some instances but not always [...] then experienced editors want to understand why has it not been included in the general references [...] accept the idea that the material is included or not included based on consensus gathered during the exchange of ideas [...].

The problem is, that reaching reasonable consensus is unlikely to happen with editors who defend a POV in stead of neutrality. I documented over 20 instances where other editors were claiming to be certain that their POV was in fact "the Truth". Logic and reason fail here. When members of the US government are contradicting each other (to this day) about how events were onfolding on that day, surely that belongs to "the most important aspects"? And when a Minister of Britain, the US' best ally in the War on Terror, who was himself in government from before the attacks till after the Iraq war began, now accuses the US government of foul play, is this not an aspect worth mentioning?
As for the question why the general references are ignoring these facts: Who knows? Some of them did not ignore these aspects but published them, and the others did not write anything to indicate that that was ill done.
If Wikipedia (with the servers in the US) does not want to get any hassle for writing about these important aspects, let's just have a notice on top of the article which says so, and I will respect that.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See, you're doing it again. As you explicitly state, what you view to be "the most important" aspects of a case are what motivates your inclusion standards for an article. You think that these mis-statements, opinions, errors, and what-have-you are "the most important" because you believe they are evidence of a conspiracy theory — but no reliable source does! Your personal POV about what did, and did not, happen on 9/11 is the motivating factor behind your argument for what should be in an article — not what reliable sources say is important, or relevant. Indeed, you have instead argued that this violates neutral point of view because reliable sources are biased and do not discuss these issues — but the whole point of relying on sources for our content is to avoid the "I think X is important, but you think Y" argument . The level of detail, tone, and discussion of various things must be proportional to their treatment in reliable sources — yet you have never been able to move forward with producing reliable sources that say "oh, this fact is very important" or even "lots of conspiracy theorists think this is very important". You argue, instead, that based on what you think is an important fact to conspiracy theorists it should be included — which has spawned a number of debates over whether or not we should include "ridiculous" conspiracy theories like laser weapons or no-plane theories; a discussion which I think spells out the fact that the assumptions underlying it have strayed ludicrously far from the an encyclopedia and into the realm of passing off personal opinions about popularity or credibility as an academic work. --Haemo (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, you're in denial. Any scientist who opposes your personal view ceases to be part of the "reliable sources" in your perception. If 300 scientists oppose your view, then they all cease to be scientists in your opinion. How convenient.
Being a vocal part of the minority voice (it's not a minority opinion, but a minority voice because of self-censorship) means: you're gonna get hassle, and lot's of it. You may loose your job. You may loose your clients. Not many people want to risk that hassle. But some do. There are mainstream journalists in the Netherlands who have defended the possiblity that 911 was an inside job. It is a minority view, and I cannot think of a valid reason to deny this view any coverage in the main article. You are censoring, your approach does not follow from policy. And we need a warning sign on the page that you are just copying the Repeaters, and excluding everything you know exists outthere but you feel uncomfortable about.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
— but no reliable source does! -- and that's not true, there are plenty of RS who mention the things I wished to add, they are just a minority among RS.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's patently not true. I base reliable sourcing on the guidelines and policies, not on my personal views — which seems to be your modus operandi here. I don't care if it's scientists, journalists, or whatever — none of their opinions have ever been cited as authoritative, accurate, or accepted in any reliable source and that's the end of it. Produce reliable sources, and the discussion changes — at no point have you ever done this, even the "minority" you claim exists. I totally resent being accused of "censorship" because I don't get to decide which views get coverage in sources acceptable to Wikipedia — if this is the first comment you'll make on the issue after this case, I don't think you've learned anything from what was said here. Since this case is over, I hope this will end this discussion with some finality — it will not ever gain traction on Wikipedia, because the views and intentions underlying it are not what Wikipedia is about. --Haemo (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Please note my comment above too.) Professor Steven E. Jones, who is one of the scientists belonging to the 9/11 Truth movement, has had his WTC article accepted for publication in a mainstream technical science journal. It will come out during this month. I assume that you will be accepting that as a reliable source?

