User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/001

Messages

You can leave messages for me here, or append them to the relevant section. I will move messages added to this section to existing or new sections, in order to keep this page organized.

Messages related to WP:Verifiability

I have commented on an aspect of the Wikipedia policy of Verifiability here. If you have taken part in this discussion on the project discussion page, you can leave a message or a comment related to this discussion here.

Temporary blocking of this account on April 10, 2009

I don't think this will translate, and the notification needs to be here for tracability.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions

(This chapter heading was added by Tom Harrison. --Cs32en (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Please follow our core policies on Verifiability, Consensus, and No original research. Note in particular the discretionary sanctions listed here could result in a topic ban. Specificaly, stop trying to force in your version against consensus. The burden is on the person who wannts to add the material to justify it. You haven't met that burden. When you have, you won't have to keep reverting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom, please have look at BRD-cycle. It's obvious that the content in question is verifiable, although people might differ on whether the conclusions of the paper are correct. Also, mentioning the article does not fall under the category of original research, as (a) the research was neither done nor published by me (b) the article is about theories on the WTC destruction, so the article itself is a subject of the article, not a piece of research with regard to the topic of the article. --Cs32en (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution to the encyclopedia so far consists of 5 reverts in 4 hours. That's not the BRD-cycle. That's surprising for someone so familiar with our policies. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reformulated, with a view to shorten, and to improve, a previous contribution that has been kicked out by another user. Let me just point out that the BRD-cycle, in order to work, implies that people start a discussion on new contributions, not simply delete them. If those users that deleted the contribution would follow the BRD-cycle, there would be no need to revert anything at this moment at all. I have also noticed that you seem to approve the BRD-cycle, so let's work out this issue along these lines. --Cs32en (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is follow the Three-revert rule. Remove your addition until a consensus supports adding it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the article's talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the temporary blocking of this account

For what it's worth, I don't think you're a sockpuppet. However, you're still edit warring, and may not be familiar with en.wikipedia guidelines. Please read carefully WP:BRD and WP:3RR to see what guidelines you are not following. If you will acknoledge your violation, and agree to discuss the matter on the talk page and obtain a change of consensus before making edits against the apparent consensus, I would have no objection to an unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, the first paragraph of this post seems to have disappeared as I was editing the page at the same time as another user. I'm trying to reconstruct the content.)

On the German Wikipedia, it is common that a text is being changed while being discussed on the talk page at the same time. Of course, it is expected that users take into account other views and suggestions. In this case, two main objections were brought forward:

• Unreliable sources: The sources that the user who first added the paragraph were not relevant enough to justify the inclusion of the paragraph in Wikipedia. I deleted those sources and referred to the four major Danish newspapers (circulation about 8-10% of the population of Danmark). (Reliability is not the issue, as nobody has disputed that the article exists.)

• Wrong chapter: Because some users considered the inclusion of the article in the chapter "Reaction of the engineering community" misplaced, I moved the article to the chapter "History", which appears to be the place where all topics that do no fit into the specialized chapters go to. As chemists and physicists are considered engineers in Germany, I tend to see this issue differently, but the interpretation of these terms in English speaking countries is the relevant issue here.

So, in my view, I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. I may have reacted too strongly to the actions of users that simply removed the paragraph without seeking to take the view of others into account, and it probably would have been better to use appropriate ways to complain about these actions.

My actions may have contributed to an atmosphere where there were - in my view - widespread activities that, while maybe not formally constituting an edit war, were destructive to the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a place where people enjoy in expanding the scope and accessibility of collective knowledge. I would be prepared to accept that some of my actions, seen in isolation, can be interpreted as elements of an edit war. At the same time, I hope that all users - independent of their view of the subject of the article - will be judged by the same standard. --Cs32en (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration regarding 9/11 issues / Question on WP:V

Moved from User talk:Ikip:

Hi Ikip,

Thank you very much for making me aware of this possibility to communicate my concerns at the appropriate place! I am new to the English Wikipedia, but I have been contributing to the German Wikipedia since 2006. I have joined Wikipedia because I felt that two articles were missing ([1],[2]). I created the articles, and both articles are being developed actively at this time, with additions mostly about information that is genuinely new (recent events) or that has come to the attention of editors. Both articles have nothing to do with 9/11.

I have not been involved in any arbitration case before, and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever demanded or initiated any administrative action against me on the German Wikipedia. Therefore, I am not entirely sure whether I understand the technical details of the process; in particular, I hope that my edits on the page are in the appopriate place.

I am equally not familiar with the details of the guidelines and policy interpretation on the English Wikipedia. I have had a look at WP:V, and my feeling is that there are two guidelines that are either contradictory in the policy itself, or are widely understood in ways that lead to contradictions and incoherent results. These are, quoting from WP:V:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

• "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources."

