Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Mediation Cabal | |
| 11 conspiracy theories | |
| Article | 9/11 conspiracy theories |
|---|---|
| Status | Closed |
| Requestor | ireneshusband (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) |
| Mediator(s) | Seddon69 & Xavexgoem |
| Comment | unresolvable |
Contents |
[edit] Closing comment
Medcab can't help in this situation. Had things been different, maybe it could have gone better. There are other options to take, but I think editors need to resolve their differences before taking more official DR routes.
(There is a large archive of discussion near the bottom, fyi)
[edit] Request details (Historical)
There is currently a discussion at 9/11 conspiracy theories of a proposal to rename the article "9/11 alternative theories". The same move has been proposed several times in the past, but each time it has reached a deadlock. Since it will undoubtedly come up again, and since the process of debating such a move is gruelling, we need some outside help.
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
Pro-move: User:ireneshusband, User:Mcintireallen, User:Gindo, User:Apostle12, User:Pokipsy76, User:Bulbous, User:WLRoss, User:Oneismany User:Belinrahs (User:Xiutwel also supports the move, but has said that he is willing to concede a draw in the interests of consensus.) O.K. I'm belatedly weighing in on this side. user:wowestWowest (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC). Count in User:Striver.
Anti-move: User:Clpo13, User:Rx StrangeLove, User:Okiefromokla, User:Haemo, User:Ice Cold Beer, User:Peter Grey, User:Dchall1, User:Jc-S0CO, User:Aude, User:Arthur Rubin, User:MONGO, User:DHeyward — have I missed anyone out here?
[edit] What's going on?
The current title of the article 9/11 conspiracy theories has been contentious for a long time now. Recently, the issue was re-opened on the talk page. No consensus was readily apparent, and the extended discussion was marked by hostility and repetitiveness.
Those editors who support a move to 9/11 alternative theories feel that "conspiracy theories" is POV language and that it implicitly casts doubt on the validity of the theories. They argue that not all alternative theories are conspiracy theories, and that the mainstream account also theorizes a conspiracy. They tend to feel that their views are being suppressed or censored, and that policies which support them are being ignored.
Those editors who support the current title feel that "alternative theories" is POV language and that it implicitly boosts the credibility of theories which reliable sources treat as discredited. They argue that the theories explained in the article fit the definition of "conspiracy theory," and that reliable sources use that term far more frequently than any alternative. They tend to feel that the other editors are pushing a fringe agenda, and are repeatedly proposing changes that have no chance of garnering consensus support.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
Parties would like to see this issue discussed in a more structured fashion, with more civility and respect. Each party would like the other to acknowledge that they have valid points in the discussion, and ideally to determine which title (if any) is in best accord with WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS.
[edit] This is an editor dispute
This is the message I posted on the talk page:
It seems to me that "conspiracy theory" is indeed both a neutral word and a pejorative one. Not everyone is trying to poison the well with the term, though. I think this whole thing is a fundamental breakdown of WP:AGF. This is an editor dispute long before it is a content dispute, and the comments here and at the article are evidence of that. I've been copy-editing large parts of the article, and think that introducing the academic meaning of "conspiracy theory" would be far more insulting than the current name of the article. The article still has real issues, and I think that editors should focus their attention on a quality, NPOV article, and not assume that the name is there just to muddy the waters. It's an insignificant bit. Do not judge a book by its cover! I know that the neutrality of "conspiracy theory" is a gray area, and many people feel it is not neutral at all. It's one of those dirty words that can mean either a good thing or a bad thing, so I agree on that point. Compare "liberal", "nationalist", "feminist" etc: people make categorical assumptions. I can't resolve that dispute, and people have been trying for centuries to do so. Assume good faith!! Conduct has been low (abysmally so, in some cases) over here and on the article's talk page. If you want mediation for the article as a whole, I'm certainly up to that task. What I don't want is this going to arbitration; their decisions will almost certainly be to keep the title (per NPOV & V, citing AGF as the root cause of the dispute), and issue sanctions... and in turn disputes will end up at enforcement, which will only fan the fires and make these problems much worse. This is tentative. I'm still open to suggestion. But in light of the incivility, the assumptions of bad faith, I do not think medcab can resolve this naming dispute. Arbcom certainly cannot. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Blockquoting got rid of some of the paragraphing, but oh well. I'd like a general poll on the views expressed here.
Note that I'm not suggesting medcab can't help with anything, it's just we have other things to solve first.
Here's a relevant question: Do you think editors will apologize for their past indiscretions? As a matter of fact, and if you care to take the time, pull up a bunch of diffs of behavior you found unacceptable.
