Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-01 September 11, 2001 attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-01 September 11, 2001 attacks 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-01 September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Normal nick 14:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

In September 11 attacks's talk page.

Who's involved?

Me - a Portuguese guy; MONGO - an American who works for United States Department of Homeland Security; and Tom Harrison - an American.

What's going on?

Well, I tryied to change a section title in this article called "Conspiracy Theories" to the regular and neutral "Controversy". Tom Harrison Didn't let me. Then, I properly justified my change from a NPOV, to what they replyed with highly biased arguments and offtopics wich sometimes i turned into other secctions of the talk page. I tryied to change what I wanted again, but MONGO didn't let me do it. The issue about terminology i'm raising here is present in much of the wikipedia's articles about this theme. In most pages they call all "independent reseachers" "conspiracy theorists". This makes Wikipedia look like propaganda.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like to be able to change that section title from "Conspiracy theories" to "Controversy". If it doesn't happend, at least there should be an "neutrality of this page is disputed" mark at the article.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I've no need for that. But I'd like to have a non-American and non-anti-American mediator, for the sake of cultural neutrality.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes, but i guess I'm too newby to already put myself into that.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

• Comment The sole fact that this user actually wrote down that User:Mongo "works for the Department of Homeland Security" shows the kind of paranoia we have to deal with (the idea that Mongo is being paid by the government to "stop the truth about 9/11 from getting out" is laughable). Both Tom Harrison and Mongo are well respected administrators on Wikipedia, I can not say the same for the user that started this Mediation Cabal. Look at the edit summaries this user made in changing the title to "controversy": Reply "Motivation for the change" on the talk page. You and MOGO are acting like censors of a dictatorship. You should be ashame. This is the kind of madness we have to deal with and when we do something about it the same gang of "inclusionists" attack us whilst ignoring the blatent "9/11 truth" POV pushing by this group of users (which you can expect to come here and cry bloody murder at Mongo and Tom Harrison for being abusive admins). There was nothing wrong with the title, calling the 9/11 attacks being an "inside job" is not "controversy" as that implies that there is at least some concrete factual backing for that theory and significant support, not just fringe support as this does. What angers me though is that people don't see how letting this go on hurts Wikipedia in the longrun. I think I can say, without trying to toot my own horn here, that I do contribute significantly to Peruvian releated articles on Wikipedia. But this is the kind of stuff that makes me want to leave Wikipedia, this kind of attitude of ambivance from the adminship (not all but many) at clear POV pushers and massive attacks on people that try and stop them. Ultimately Wikipedia is going to have to make a choice, between the POV pushers and people like me that contibute in other areas. I only hope that the right choice is made. This Mediation Cabal shouldn't exist period. P.S This user's first edit was on March 31, 2006 and recently we've had hordes of sockpuppets/meatpuppets voting keep on a list of 9/11 truth-related articles. [1]--Jersey Devil 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Quote from Conspiracy theory:

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for a conspiracy claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

Many conspiracy theories are false, or lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously, raising the intriguing question of what mechanisms might exist in popular culture that lead to their invention and subsequent uptake.

The labeling of "conspiracy theories" carries the notion that the theorie is false. Hence, it has a value judgment, when wikipedia should be neutral. Further, many people simply ask and question, or even reject the official story, without elaborating on any new theories. To lable both groups as "theorists" is inaccurate. --Striver 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your selective bolding ignores the very opening statement of your quote: The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for a conspiracy claim. If the term can be used as a "neutral descriptor," then there really isn't much debate here, is there? --mtz206 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Further, see how neither the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate, nor the Kennedy assassination theories are labeled with the pejorative "conspiracy theories", while all three have the same type of arguementation tecnique. Dont forget that it took decades for the goverment do addmit that it was more than one shooter in the Kennedy assaissination, even thogh the evidence was cought on film. Its not up to wikipedia to decide when the official version is correct and when it is not. And again, all people rejecting the official view have not a alternative theory of what happened. --Striver 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What? The government has never "admitted" that there was more than one shooter. The rest of your comments are unreadable.--MONGO 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Try this: John_F._Kennedy_assassination#The_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations--Striver 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