I believe that Wikipedia should not aim at replacing the institutions that exist to find out the truth, such as universities, and I fully support the first policy item. Yet, if truth is not the issue, but verifiability and relevance with regard to the given topic, nobody should make any such claim, whether exceptional or not. If such claims are not valid reasoning with regard to the inclusion of a piece of information in Wikipedia, the second guideline is actually not necessary at all. However, as the guideline exists, various users are, in my view, trying to follow it according to their personal interpretation. This logical contradiction in the policy may not be problematic in most cases, as exceptional claims are, generally, not found in reliable sources. The situation is very different, however, if the article is explicitly, as defined by its title, about exceptional claims. (Then, the issue is whether the source reliably reflects the claim that is itself likely false.)

As a new editor with regard to the English Wikipedia, I am, at the moment, a bit reluctant to bring up this issue about possible logical contradictions in WP:V directly on the arbitration page, as there must exist numerous prior discussions about WP:V that I am unaware of.

I would be glad if you could give me some feedback on these thoughts.

Regards, Cs32en (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would bring up your concerns briefly and concisely on WP:V. Expect many editors to defend the status quo, and few to support your position.

There are many contridictions on the English Wikipedia.

My impression is that the German wikipedia is much more restrictictive and confining, with no free use images, and embracing flagged revisions.

I messaged you because of this:

• Cs32en (talk · contribs) informed 23:45, 9 April 2009 on the talk page.

I will watch your page from now on...

Ikip (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply, and for watching my page!

I will consider posting to WP:V later on. Right now, I think I should wait for some comments on the posts that I have already made. I also prefer following the discussion in the arbitration case now, and not to initiate any potentially controversial discussion at another place. (I also think it would not be helpful if the first comment on my text on the WP:V talk page would allege that my account was a sock puppet.)

The German Wikipedia, technically, is more restrictive in one respect: edits from new editors can only be seen by clicking at a specific button, so that users (i.e. readers) see the page approved by established editors, if the do not specifically look for the "current version". However, most edits are regularly approved (in the case of the 9/11 pages, every few hours, if necessary, according to my experience; basically the same for "Hitler" or similar sensitive stuff).

My overall impression is that flagged revisions have a positive overall effect on the German Wikipedia. One issue would be that editors that approve pages should generally either approve all revisions that have resulted from the editing process or let this process continue without affecting the "clean" page. Another useful guideline would be that all editors who take part in any given sequence of edits on the "dirty" page should not be involved in approving this sequence, unless there is obvious consensus among the editors involved. (There might also be pages where a single editor is engaged for an extended period of time.) Deletions on talk pages should be restricted to obvious vandalism, privacy issues, and similar things, and flagged revisions should not apply to talk pages, which might instead be protected if urgent action is needed.

• Some further observations on the German Wikipedia, maybe less relevant:

I have seen people engaging in edit wars on the German Wikipedia, with 10+ reverts without triggering any administrative response either during the edit war of after it had died down. People are expected to start a discussion on the talk page, and if that happens, the editor with the weaker arguments often digs a hole for himself during the discussion and gives up on it at some point. Deleting edits on talk pages is very rare, and you can find a lot of funny and not-so-funny stuff there.

My guess is that there may be too few established rules on the German Wikipedia, and, possibly, few trusted admins, too, so that there are, as a result, few administrative actions or processes. The English Wikipedia seems to have a lot of rules that each work in most cases, but that maybe lack coherence in some respects. Instead of following no specific Wikipedia rules at all (the German case), some editors might have started cherry-picking on the rules as a result.

With regard to the images, the German Wikipedia regards almost everything that has general copyright restriction as completely non-free, irrespective of the circumstances in which it is being used. This is probably not a Wiki issue, but a result of the legal situation in Germany, where there is no specific law on "fair use", and images taken from videos are not even mentioned in the laws. (The actual rulings seem to be mostly along the same reasoning as in the US, but it's probably quite unpredictable. Also, in Germany, I assume that Wikipedia would potentially be faced with numerous individual court cases, so even if Wikipedia's interpretation of the laws would prevail in all cases, this would be quite disruptive to the development of the German Wikipedia.)