[edit] Reply by (add yourself)
[edit] Reply by Xiutwel
- I feel sorry the mediation is closed. I am even more sorry the case has been brought to ArbCom. I believe there could be a ruling which can help us forward, though, but since they will not rule on content the chances are not so good. If a solution is not found by ArbCom, I would want another mediation attempt, at all the proposals which have been made by parties at the Arb-case. Informal, of formal, I do not know. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply by Wayne
[edit] Reply by Okiefromokla
I think it's irrelevant to point fingers. If there have been many AGF issues here, perhaps it is a sign that this should be closed and dismissed. I personally don't care if anyone apologizes; I don't have any personal qualms with anyone here, and I have largely been ignoring discussion that I didn't find relevant to the topic at hand. I do know that this type of 9/11-related dispute has been going on for years and that this is one part of a ridiculously long effort in which the same arguments have been used over and over by the same users while the majority of editors have been repeating efforts to defend policy. Don't mistake this for assuming bad faith upon anyone, but many of the most avid pushers have readily admitted having strong POVs on the subject. Again, it's pointless to single anyone out, nor do I want to. Bottom line: This case needs to be closed. There's been no consensus, as was the case in the discussion on the article's talk page. Okiefromokla questions? 05:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Close and then what (hypothetically)? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you say there has been a lot of assuming bad faith here; Can you point out or name from memory some examples of this, particularly from the anti-move side? Let me explain. As I said, I've not been paying very close attention here, but I've noticed a lot of editors showing obvious signs of POVs and assuming bad faith in other 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions, and all have been from the pro-conspiracy theory side (not that there aren't helpful editors on this side). I suspect that much of the bad faith you speak of has come from the pro-move side, as was the case during the original discussion (In fact, this request of mediation was made in bad faith, if you remember). If this is true, it should indicate that this case was not warranted and should be dismissed per lack of consensus and lack of civil cooperation.
-
- Upon closing, you should note to all parties that controversial requests that fail in discussion and mediation are not uncommon, and editors should realize when to take a step back for a while. Editors who have consistently been told by experienced editors and administrators that they are being uncivil or that their POV is showing should seriously consider the possibility that their POV may be clouding their judgment. These editors, some of whom have pushing for months or years to no avail, should take their consistently failing requests as further hint. A Rfc on an individual basis for a few select editors may be necessary in the future. In the meantime, good faith editors should accept the lack of consensus after so much discussion. In such scenarios, the status-quo is always given precedence. Okiefromokla questions? 03:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply by Ice Cold Beer
[edit] Reply by JzG
Consensus cannot trump policy. Policy says we go with what the reliable independent sources say; the Truthers want to describe the official story as a conspiracy theory because some sources identify it as a terrorist conspiracy but that is a novel synthesis, a conspiracy theory is different in character from a conspiracy. Reliable independent sources identify the Truther theories as conspiracy theories, that's how they are most readily described, and this mediation is, in the main, yet another attempt to force through a change which amounts to censoring Wikipedia to avoid hurting the feelings of the Truthers, who hold their beliefs dearly. Even if there was not such a vast history of bitter attacks by Truthers on those who defend WP:NPOV and WP:V, this case would still be without merit. Actually, of course, we have literally years of Truther attempts to bias content to their POV.
[edit] Reply by Haemo
I'm honestly just tired. I'm tired of this debate, I'm tired of this issue, and I'm tired of wasting my time on Wikipedia arguing over this issue. I'm tired of arguing with single purpose accounts whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advance their personal POV on this issue. I'm tired of spending hundreds of thousands of bytes of text discussing the same rejected proposals that the same editors brought forward a month ago, two months ago, or two years ago. I'm tired of seeing individuals trying to advance the same position, content, and material in new and different ways which has exactly the same issues as they always have. I'm tired of telling editors that Wikipedia is not here to promote their ideas, and talk pages are not forums for them to discuss their views. But most of all, I'm tired of dealing with the environment that Crusaders for the Truth create on Wikipedia — I'm tired of being called a CIA spook for trying to uphold policy. I'm tired of being called a government shill. I'm tired of being called ignorant, close-minded, or a tool of censorship and repression. I'm tired of being told that I'm responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people because I have the audacity to disagree.