conjecturing that there may have been a second shooter is different from "admitting" it. They don't bloody know. That's why there's a controversy. --Mmx1 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All theories are false until proven to have some credibility of truth. There is no proof of government involvement or anything of that sort when discussing the articles about september 11, 2001. You have yet to provide one example of testimony about the events that would prove the government was involved in any malfeasence, misfeasence or nonfeasence.--MONGO 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I belive i have, but that is not the point. The point is that it is not up to wikipedia to deicide who is right. Further, many rejectors of the official version do not creat alternative theories, but rather demand further independant investigations. --Striver 12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The subarticle is 9/11 conspiracy theories. This section of the September 11, 2001 attacks uses summary style, providing a brief summary of the main subarticle. The heading in the article needs to be consistent with the subarticle name. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Normal nick (talk · contribs) is disappointed that a concensus of editors in the September 11, 2001 attacks article do not wish to change the subheading of one section from "Conspiracy theories" to "Controvery". He has stated that he filed this mediation to Striver (talk · contribs)[2] and was seeking assistance on how to proceed. Then Normal nick seems unoptimistic [3] that mediation will be effective. He then refers to those that he has had disagreements with as assholes [4] and I assume this means he is speaking of me and at least a few other editors as his editing history doesn't show involvement anywhere else. It is a bit repugnant to me that Normal nick could imagine that I am some paid webspammer or something of the sort. I mentioned that asking me to not edit the articles about 9/11 is like asking a glaciologist to not edit articles on glaciers.[5] In fact I know significantly less than a glaciologist does about their field. I think this is ungrounded and believe that if Normal nick would relax a bit, he may understand why we don't overemphasize the impossible.--MONGO 12:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not about you editing or not, this is about the headline of the controversy section being given a pejorative name. And no, there is no consensus for that, there is a long and persistant effort by multiple editors to remove the pov from that page, as is evident by the 15 (!) archives of the article.--Striver 12:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is because no one has proven any of the type of allegations you say constitute the definition of controversy. It is a theory if you have no facts to back up your claims. You have provided no facts that refute the findings of the 9/11 commission or any one of the hundreds of other scientifically researched and peer reviewed articles that have been published in dozens of scientific journals. There simply is no credence to anything from the nonscientific websites that pollute the web with nonsense.--MONGO 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, wtc7 fell in 6 seconds, and wtc1+2 fell in 10 seconds due to gravity alone? Give me a break... --Striver 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Striver, If you think conspiracy theory is an inappropriate pejorative that should not be used on Wikipedia, go and build a consensus for that view. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is pejorative according to the conspiracy theory article, not according to me. And Wikipolicies says it shoudn't give judgment. What more is needed to say? --Striver 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You would need to explain why we should not call conspiracy theories conspracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And you need to explain why shouldn't we call controversy controversy.

What is worst?

• To call controversy "conspiracy theories",

or

• to call conspiracy theories "controversy"?

Wich includes wich? Normal nick 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If it would factualy be a conspiracy theory, as in a theory that is false, it would be correct. But it is you subjectivly claiming it is certainly false, your point of view, a view hotly contested and rejected by the significant minority holding the opposite view, and endorsing the majority view is something wikipedia has vowed not to do.--Striver 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably is not a significant minority. I supose it can be said that more than a half of the world doesn't buy the official story. And the world ain't USA.Normal nick 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Then as Jimbo Wales has said...we make the internet not suck...let them all come here and be educated then. What they "believe" and whether their belief has anything to do with reality are two different things. A theory is an an unproven statement or comment...for the events to have transpired as promugated by those that esposed a government coverup, would have required a conspiracy (an action by three or more associates)=Conspiracy Theory. A controversy would mean that there are two or more scientifically verifiable sets of facts that may conflict. There is little science behind anything that is postulated by those that have stated that there is a conspiracy or government coverup. None of their information has been published in a scientific journal and it is not followed by the world's press as if any of it was based on fact. And for the record Normal nick....there are no private converstaions on Wikipedia...soon as you hit the save button, you have relased it for all to see.--MONGO 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is not a theory that is false, it's a particular kind of narrative like an urban legend. To call something a conspiracy theory is not to take a position on whether or not it is true, just on how it's constructed and what features it has. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If Normal Nick wants the article to be different, he needs to use reasoned argument to overcome the consensus of editors who oppose his changes. I think a lot of Normal Nick's frustration is the result of his unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. It has to be difficult to come here and jump right into a contentious article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice you that my resonable arguments were presented and I feel they weren't contested in a proper "on-topic" and reasonable way. Those I am talking about I presented in Bold Text in the talk page. The one presented above also deserves a reasonable answer.

You are right in telling me that I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia (as an editor). I shall apologise for all the wrong behaviours I may had due to that fragility of mine. Sorry for having called you "assholes" in a PRIVATE conversation. And sorry to have rearranged the sections of the talk page in order to avoid off-topic's over-weight.Normal nick 14:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What we are describing is a conspiracy theory, not a controversy. A conspiracy theory is an objective, identifiabe thing. To call these conspiracy theories contriversies is to call them something they are not, and to give undue weight to the views of the fringe websites that promote them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, this doesn't look controversial at all. —This unsigned comment was added by 207.6.20.172 (talk • contribs) .