--Cs32en (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation and your time. I saw your response on the 9/11 arbitration page. It maybe ignored. Ikip (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your further explanation. I don't know about the timeframes of both processes (arbitration and WP:V). I assume that the WP:V discussion might be helpful for the arbitration, but the progress would be too slow with regard to it. If that is the case, I think the discussion on WP:V would be more constructive if it's not linked to the ongoing arbitration (or at least, if I would not be involved in the arbitration procedure at the same time). I'm now waiting for some further comments in the arbitration procedure before I would see what to do, and I'd propose that we continue this communication at that point. --Cs32en (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the timeframe of the arbitration review is probably quite uncertain, I have now posted my concerns about the misguided use of the phrase "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" on the WP:Verifiable talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Please see [3] for the Amazon.com (and "content providers") copyright notice. The intended use of a text does not change its legal protection. For example, Wikipedia articles are intended to be read by everyone - but are still the copyright of the individuals who write the actual text. Amazon does not license its website material for reuse as Wikipedia authors do under the GFDL license (currently) Rmhermen (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rmhermen! In my view, this notice is intended to prevent people from setting up their own online book shop and bulk copy texts from the Amazon page. What would be motivating Amazon to object to people quoting the text from a single book description, with a reference to Amazon? Even if Amazon would, this would result in nothing more that a notice to take down the respective content. Is there any precedent that something similar has actually caused trouble? If not, I would consider this to be the typical case where the creator claims "all rights reserved", because he is under no obligation to specify every possible "fair use" of the content, and has no interest to do so anyway. --Cs32en (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The material was not added to Wikipedia under a fair use claim or even properly referenced - and even comments on the take page have to be released under the GFDL which the poster did not have the authority to do. Wikipedia takes a strong stance against hosting such copyrighted material even if we don't reasonably expect to be sued. For instance, we do not use publicity headshots for articles on actors. Rmhermen (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The URL of the Amazon website (diff) was included in the comment, and it doesn't necessarily need a fair use claim to be fair use. Quotation marks would probably have been appropriate, though. Well, as everyone can follow the link, this discussion seems to be somewhat pointless at this moment. --Cs32en (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you agree, it might be helpful for you to denounce the sock puppetry and teamwork that appears to have been going on. I don't mind honorable disagreements over content. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heading question

I don't understand the intended meaning of this heading (composed by not you):

 911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions 

Is the heading that someone created designed to convey the reason (standard) for the sanctions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if this is a personal template, or was written when the notice was left on my page. It's probably not a standard Wikipedia, or ArbCom, template. --Cs32en (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Trusting US media ?

Extended content

I don't know if this is the right venue - feel free to truncate it and refer me elsewhere. I notice that one contributor to your talk page says this: If anything notable or reliable were published about 9/11, it would immediately be reported by the entire American press. That view strikes me as jam packed with unlikely strange assumptions. Here is an array of institutional, cultural, and market reasons to not trust the reliability of US press: 1. Nationalism & identify Many or most people in the world apparently integrate national exceptionalism into their own identity. Facts that stand apart can become personalized as ego threats. This creates bounds on news' interest in and capacity to deal with some societal problems that need effort. Conversely, there is little censorship of the flaws of other nations, especially in specific cases. 2. Cultural (Envy): Writers often envy status and power powerful insiders (automatically calling it "news" when they are interviewed). News companies have in recent years been reluctant to report apparent law violations of high officials, especially if others that did so have been "controversialized". Some political scandals that don't affect people's lives are sensationalized more than policies that affect life and death of millions (e.g. smoking deaths). 3. Viewer Psychology News becomes (in turns) entertainment and/or a voyeurism whereby both good news and morbid events can be used to excite or entrance. An "us them" nationalism may enter (as a market pressure or political insinuation) where the flattering positive social traits are heavily relegated to "us". 4. Money Armstrong Williams was reportedly paid to support certain policies. Reporters that keep their reporting in the "safe middle" (biased toward ignorance), or that draw more viewers, can expect promotions. Do some advertisers implicitly signal pressure on news by the timing and volume of their purchases? 5. Implicit career rewards Some operatives have cycled between media and politics (Pat Buchannan, Tony Snow, informally Joe the plumber); Some news people moved from media to power; Some political operatives manage media semblances (fox news). 7. Workplace Norms and Professional glory Workplace norms, prior precedent and educational flaws (Tuskegee) guide how much "muck raking" reporting can be published. Related, most or all professionals seek the approval of their colleagues. In some instances, perhaps for glory, stories have been entirely fabricated or falsely sourced (Blair NYT, Post, other papers, Pulitzer winner?) 8. Propaganda, etc a) The government at times produces prepackaged news ("release") stories. b) The retired generals scandal, c) Intelligence operations have manipulated perceptions through fabricated narratives (Pat Tillman). d) reports of CNN training or intern program for army media staffers e) There are reports that the US military has multi-million dollar budget for public relations. My recollection of a statement of Senator Gary Hart is that there is no real prohibition on domestic propaganda. It is hard to believe, given operation mockingbird, that the US would give up such a tool if other major nations still employ it. 9. Market Pressure Most news organizations are under much pressure to turn a competitive profit, with the effect that easy stories such as echoing received claims become more common, whereas expensive investigation seems economically less viable. 10. Leaks and manipulation NYT's Judith Miller and WMD. WH selective leaks of a favorable part of an NIE, and non lead of other unfavorable parts. Reported discussions in white house about outing Valerie Plame or getting Joe Wilson. Some reporters were professionally smeared, destroyed and perhaps partially as an result, later committed suicide (Gary Webb). 11. Pressure Producers may at times influence or strong arm news reporters (Amy Goodman); firing of Donahue during war. NYT willingly held the torture authorization story for a long while, and most papers reported it over a year after I discovered the story in a S Hersh book. 12.) Coaching Many guests of interviews shows are on tape being coached by the show hosts on what types of statements are wanted. Clinton was told (by Larry King?) that what another candidate had said about his family after LA riots "was great". An interviewer regarding poverty in LA was advised to talk about hospital and medical disparities and that (by contrast) the lack of hope and comparison to 3rd world would be seen as "obtuse". Larry King is seen flattering Ross Perot saying everytime they say something silly you could say "Hey we are wasting time". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I find that statement particularly egotistical. It is relevant how Australia deals with news as FOX owns our major newspaper. In Australia is is illegal for the media to knowingly lie in a news article. In America it is a common practice and enshrined in law as the case involving the newsreaders who were fired for refusing to read news they knew was a lie revealed. A while back our state newspaper (The Advertiser) carried a story on WMD sourced directly from the U.S media. They were fined a substantial amount for lying. As a result, Powells UN presentation while extensively covered was also followed by counter arguements that had been proven to avoid prosecution (usually on a separate page). To my knowledge counter arguements were rarely presented in the U.S. media until long after it was widely covered in the rest of the world. There are numerous instances of political stories covered here that do not get a mention in America, so absence of mention in U.S. media is not, and can not be, a sole indicator of notability or reliability. Media coverage in the U.S. is so biased that I can never trust them as a source on certain topics without validation from other sources. Wayne (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Trusting US Media Part II