I'm tired. I was tired when this spurious mediation case began, and I'm even more tired now. I don't have the time, or patience to deal with this. This is not going to end, not with this mediation case, and not with anything else. The only thing that will end it is probation for the article and a definitive stance either for, or against, the use of Wikipedia as a venue to promote conspiracy theories. So, suffice to say that I think you should close this case — it was never going to achieve anything, and still isn't. Let this take the natural course — because that's where it's going to go, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. --Haemo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a heckuva lot of tiredness. No need to answer, but: what if wowest apologized? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a nice change, but it's not just him; I could cite a half-dozen other diffs. I don't even really take it personally — I've put with with worse, as an admin. It's just the sense of exhaustion that sets in as it happens again, and again. --Haemo (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I relate to Haemo's comment very much. Single purpose accounts are big players in this debate as well conspiracy-theory debates at the main 9/11 article where there are plenty of editors tired of defending policy. Frankly, I may be more tired of it than Haemo, and he's been involved in it all longer than I have. I've almost stopped paying attention to this mediation debate and I'm one thread away from not looking at another 9/11-related talk page again. Okiefromokla questions? 04:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- ps: In case it wasn't clear, I second closing the case. Okiefromokla questions? 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with single purpose accounts as there are enough editors to monitor and revert them. I also have no problem with Crusaders for the Truth for the same reason. I do have a problem with editors who revert anything that gives credence to any conspiracy theory. Evidence that can support a CT does not make the CT true and POV editors can't seem to make the distinction. They keep bringing up policy in cases where common sense should take precedence. I look at this article and compare it with another comparable conspiracy theory such as this one and the difference in quality is astounding. One article is overwhelmingly pro government and the other is relatively nuetral yet the only real difference between the two is the time passed since the event. Both were even treated in exactly the same way by the media and it was only the passage of time that allowed the media to recently report significantly on the second event. I remember first reading about it 40 years ago and it was treated exactly the same way then as this article is treated now, I would have hoped that with the free availability of information today we could be more neutral now. Another example is the references. For this article ONLY if it supports the official theory is it accepted without a debate. Some RS are scientifically rubbish yet accepted. You look at the other article and almost all the references are conspiracy theory books. Unfortunately official theorists outnumber the conspiracy theorists which prevents the nuetral treatment of the article that would naturally occur if they were equally represented. The main problem I see is the lack of neutral editors. Wayne (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that there isn't. The difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor is, yes, time — but also the degree and kind of scholarship on the subject that time brings. However, if you look at Attack on Pearl Harbor it gives even less credence to conspiracy theories than our 9/11 article. The issue I take here is the repeated insistence on "common sense" instead of policy — the rationale behind ignoring all rules and common sense is that sometimes there are obvious changes which unambiguously improve the project, and no one can object to, but for one reason or another might be limited by rules. For instance, because I'm an involved editor on the article, I probably shouldn't be editing it when it's protected. However, the change I made was unambiguously helpful and no reasonable person would object — although the letter of the law probably would. Making that change is common sense. Doing uncontroversial things which help the project is common sense — even if the rules disagree. What is not common sense is arguing for controversial changes with contradict policies in the face of objections from other people. There's a bromide that "common sense is not so common" — the implication is that you should only be making "common sense" changes when everyone thinks they're common sense. Nearly all of the proposed uses of this principle on these articles are not. --Haemo (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Haemo is quite correct, here. WP:IAR, to be successful, practically requires silent consensus, or a rationale that fosters spoken consensus. Part of common sense on wikipedia is consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- And consensus is a reason there is a problem with the article. On a controversial article, as long as those supporting one side outnumber the other sides supporters, consensus is meaningless. Although important there are times when common sense/truth should overule consensus driven by obvious bias. The problem is how to decide when it happens. I remember being involved in another dispute (and not even a controversial article) where consensus deleted a standard economic expression and replaced it with political doublespeak that was basically meaningless. The reasoning went that the term used by economists "would give the reader the impression the economic statistic described was bad" which ignored that the economic statistic the term was describing was actually very bad. Wayne (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wayne, will you make a reply to my statement? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Obvious bias" is a slippery term. If bias was "obvious", no one acting in good faith would display it. If you think the evidence is 100% incontrovertible that no plane hit the Pentagon, then you'd be shocked by the "obvious bias" displayed by users who say the theory is rubbish. --Haemo (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- And consensus is a reason there is a problem with the article. On a controversial article, as long as those supporting one side outnumber the other sides supporters, consensus is meaningless. Although important there are times when common sense/truth should overule consensus driven by obvious bias. The problem is how to decide when it happens. I remember being involved in another dispute (and not even a controversial article) where consensus deleted a standard economic expression and replaced it with political doublespeak that was basically meaningless. The reasoning went that the term used by economists "would give the reader the impression the economic statistic described was bad" which ignored that the economic statistic the term was describing was actually very bad. Wayne (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Haemo is quite correct, here. WP:IAR, to be successful, practically requires silent consensus, or a rationale that fosters spoken consensus. Part of common sense on wikipedia is consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that there isn't. The difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor is, yes, time — but also the degree and kind of scholarship on the subject that time brings. However, if you look at Attack on Pearl Harbor it gives even less credence to conspiracy theories than our 9/11 article. The issue I take here is the repeated insistence on "common sense" instead of policy — the rationale behind ignoring all rules and common sense is that sometimes there are obvious changes which unambiguously improve the project, and no one can object to, but for one reason or another might be limited by rules. For instance, because I'm an involved editor on the article, I probably shouldn't be editing it when it's protected. However, the change I made was unambiguously helpful and no reasonable person would object — although the letter of the law probably would. Making that change is common sense. Doing uncontroversial things which help the project is common sense — even if the rules disagree. What is not common sense is arguing for controversial changes with contradict policies in the face of objections from other people. There's a bromide that "common sense is not so common" — the implication is that you should only be making "common sense" changes when everyone thinks they're common sense. Nearly all of the proposed uses of this principle on these articles are not. --Haemo (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have no problem with single purpose accounts as there are enough editors to monitor and revert them. I also have no problem with Crusaders for the Truth for the same reason. I do have a problem with editors who revert anything that gives credence to any conspiracy theory. Evidence that can support a CT does not make the CT true and POV editors can't seem to make the distinction. They keep bringing up policy in cases where common sense should take precedence. I look at this article and compare it with another comparable conspiracy theory such as this one and the difference in quality is astounding. One article is overwhelmingly pro government and the other is relatively nuetral yet the only real difference between the two is the time passed since the event. Both were even treated in exactly the same way by the media and it was only the passage of time that allowed the media to recently report significantly on the second event. I remember first reading about it 40 years ago and it was treated exactly the same way then as this article is treated now, I would have hoped that with the free availability of information today we could be more neutral now. Another example is the references. For this article ONLY if it supports the official theory is it accepted without a debate. Some RS are scientifically rubbish yet accepted. You look at the other article and almost all the references are conspiracy theory books. Unfortunately official theorists outnumber the conspiracy theorists which prevents the nuetral treatment of the article that would naturally occur if they were equally represented. The main problem I see is the lack of neutral editors. Wayne (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- ps: In case it wasn't clear, I second closing the case. Okiefromokla questions? 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I relate to Haemo's comment very much. Single purpose accounts are big players in this debate as well conspiracy-theory debates at the main 9/11 article where there are plenty of editors tired of defending policy. Frankly, I may be more tired of it than Haemo, and he's been involved in it all longer than I have. I've almost stopped paying attention to this mediation debate and I'm one thread away from not looking at another 9/11-related talk page again. Okiefromokla questions? 04:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a nice change, but it's not just him; I could cite a half-dozen other diffs. I don't even really take it personally — I've put with with worse, as an admin. It's just the sense of exhaustion that sets in as it happens again, and again. --Haemo (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly you picked an example that is debunked by the truth movement. Secondly I support the official theory anyway and DO NOT believe conspiracy theories so why am I always accused of it? Can it be the general hysteria around even wanting them mentioned? For example Fox's Geraldo Rivera suggested on air the Times Square bombing was carried out by 9/11 truthers, the Simon Weisenthal Center publically claims 9/11 truth organizations are terrorists, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on air said all 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists should be locked up in secret CIA prisons and also requested police to taser a protestor for holding a 911 sign. These are the "unbiased" reliable sources we have to use. It is not a case of believing any conspiracy theory but allowing them to be presented neutrally. Theories can be as "rubbish" as they like but if they are supported by a significant minority they have to be taken seriously and debated scientifically and not suppressed solely on the basis that an editor believes they are rubbish. By obvious bias I mean any editor who persistantly calls the CT's (or the editors who support them) names in edit summaries and reading the talk pages reveals plenty of them (of course this works the other way as well but it is not as common). I honestly believe that, based on their summary comments, several major editors are incapable of acting in good faith when editing conspiracy articles but for the sake of peace I always AGF. Wayne (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply to which statement Xavexgoem? I thought I was replying to WP:IAR and consensus. My view is "how do you decide when common sense/truth should overule consensus?". If on the other hand you are refering to whether editors should apologise for "indiscretions" then I have no problem with it as their own words help separate the wheat from the chaff. Wayne (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator notes
[edit] Mediator actions
| Mediator | Action | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Seddon69 (talk) | Archived discussion to talk | 00:36, February 22, 2008 |
| Xavexgoem (talk) | Replaced request details | 07:28, February 22, 2008 |
| Xavexgoem (talk) | Removed question 7 | 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
| Xavexgoem (talk) | Archived everything but current question | 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
| Xavexgoem (talk) | Closed case | 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2 (Q#7 here)
Nearly Everything Discussed