We have seen how several media outlets considered to be "reliable sources" have been vocal supporters of what has later turned out to be government disinformation, "fixed" intelligence, etc. The WMD scandal is just one example. (Our "Finlandized" press - vis-à-vis the Soviet Union - of the 1960s and 1970s is another example.) In practice, "reliable sources" appear to be equated with mainstream media. In different times and places, the mainstream media have often perpetuated myths used to support foreign invasions and Orwellian measures in the homeland (as in Germany in the 1930s or in present-day Russia and USA). This is to a large extent because the mainstream media typically have close ties to those in power in any given society (and, in the case of the United States, to the overblown military-industrial complex, about which president Eisenhower warned). I'm not disputing the reliability of the mainstream media in several areas; what I am saying is that their "reliability" varies depending on the issue at hand, and it has been precisely the kinds of issues under consideration where their reliability has often been the most questionable. Perscurator (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• You keep being obsessed by "the truth", Haemo. You write: "none of their opinions have ever been cited as authoritative, accurate, or accepted in any reliable source". Wikipedia is not about establishing "the truth", it is about representing all significant viewpoints fairly. When "Nature" publishes an article, that does not mean that "Nature" endorses the viewpoint in it: it means that Nature estimates the viewpoint/presentation as having sufficient quality. The RS are not some oracle we can turn to whenever we need to know what "the truth" is: the RS are the collection of information we base ourselves on in describing these viewpoints (plural). This information is often contradictory. But we use the RS because at least that gives us some degree of verifiability. I truly believe you are good faith on this, but I wish to hereby formally warn you to adhere to Wikipedia policy and refrain from disruptive editing, in articles and on talk pages, especially please do not delete text which you personally dislike but which is in accordance with policy.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how you concluded that I am "obsessed with the truth" from my statement that views should be "cited as authoritative, accurate, or accepted in any reliable source" when that means the exact opposite, and is almost verbatim policy. If you're going to "formally warn me" then feel free to — I believe my editing, and my actions, are completely in accordance with policy, guidelines, and Wikipedia's purpose. Indeed, I have pledged to further take on obligations for behavior in excess of that required of editors — as have a large number of other editors active in this area. --Haemo (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we come to an interesting and important question: if two or more RS's contradict each other, which of the conflicting accounts should we rely on? Allow me to present one example.

In the Moussaoiu trial, the FBI showed that Barbara Olson's mobile phone call from the hijacked flight 77 to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, lasted "0 seconds": the connection attempt from the high altitude (naturally) failed.

On the other hand, American Airlines in 2006 confirmed that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones. (Olson first reported that his wife had called him using a mobile phone; in later accounts he said she had used an onboard phone.)

If we trust both sources, we must conclude that the phone call, on which much of the official account of 9/11 rests, never happened. Yet the mainstream media continue to rely on an account that is negated by both the FBI and American Airlines!

Your views on this would be appreciated. Are the FBI, American Airlines, and the mainstream media all reliable sources? If so, on which of them should we rely in this case?

For a summary of the above, see e.g.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49982

Perscurator (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The issue here is the potential for synthesis, a form of original research. If a reliable source were to speak of the interaction of these events, it could be noted, but we cannot write such conclusions ourselves. In any case, this is not the place for this discussion: ArbCom does not address content disputes. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that if there is a clear contradiction between the accounts of two or more RS's, we cannot even note the clear contradiction? If so, on what grounds do we choose one account and not the other(s)? Thanks for a clarification, even if this is technically speaking not the right place for this discussion.

Connected with my question to Haemo, Steven E. Jones et al's WTC article has just been published in what Haemo, I'd expect, regards as a reliable source - The Open Civil Engineering Journal (2008, 2, 35-40). A link to the very interesting article can be found here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081 Perscurator (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Two sides

We do seem to have two clearly-delineated sets of opinions going on here. .

"The C gang" tends to view the 9/11 event within the context of everything the CIA has done in Latin America since WWII together with the recent declassification of Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird,Gladio, Operation Himmler, the Gleiwitz incident and a few other events. There is a tendency to view the "A" gang as a bunch of brainwashed dupes or to suspect that some are government disinformation agents. With a very few exceptions, every member of the "C" gang formerly held the beliefs of the "A" gang. The "C" gang points out surveys and mainstream editorial opinions that support the idea that they are not "FRINGE." The "C" gang is relatively calm and objective. The "C" gang regards mainstream corporate media as being complicit in a cover-up.

"The A gang" tends to view the "C" gang as a bunch of brainwashed dupes and tends to believe that the executive branch of the U.S. government is benign. They engage in quite a bit of amateur medical diagnosis of "the C gang," quite a bit of name-calling and some intriguing Wikilawyering. They dismiss evidence cited by the "C" gang as irrelevant and argue that the opinions of the academics who support the "C" gang don't count because anyone who would hold such opinions is obviously incompetent. As far as I can tell, no member of the "A" gang ever adhered to the opinions of the "C" gang. The "A" gang brushes off the surveys and pushes its own definition of "FRINGE" as something related to specific academic communities. The "A" gang also presents their interpretation of Wiki Policy as policy, while the "C" gang regards that interpretation as being contrary to common sense and the normal use of language. The "A" gang comes across as angry -- even furious -- and accuses the "C" gang of being a passionate minority which they, the uncaring majority, are trying to balance. The "A" gang insists upon using mainstream media as a source, while rejecting alternative media as "conspiracist."

Each side regards the other as being cultish, tendentious and unpatriotic. Each side accuses the other of pushing a POV.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible here, but I do have a "C" gang orientation, so I'd appreciate it if any "A" gang member who is committed to objectivity (instead of winning) would make any corrections (s)he sees as being appropriate here.

Now, if we're going to work together without edit-warring, we need to recognize the validity of each other's POV. Everyone is entitled to a POV, and each of us needs to make some assumptions in order to survive and operate in the real world.

Wowest (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Wowest. We need to respect each others POV, and work together to make the 911-familiy of articles NPOV. The skepsis of wikipedia A-gang editors has helped me in finding my way around the swamp of B-gang information. As a wikipedia editor I am committed to working from the C-viewpoint (though I admit making errors of judgement sometimes, but that's what the wikipedia community is for: correcting each others mistakes!)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)