Extended content

Again, a statement by the editor above struck my interests. Here are many news reports that briefly hit the radar but were largely buried (not picked up by other papers, not followed up, rarely on the front page of big papers). Generally there was with no sign that there was any problem with the reliability of the stories' claims. (a) WMD claims were false, and white house was warned they of this by cia (several books say so, and this is denied seemingly only by Bush, Cheney) (b) 2 year delay in covering official authorization of torture (text books caught it prior to most US news), (c) BBC: "dead hijackers" are alive, (d) FBI backpedaled on who the terrorists were (not denied by anyone, but also not picked up) (e) (NYT) the FBI's prior knowledge and tracking of and links to the 1993 terrorists; (f) (several sources) the white house's having been warned several times prior to 9/11 by foreign governments (g) reversal on the reality of gulf war syndrome (recently reported on NewsHour) (h) approximate headline "US let bin laden escape" (I think Newsweek) (i) intelligence operatives were under orders to not track bin laden's family (I think cia's Baer said so) (j) Clark's book: many cia or anti terror officials (Oneill, Beers, others) quit due to reportedly being frustrated that their requests for authority to pursue al queda was receiving push back from high government officials (k) scant reporting that the 9/11 Commissioners themselves said this of the white house and agencies i) cover up, ii) lies iii) obstruction, (video and quotes of commissioners) (l) scant reporting that the US attempted to 'plant' (as we say) wmd in iraq (m) (Wash post, others) that cia agents reported being pressured to distort intelligence, (n) the agreement of the nyt to bury a big story for a year (I think abu ghraib) (o) very timid "echoing" of the false anonymous statements made about Jessica Lynch (p) S Hersh: there is and was much dissent in the US military about torture and the iraq war (q) widespread echoing of US claims that Russia cause the conflict in Georgia, prior to the head of Georgia admitting he himself did so (r) CNN reported a media training program partnership with army psyops (s) Gate's 1991 "Task Force Report on Greater CIA Openness" (t) "Operation Mockingbird" (not a news story, a propaganda program) (u) One could point to 20 stories on 911 alone, beyond those implied here. (v) and one could note 50 more stories on controversies associated with the prior white house (w) reports that terrorist surveillance system targeted journalists (x) reports (author Naomi Wolf) that she and other regular americans were put on terror watch list (y) news reports that police investigated peace groups in the US (wpost, others) (z) Only one more needed here to complete the alphabet :-) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Yikes, fixing formatting

Reliability of the article by Niels Harrit et al., and of the reports about it

Also, for what it's worth, extraordinary claims, i.e. WTC controlled demolition, require extraordinary evidence. The article you reference is anything but extraordinary. —Travis^talk 03:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the article, I don't claim that WTC has collapsed due to controlled demolishing. The article is not about a controlled demolition of the WTC, but about the allegations that this was the case. Nobody doubts that such allegations exist, so this - rather than being an "extraordinary claim" - is an accepted fact. The publication is an important aspect of these allegations, i.e. of the topic of the article, as evidenced by the fact that it is considered an important development both by people who support the allegation and by the public at large. (See the articles in the major Danish newspapers, and the internet site of Videnskap, a science journal sponsored by the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology, where this is currently one of the major news items for the month of April. --Cs32en (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)) The publication has received more public attention than many other publications or facts that are mentioned in the article. --Cs32en (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider non-peer-reviewed publication by non-expert* (by "expert", I mean people whose non-reviewed pronouncements are considered reliable under WP:RS) scientists writing outside of of their fields notable, even if the Danish and/or Croatian press do/es. However, others may differ. Still, the en.Wikipedia essay is WP:BRD; if a bold revision is reverted, there should be discussion and, if possible, consensus, before it's reinserted. Now, Videnskap may be notable, and representative, at least, of the scientific community. Why no German papers or scientific publications picked up a publication originally in German may be a point against it....perhaps there a subtle language variation that indicates to native German speakers that the paper is a joke?

