Talk:9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 July, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Contents

[edit] Coverage?

The NYT article cited isn't about this conference. Tom Harrison Talk 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what is it about? --Striver 18:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
About the "International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth" meeting which was some 3 weeks earlier. Dysmorodrepanis 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--Striver 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the entrance fee to this thing?--MONGO 09:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I dont remember ever having read that. --Striver 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
According to this [1], tickets were $74 (and less for group sales). --mtz206 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that Alex Jones organized the conference? Tom Harrison Talk 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the article. --Striver 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So is the answer, "Charlie Sheen says so in the youtube video?" Tom Harrison Talk 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that PrisonPlanet cut & pasted the Reuters report onto its website (and if PrisonPlanet is not an official affiliate of Reuters, this could very well be a copyright vio) does not constitute "coverage" of the event. No need for this redundant link (unless all you want to do is provide as many links as possible to PrisonPlanet, but I'll assume good faith...). --mtz206 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You do like to make it hard, dont you? Ok, ill provide 5 new prisonplanet links, maybe then you will be happy. i wonder if you just DO NOT want to see prisonplanet links. Who cares if they copyviod reuter, i dont care, so dont give it to me. The mater is that THEY HAVE covered it, copyvio or not. --Striver 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
No. "Covering" an event means you sent a person to report on the event. Reuters did that. Prisonplanet is simply plagiarizing mirroring the Reuter's account. The link is redundant and unnecessary. --mtz206 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sure. I hope the new links fix that problem.--Striver 00:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I do wonder sometimes how much of prisonplanet et al.'s traffic and google page rank comes from Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They have 5 miljon subscribers, last time i heard. --Striver 00:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Striver, for your self revert. I suggest we all call it a night on this page, and take it up again later. Tom Harrison Talk 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, man, you scared my, it was four reverts in three days! anyhow, lets call it a day. God night. --Striver 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:-) Tom Harrison Talk 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Thanks for the links, but I think they're still problematic:

  • [2] is still just a mirror of the Reuters article
  • [3] doesn't explicitly mention this symposium, and requires registration to view further
  • [4] also requires registration to view further
  • [5] and [6] are mirrors of video content originally posted on Google & YouTube

My concern is that these links require registration to view any original content, and the other free content is has are simply reposts from other sources (sources which don't have excessive advertising). See WP:EL. --mtz206 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, if the aim was to give sources to the event, then those links would be problematic. But those links are there to source thatprisonplanet did cover it. Do you argue that those links are not enough to source that?