If you hadn't been blocked, we could have been having this discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as my block is temporary, the damage is limited. I have also noticed that you have been approaching the issue of blocking my account with a somewhat more open mind. So, with everything I knew from contributing to the German Wikipedia, I considered your first message to be hoax. (It turned out not to be.) I also would have understood better what Tom meant to say if he had written "The article on 9/11 conspiracy theories is subject to a policy enabling administrators to apply discretionary sanctions".

The journal says that it only accepts papers after a peer review, and the editor-in-chief, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, is a highly respected French researcher. I do not think we should start from the assumption that someone like her would put her reputation in jeopardy by allowing a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed to publish articles that have not been reviewed. (Whoever would make such an extraordinary claim would have to present some extraordinary evidence for it.)

Videnskab still features the article, and they would not do so if they had concluded that the research itself would be bogus. I assume that Videnskab must have been contacted by a number of people who object to the article, so this seems to be a conscious decision on their part. That some news are reported in one country and not in another country is often due to the fact that a press agency in one country has distributed the news, while no agency has reported in another country. This often happens with other news, too.

I don't think that German newspapers have seen the reports and would have actively decided not to publish it. I'm not a linguist, but I haven't seen anything that would make a German news reporter believe that the paper would be bogus. A German newspaper would have seen English reports about this first, in any case. Maybe they have received some e-mails from interested individuals (in English or German), but such correspondence is rarely taken seriously, irrespective of its topic or its content. I have written press releases, and relevant parts of these releases were carried by national and international news agencies, such as AP, so I have some idea how this works. --Cs32en (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you have been caught in the crossfire of an old and difficult dispute on the English Wikipedia. If anything notable or reliable were published about 9/11, it would immediately be reported by the entire American press. What seems to have happened, perhaps, is that a very tenacious group of Truthers have fooled a small number of foreign academics or journalists who are not vigilant enough. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's of course easy to fool journalists, even news agencies. I have not done so myself, but I have seen how a bogus translation (from German to English) of one international press agency was translated back to German by its German subsidiary, so the agency was fooling itself, in some way. Whether journalists have been fooled, however, is not the issue, as nobody has expressed doubt about the existence of the published article.

As for fooling academics, this is also possible, but not as easy as fooling journalists. However, the editor-in-chief, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, is working at the Laboratoire des Matériaux Mésoscopiques et Nanométriques, so she is an expert in the field of the pubished article. Her CV includes, among other items, the following information:

• 2006: Officier dans l’ordre National du mérite.
• 2003: Research Award of the Alexender von Humboldt Foundation (Germany). (one of the most prestigious German awards, Cs32en (talk))
• 2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.
• 1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France.

She certainly does know that any research related to 9/11 is a very sensitive matter, and the people involved in the review process would have known this, too. If anyone in the review process would have had the impression that this was bogus research pushed forward by a cabale of "truthers" within the journal, this person would very likely have contacted Prof. Pileni, the editor-in-chief. If everyone at this journal was a "truther", then Prof. Pileni would probably not be editor-in-chief of that journal, unless we would assume that she herself believes in alternative hypotheses about 9/11. If she would do so, however, there would be no doubt that she would be considered to express an expert opinion on the issue, and this would change the whole basis of the discussion. --Cs32en (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Communication with Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni

I have now written to Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, asking for clarification about the paper, and I would encourage other Wikipedia editor who take an interests in this paper to contact her as well, so that we have multiple sources for the information that she would include in a reply. She might also be very busy, so she might not reply to a single e-mail. --Cs32en (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not received a reply yet. She continues to be chief editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal, according to its website. (One of the advisors has been removed from the list since April 10, so the website seems to be updated from time to time.) --Cs32en (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be of interest to you that I contacted the authors of the paper. Specifically I asked about the papers submission to other peer reviewed chemical journals. They replied that they had submitted the paper to multiple journals but Bentham was the only one that agreed to review it. The others rejected it without review on the grounds that the paper "was outside the purview of the journal" (exact quote from the rejection notification). Purview: noun: the range of interest or activity that can be anticipated. I do not see how a chemistry based paper can be outside the range of a chemistry journal so I assume (as do the authors) it is a case of not wanting to get involved. Wayne (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on getting answers to these questions! Some journals probably do not want to publish anything with immediate political implication. (After all, the nano-materials itself was not something new, from a purely scientific viewpoint.) So there may be a mixture of reasons and motives, most of which are actually legitimate. It's not forbidden to ask or to submit a paper, however. --Cs32en (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand

Hi Cs32en, I don't think my version could replace the current version, except after a lengthy (and somewhat unlikely) consensus-building process. I'd appreciate it if you removed the full text (especially my notice at the top) from the talk page and replaced it with whatever proposal of your own it may have inspired. It is certainly not true that it is intended to "supercede" anything.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done so. Looking forward to the consensus-building process. Citing relevant sources not only from mainstream media, but also from proponents (and opponents) of a specific view, with appropriate attribution, is common and accepted practice on Wikipedia. --Cs32en (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that approach has led to a highly unstable and not very readable article. Once I've got a statement worked out that, to my mind, describes the essential points of the theory, I'm going to try to source it using a few very credible (and uncontroversial, I hope) sources. Since I'm topic-banned, I can't participate in the consensus building process. And I'm actually not all that hopeful about it, like I say.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The credibility of the sources is actually not the criterion here. It must be determined whether they accurately reflect relevant views of either proponents or opponents of the view that the article describes. Reliable sources, i.e. WP:RS sources, of course, help to determine whether this is the case for any particular such source.

So we have, with regard to weighting of sources, an article that has to be regarded as a fringe view article, thus the general guidelines for fringe theories do not apply here. At the same time, the majority of WP:RS sources currently describe this view as a minority view (and even Jones and Gage would probably not dispute that, although they aim to change this), so the wording of the article, and the attribution of citations, should reflect this fact.

The widespread confusion about the different contextual function of the elements that can all be called "sources" is, in my view, one of the basic obstacles for consensus-building. (The other is basically the same confusion with regard to "claims".) Good faith editors, as well as uninvolved administrators, may simply not be aware of this complication, and some people seem to try to exploit that fact. --Cs32en (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think I agree with you. But the subtlety of the distinctions that need to be applied here seems to preclude their having any effect. Right now, my thinking is that Clarke's article in Episteme pretty uncontroversially identifies the work of Jones and Griffin as expressions of the theory. And the article does not need to say anything more than what those two sources tell us. It also cites NIST and Popular Mechanics on the other side. These five sources (Clarke + two on each side) may be enough. Now, Clarke also, in a sense, legitimizes the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a source of statements of the pro-CD position and Screw Loose Change (and various other dubious, virtually self-published debunking) on the other side. While I, as a social epistemologist, strongly disagree with his choice of sources, Wikipedia editors are, I guess, justified in relying on Clarke, who is a reputable scholar, published in a reliable source. But I think it opens a can of worms that can't be resolved adequately in the editing process; if the editors working on the article would agree to this, and limit the sourcing to something like the five sources I've proposed, I think a stable article is possible. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (PS Thanks for your support at RFARB).

I think that, for example, Richard Gage, who represents a different approach from the others, needs to be mentioned. He leaves open the question of whether the 9/11 commission was a cover-up, i.e. devised to be misleading, or whether it has been misled by people that it relied on for their work. As far as I see, he did not provide any really new piece of evidence or argument, but he (or the group, AE911Truth) needs to be mentioned, because we are dealing with the whole issue as a social phenomenon, not as a scientific theory. We also need a more precise description of how the theory developed. For example, I do not agree with the introductory sentence to the effect that, "because X was refuted, Y was brought forward". We also need a closer look at the specific reasons that the proponents of the fire-induced collapse theory, especially NIST, have put forward, not by discussing them, but by taking care to present them as accurately as possible. With regard to the "can of worms", I think it's better to leave it open (it cannot be opened any more, obviously), rather than to let the flawed reasoning that some editors apply with regard to this article spread to other areas of Wikipedia. --Cs32en (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: I'm suggesting closing the can of worms. But I do understand that there are people (on both sides) who would prefer to keep it open. Fortunately, that's not up to me (being topic-banned). I also agree with you about that opening sentence and I've changed it. Gage and AE9/11T might be mentioned in the history section on the basis of the source for the WTC7 section. But we don't need Gage as a source because, like you say, he hasn't developed the theory beyond Jones & Co. Do you mind if we move this discussion to my sandbox?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Slate recently ran a story by Christopher Beam, which includes a reference to AE911Truth. I'll have a closer look at your text in the next few days, and I also would have to check some things first, so I don't mix it up or get it wrong. For example, I always knew the controlled demolition theory as a "secondary devices" theory, but maybe in the beginning, it was formulated quite differently, or presented as explicitly different from the "secondary devices" theories that existed at the time. And I also would have to look again into the NIST report and other official stuff. For now, there may be just to many worms for the can to be closed in a proper fashion. --Cs32en (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. When you have time, feel free to leave your thoughts on my sandbox's talk page. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Content and policy

No need for me to see the sources... you got the point... we can make sweeping statements as to Policy when we look at things in the abstract, but when you look at the specifics it is never as cut and dried. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The actual argument that, in my view, represents an invalid form of reasoning, was the following: "Accepting for the sake of argument that it says what you say it does, I don't think we can reasonably use Prosecution Trial Exhibit P200054, a primary source, to over-ride the secondary sources." The editor who put forward this argument obviously implied that, as a matter of policy, the secondary source would still override the primary source, even if there was consensus that its content is false. --Cs32en (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New WTC7 material

As the new NIST report of Nov.08 now includes an interesting free-fall theory, I thought it is worth adding it to the official WTC7 page. I'm now looking for users supporting me to create an acceptable version of the article, which is Wiki conform and contains the main facts. I've created a first version in the WTC talk page Talk:World_Trade_Center#WTC7 in the hope to get some feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninwiki (talk • contribs) 08:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi Cs32en, it's just my patience running out. I had considered not getting involved in the request for clarification at all. I think that's what I should have done. In any case, I'm tired of certain presumptions about why I bother at all.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that. But why not just let the discussion on the A/E request go ahead, in this case? — Cs32en (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this factually correct:

I would also like to note that, to my knowledge, everyone of the blocks in this arbitration involve conspiracy theorists getting blocked. Except for one, in which MONGO was blocked and quickly unblocked. I find it highly unlikely that only CT editors are the only one edit warring on these articles in the past year.