Copyvio of Routers? Not our problem. Can be viewd in YuoTube also? Yes, sure, but its not the video that is relevant, its that they are on prisonplanet that is important. Passworded? Other large newspapers do the same with their archive, and we can still refer to those archives. --Striver 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD closed as no consensus, so now we need to make the article useful and informative (to Wikipedia's readers). There are too many links to prisonplanet. Here, as elsewhere, we should follow Wikipedia:External links. On the other hand, and speaking partly for my own benefit, there is no need to go at it like we are killing snakes. Tom Harrison Talk 17:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you quoting Wikipedia:External links, when there is only one single external link? Its perfectly natural to have multiple references to prisonplanet in a topic like this. --Striver 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They are still external links, whether or not they are in a section called "External links." Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is playing with semantics. You are arguing that only a limited amount of sourcing my be done to a single website, and argue that the limited amount is regulated in Wikipedia:External links? I have a hard time ageeing. --Striver 22:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... give me a second, let me read it thouroughly. --Striver 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i see now that Wikipedia:External links is somewhat relevant. For the sake of clarity and constructivity, what are your excat objections to the current article, and what is your proposed remedy? --Striver 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I count five links to prisonplanet.com to support the statement, "The event was covered by...Prisonplanet.com," and then four more to the official website of the event. And then in external links, there's a link to the official site. At a certain point it starts to look like the page's purpose is to send traffic to prisonplanet.com rather than to inform our readers. I think one link is enough to demonstrate that they covered the event, assuming for now that's something important to tell the reader. One link to the official website should be enough. They can provide their own navigation links. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The four links to the official website are all there to verify statments. You know, we need to do that. I added the five PP links due to above discusion in this very same talk page, so i do not appreciate first been demanded links, and then be accused of hiden agendas. My only aim is to have the statments verified. I will remove 3 of the five PP links and hope it will be enough to have all claims in the article souced and verfied.--Striver 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I appreciate your willingness to compromise. Just to be clear, I think you like to link to prisonplanet because you sincerely believe that there is a lot of good information there, and not for any other motive. You understand of course that I do not share your opinion about the quality of the site. Anyway, the next thing to consider might be the direct links to rich media - youtube videos. This is not something I have done much with so far, so I hope to hear from people on what it is appropriate to do in this case. Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Im happy that we understand eachother :) --Striver 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for opinions on direct links to YouTube videos: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Links to embedded YouTube videos --mtz206 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a quesion there. --Striver 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to keep the policy question generic so as not to get embroiled in this particular discussion. Oh well. Specific to your concern, if the video was shot by Prisonplanet folks for the purpose of covering the event, and they are simply using YouTube as the hosting service, then I think it would be fine to have the link to the Prisonplanet page. If, however, that is just some random person's video, and Prisonplanet found the video on YouTube and merely linked to it, then I don't think it counts as "covering" the event. --mtz206 (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Its common practice for news outlets to buy news, for example, Al-jazera gets its news from Reuters, Metro gets it from TT, and so on... --Striver 03:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A news outlet that purchases wire reports should not be considered "covering" the story - they are merely re-printing the wire service's coverage. That's the very nature of Reuters and others' business model. They cover the story, and other news outlets buy their coverage. So, perhaps that phrasing here should be that "the event was covered by Reuters, whose report was picked up by Al-Jazera" or something like that. --mtz206 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not? What you are describing is accurate, and my only motive is to present the infomation somewhere in the article in a accurate form. --Striver 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I don't know exactly why User:Kwh removed the logo, but my guess is that (a) it doesn't add any encyclopedic information to the article (other than letting us know a logo exists on the conference webpage), and (b) per WP:LOGOS, "Generally, logos should be used only when the company and its logo are reasonably familiar" This symposium is not "reasonably familiar".

I think the main criteria for inclusion of the logo should be whether it adds any information of encyclopedic value to the article. To me, it does not. --mtz206 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not "reasonably familiar [to the entire world]", its "reasonably familiar [to those familiar with the object of the logo]". --Striver 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Event Schedule

The event schedule is unencyclopedic. It is fine to include a list of who spoke at the event, and even perhaps the titles of their talks, but a lengthy listing of times (ie, that "Event Check-in & Registration" took place at 9:00am, or that there was a "Special Surprise Guest Presenation" at 4:45pm) is unnecessary minutiae. It should be removed, but since Striver disagrees [7], we should build consensus first. --mtz206 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Event check-in & registration" shows when it started, why is that unnecessary minutiae? If you find out who the special guest is, then change the text to include it. Its all infomative. --Striver 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article about an event. While the dates of the event are important to help place it in a historical context, the specific time of the day in which attendees could register, and the specific order of events is of little encyclopedic value. This article should be about the content of the event. --mtz206 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I simply dissagree. Just go and take a look at The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It has a similar detailed list. See also all of Ibn Warraq book articles. --Striver 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The Gospel article provides a listing of the book's content. That's fine. It does not, however, provide unnecessary detail as to the specific pages of each item. It doesn't state that Acknolwedgements is on page 2, or that the index starts on page 110. That would be minutiae at the level of what we have in this article. Again, listing the speakers and their talk titles is relevant - a detailed schedule adds little to no value. Articles should strive for brevity & clarity. --mtz206 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 10 edits

I did a minor re-write of the article (diff: [8]). Tried to make the opening section more informative, moved the media coverage down, and integrated the schedule into the overview to try to make a more narrative description. I think I retained all original content & names. --mtz206 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmhmmmm... im not sure if im in love with that, but im keeping quite so as to prevent being accused of owning the article... I rather have the emty chair picture back, and i do miss the Event Schedule... o well. --Striver 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There already is a photo of the room filled with attendees - what value is a photo of empty chairs? --mtz206 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It better conveyed the size of the room. --Striver 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News

I sent them this:

Hello. I am trying to represent your work on Wikipedia, and this is what i have accomplished so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_%2B_The_Neo- Con_Agenda_Symposium&oldid=63030449
As can be seen in the talk page, i have spent a lot of time defending the article from being striped down from people that wold do it if they had the opportunity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_%2B_The_Neo- Con_Agenda_Symposium
It has even gone through a vote for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/11_% 2B_The_Neo-Con_Agenda_Symposium
So far, i have defended the article.
Ok, here is the problem: They are now trying to deconstruct the article by claiming that the pictures used are not "fair use".
This can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk: 911symposium_setup_empty_chairs.jpg
The dispute is regarding the pictures you have posted here:
http://www.americanscholarssymposium.org/info/photos.htm
Now, i am convinced that you have no problem wikipedia using these pictures to represent the events. The only help i need is for you to explicitly state this, either by adding a bit of text somewhere on the web site that stats that wikipedia may use it, or that the pictures may be used for educational purpose.
I would appreciate any kind of response, even one that corrects my incorrect assumptions, considering the huge amount of time i am investing in promoting your cause on wikipedia. Thanks
-Striver.

Then i received this as answer on 10 juli 2006 23:16:07:

Alex Jones Productions, Infowars and the American Scholars Symposium authorizes the use of any and all content from AmericanScholarsSymposium.org and any media posted within those contents for educational and other purposes. Alex Jones Productions owns all the material and has the right to allow its fair use. Information may be reposted elsewhere without restriction.
So, Striver/Robert Bloom, you are allowed to use this material. We are adding language to AmericanScholarsSymposium.org website to reflect the right to reuse photos and other materials. Thank you for posting information to Wikipedia as well as defending it. Glad you're looking out for us, and more importantly, spreading the word.
Any chance you had to the opportunity to attend the symposium?
--Aaron Dykes
AmericanScholarsSymposium.org
Infowars.com
Alex Jones Productions

also on 11 juli 2006 00:19:15

By the way, Ray McGovern was not able to attend the symposium. He canceled at the last minute for what he described as a "personal reason." So unfortunately, it is slightly inaccurate to describe him as an attendee. Consider revising, so as to avoid further grounds for challenging the entry? Phil Berg also did not attend at the last moment.
Barry Zwicker, however, did attend at the last minute.
Just a suggestion. The entry looks great. I hope the original remains.
--Aaron

also on 11 juli 2006 00:24:45

Just thinking here... you might also add that C-Span covered and filmed the event (though it hasn't aired yet, so no guarantees against attack).


So i am going to correct the articlce accordingly, and i hope the picture issue is solved. peace. [Man, i just got excited about them bothering to answer poor little me :D ] --Striver 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're trying to get permission to use an image, you should use this boilerplate to ensure they are re-licensing it under the GFDL: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. --mtz206 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Videos

I have found a few videos on Google Video:

I'll leave it up to others to consider adding them to the article. --We11er 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Assertions

I removed the following passage from the article which was completely unsourced and seemed very POV: "The June 2006 L.A. American Scholars Symposium (a panel discussion at the event) was broadcast on C-Span, and is still the most popular online streaming choice for C-Span viewers, according to their companion Capital News website [9]. The program, carried under the banner of C-Span's 'American Perspectives' slot, caused waves across the Internet and the mainstream media after debuting on the weekend of the 29th July 2006, and repeating a further three times. Alex himself is quoted as saying 'It is highly unlikely that Dick Cheney's speech which followed the symposium is responsible for any of the ratings!' ". Since WP:V and WP:POV are the most importanct policies of Wikipedia, I felt it best to remove the passage unless and until citations could be provided. --Satori Son 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquotes

Wiki is supposed to describe content in a neutral fashion, not let the subjects speak for themselves. That constitutes vanity and soapboxing. Are the following really necessary in an encyclopedia?

  • "I'm the next congressman from Florida's 15th district. (Applause) And when I get there, I'm taking the 9/11 Truth Movement mainstream! [...] Its time for the 9/11 Truth Movement [...] [to move] into the halls of Congress."
  • "I just came back from Malaysia [...] A historical moment because it was the first time that a survivor of 9/11 goes directly to a Muslim country to talk about 9/11 [...] we have criminalized, demonized, the Islamic world because of 9/11. So to have the actual last survivor going over there and telling them what really happened was an eye-opener [...] when I left on friday, the actual comment on national news was that malay mindset about 9/11 has been changed forever after our visit."

These aren't even relevant to the event. --Mmx1 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../9/2F/1/Talk%7E9_11_%2B_The_Neo-Con_Agenda_Symposium_98b4.html"