Ikip (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on the English Wiki for very long, but as far as I have looked back in the archives, the statement is either true or not far from the truth. That collapse theorists may have been seldom blocked may be due to the fact that demolition theorists have seldom requested any blocks, which in turn may be due to the general tendency of collapse theorists to use condescending or intimidating language, which makes people believe that they would be acting with the full backing of the community or the arbitrators (which is probably not true, see Jehochman's recent withdrawal of his topic ban request against me). — Cs32en (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My withdrawing shouldn't have any effect. Tom Harrison has requested clarification; he hasn't requested any specific action. The arbitrators should offer their opinion regardless of what I do. In any case, as Ikip has always pointed out (correctly), the discussion that needs to happen isn't about me. Yes, he's basically right. In the case of Mongo, it is pretty clear that he simply has the support of the community, including the arbitrators. Whatever principles may be shunted to the side, there is general agreement that as long as its mainly "conspiracy theorists" who suffer it does not matter.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is probably a tendency not to interfere if that leads to less trouble on the site. Maybe not too look to closely at the possible downside with regard to the loss of policy coherence and the development of a mob rule mentality on the part of some people. However, if that approach is even unsuccessful with regard to the overall political situation of the community, then it's another matter. The reaction of the arbitrators and others to the two arbitration requests filed by Jehochman shows this: they don't agree with his proposition that only a banned conspiracy theorist is a good conspiracy theorist. Jehochman was obviously thinking he had a solid case given what how he presented it, only to ask me a question and then withdrawing his request without waiting for my reply just two minutes later. You can also look at some of Jehochman's recent communications with other editors. The fact that they are deleting and rewriting parts of the article without discussing this on the talk page is one thing, their polical backing by the community is maybe quite another. --Cs32en (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ARB9/11, as interpreted in practice, does not call for a higher standard of civility and decorum. It is a call for vigilance in fighting conspiracy theorists. Some people (on both sides) like that sort of site. But there are plenty of other internet forums to have that battle. It doesn't interest me. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to contact me by email. I'm outta here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important that all viewpoints on 9/11 are represented fairly in a place like Wikipedia. Every viewpoint should be put to public scrutiny (and that includes the various viewpoints that support the controlled demolition hypothesis, as some of them are mutually exclusive). A better informed public will be able to ask better questions to all sides. If you look at some "truther" sites, the disconnect with the general public discourse is quite obvious. AE911Truth is, of course, a lot better, but 911Blogger, which is a good source on 9/11 news, also has a large quantity of stuff in the blogs that is only loosely connected to 9/11, and some questionable aestetics (well, that's my view). So I consider it important to improve the quality of Wikipedia in that subject area. I also find some other aspects of Wikipedia quite interesting, besides the 9/11-issue (although the barnstar mania is of course a quite strange phenomenon). At the same time, I agree that there are lots of other good place to spend one's time. Feel free to leave me a message any time. — Cs32en (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cs32en, although I complete disagree with you two's views about 9/11, I feel there is enough popular support that your views should be represented on Wikipedia. Whether these views they are factually correct or not is irrelevant. It isn't editors jobs to report the "truth" about an issue, editors should only report in a neutral manner what other secondary sources report. What has happened to the CT is a really bad case of censorship, editors are being punished for their views, behind the weak facade of policy. Ikip (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I direct your attention to [4] as it particularly worries me. As you will see the editor was accused of POV pushing which the admin originally rejected. This was overturned by adding Sock and meatpuppetry behaviour from two years earlier. I requested the original accusation be dealt with and this new one handled separately in the interests of fairness and also argued that actions two years ago should not be penalised today. They then found a single more recent innocuous statement[5] that would not normally be classed as meatpuppetry by any fair person and topic banned him for a year. What irks me is the inconsistancy in treatment. I have several times seen editors posting requests on other users talk pages to come and support them in an article dispute and this is not counted as meatpuppetry. Separate standards being applied to editors based on their beliefs is wrong. Editors should be banned on what they do not what they think. Wayne (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal — Thank you for your message. You might agree that a comment like "Uh, no, pseudoscience: [...]", in this case from Soxwon, is not conducive to constructive discussion. I am starting any dialogue with the assumption of good faith, but I don't accept bullying or condescending remarks from other editors. You might check this by looking at some non-9/11-related discussions that I have participated in. Regards — Cs32en (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So I take it you retract your attack against me? Verbal chat 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Le me say it as follows: Your comment on my suggestion on Talk:Pseudoscience#Cite_about_widespread_belief_in_astrology started with "WP:OR, ..." However, I did obviously not want to include any interpretation of the source or anything that I would have made up myself. So WP:OR is irrelevant here. As you have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, I assume that you know this. So I just could not assume that your argument would be based on an intention to engage in a constructive discussion. I may have been mistaken in this view, and in this case, I would retract the statement that you refer to. — Cs32en (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of adding OR, but what you said, if added would, OR, and I was against removal. I was simply bringing OR to your attention. Verbal chat 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: You agree that you either (a) mistakenly brought up WP:OR or (b) that you mentioned it in a way that objectively contributed to subsequent misunderstandings, and I agree to retract my statement. (That your comment on the Pseudoscience talk page followed the rather abrasive comment by Hrafn, without actually referring to my answer to Hrafns comment, certainly influenced my interpretation of what you said.) — Cs32en (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we can close this issue as "resolved" or just as "forget about it" or if this is still open. — Cs32en (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Towers vs WTC 7

I see that you've now made the identical edit to the [World_Trade_Center_Seven] section that I made two days ago, and which Soxwon reverted within one minute: (the towers were → WTC 7 was)[my edit]. It will be interesting to see if your edit is allowed to remain, as it's clearly a valid change. Whether it survives or not, I'd like to say "thank you for trying."  :-) Wildbear (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look for the specific changes that were made before, just saw the fact tag. NIST is a WP:RS source, and WP:SELFPUB applies here. I'd also attribute the claim to NIST, if anyone should insist this would be necessary.  Cs32en  02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Ah, I see. I was very confused there. I think WP:TMP might answer some questions for you. Wknight94 ^talk 02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check the page.  Cs32en  02:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." (Wikipedia:TMP#Usage) I agree with the general intent of this policy. Maybe it's possible to transclude content from one section of a page to other section. This also is probably a more general issue. For example, there are diverse opinions on whether the 47-story building that collapsed on 9/11 should be called "Salomon Building", "Salomon Brothers Building", "Seven WTC", "7 WTC", "WTC 7" or "WTC7". It would be quite useful to have a single place for the name, and transclude it to all relevant places in the articles.  Cs32en  03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the 911ct template

Please stop placing the 911ct template on articles that are not directly related to that topic. Also, please remove the ones you've already placed that do not belong. RxS (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed Asner has been in the list of "Notable proponents" of the template. I did not put him in the list. I also reject the authoritarian tone of your message. I have changed the section heading to NPOV wording.  Cs32en  05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll fix them myself...if they are not related to the topic then they don't belong. Sorry for the tone but really...RxS (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Asner has clearly stated his support for the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is mentioned in Ed Asner. I see no reason why the template should not be used in the article about him. Would you object to reinserting the template?  Cs32en  05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 topic is not relevant to his notability, nor does he consistently advocate or publicize it. It’s not part of his public life and he is not an expert in the topic. So, yes I would object. RxS (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that you would like to exclude all people that are notable for anything else except for supporting alternative theories on 9/11. This approach, however, is non-encyclopedic and seems to be driven by POV. The template contains Notable proponents and supporters, not experts exclusively notable for supporting 9/11 theories.  Cs32en  05:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation of POV pushing is ironic, in fact it's down right disingenuous. I'm fine with including those who have played some significant role in conspiracy theories. But not those who may have stated their opinion on the matter once or twice. On the other hand, you'd like to include anyone anywhere who ever indicated their support or curiosity. That template has turned into a hotel where you can check in but you can never check out. Once the words leave someone's mouth, their name gets slapped on this page indefinitely. So no, you're wrong. my approached is more nuanced and encyclopedic than your single purpose editing style. RxS (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have actually removed some people from the list because their statements on 9/11 were just cursorily. People like Ed Asner, who has sent a letter to the 9/11 Truth movement, are very legitimately included in the list. So much for nuances. I've explained the purpose of the template with regard to WP:UNDUE in the TfD discussion.  Cs32en  14:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Message from Tom Harrison

Have you looked at the WP:3RR policy and the subtleties of its application? It seems like a number of your recent edits are reverts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I am not reverting, I am correcting the article according to the complaints that are being made. For example, it's just not appropriate to delete a whole paragraph just because of a broken link (now fixed, and additional links have been added). And if my edits would be reverts, the edits of another editor who is working on the article would have to be considered reverts all the same. I hope you agree that the rules should apply equally to all editors.  Cs32en  17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is if you restore something someone deleted, that's a revert, even if you add a fact tag, even if someone else's edit was a revert, even if your edit is an improvement. But, you're clearly an experienced editor so I'll leave it to you, and to WP:AN3 if necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If the accuracy of the source of some information is disputed, but the factual accuracy of the information is not really in doubt, it's good practice to put in a fact tag and discuss the issue - unless it's a BLP issue, which it is not in this case. These edits are in violation of established procedures of content dispute resolution.  Cs32en  18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)