Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I would have userfied it if not for the fact that its creator has been permablocked. (Radiant) 09:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1

This is a copy and paste from the September 11, 2001 attacks article which was created by those who failed to gain concensus for their changes in the main article and is therefore a POV fork.--MONGO 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep The debate isn't over, neither side has concensus, and this page is to create a proposed version that's less POV, not a POV fork. Right now an RFM has ben filed but I'm wondering if it will go through, especially due to past comments by mongo, like saying mediation won't help fix the article.--Acebrock 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This appears to be a work in progress. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is in the talk namespace and the need for this page arose from a small, but tenacious group of disruptive editors and administrators who refuse to allow the majority of editors to add any balance to the article. This page allows the majority of dissenting editors a place to discuss and draft a version of the article that conforms with Wikipedia's NPOV policy wihtout the disruptions from these editors. --Cplot 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cplot has been blocked [1] for two 3RR violations on the September 11, 2001 attacks article in less than three days, and had made three reverts to the related Steven E. Jones article and was only saved from probably going over 3RR on that article by my protection of the page on his preferred version. If you can't POV push conspiracy theory nonsense into regular article space, you don't go and try and work on a rewrite outside of that article. The conspiracy theories have an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories and there is a short summary of their nonsense and a link to that article from the main article. You're most definitely not in the majority.--MONGO 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you know full well that the disciplinary actions taken against me are part of a vindictive approach, by a small group of relentless editors, to punish editors they disagree with. The admin who blocked me was involved in these debates and so did so inappropriately. This is not a POV push, this redraft is to make the article comply with NPOV policy All civil editors are invited to join intio the discussion and redraft. My position is that the conspiracy theories have no place in the article or even to have their own artilce. They're not notable enough around 9/11 attacks. Finally, I was the one who requested the protection on the Steven Jones article to avoid a potentially libelous editor to the article. --Cplot 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you violate 3RR you get blocked...that is policy. I protected the Steven JOnes article before I saw you had requested for the protection, but after i saw yu had, I notated there that it was protected. You added a long list of well known CT books to this fork on this edit [2], so not sure what you mean when you claim that conspiracy theories don't belong when you add links to books about them. I am trying to assume you have good intentions, but what you need to do is discuss in as brief a format as possible, what changes are necessary to get the real article to be NPOV. If the person who blocked you has abused their admin tools, it should be reported to AN/I.--MONGO 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork which would break edit history if it ever succeeded. --StuffOfInterest 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

comment the draft has it's own history and the intention is to incorporate portions back into the article so it will then be a part of the eidtor history of the main article

• Delete There is no consensus on the 9/11 article to give undue weight to conspiracy theories, as this fork is attempting to do. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: Aude, I think you meant keep. This version gets rid of the conspiracy theory section. --67.37.179.61 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — 67.37.179.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The creators of the article have made no effort at a relevant discussion of issues on the actual article. There has been no RFC and I understand an RFM on the original article has been filed. Let's work within the usual wiki guidelines. --PTR 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My RFC is still listed. apparently you didn't look hard enough
• Delete as nominated and per Aude. I am surprised this was allowed to exist in the first place. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: POV fork, rewrite inappropriate while waiting for resolution of the NPOV violation allegations. Peter Grey 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very bad POV fork that has no consensus and is a circumvention of achieving consensus. --Tbeatty 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename The claim of 'NPOV' may offend some. Rename to 'alternate version' or similar, and make sure page is linked to from the talk page, and it can act as a helpful space available to all editors seeking a better acticle. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless POV fork. The goal is to "present other analyses of the attacks along side the Bush Administrations analysis"... not-so-subtle way of saying "put conspiracy cruft here". Opabinia regalis 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork that is never going to help improve the article. Kusma (討論) 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Unnecessary drama. Weregerbil 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - There is no good reason to have something that is clearly a POV fork exist. And creating a separate page to try to bypass the 3 revert rule looks suspiciously like trying to game the system. Badbilltucker 15:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. By "bypass the 3 revert rule" I guess you mean having a page to edit with some compositional room to commit and commit again without being hounded by a small group of tenacious editors malicsiouly reverting every edit made (no matter it's merit)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplot (talk • contribs)

Response - no and the above statement clearly and repeatedly violates wikipedia policy of assuming good faith, particularly in a case when the user has already been banned from the page in question, in addition to going unsigned. In the event that such a situation were to ever develop, just about every computer in existence has a program which would allow a person to write a proposal on it and then propose revisions on the talk page, even if he had been already banned from the page. Badbilltucker 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per others.__Seadog ^♪ 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attempt to circumvent process. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I compared the two versions and it looks like the main differences were semantics. The forked version doesn't call the hijackers terrorists. The victims were killed, not murdered. Instead of the US determining the names of the hijackers, the US initially suspected the names of the hijackers. Instad of Osama initially denying then admitting the bombing, Osama is quoted only as vehemently denying the bombing. In principle, I don't mind article workshop areas. But the thing is, the fork really seems like it is more geared towards being a terrorist-friendly version of the article, not a neutral version at all. It is not a POV statement to call a terrorist a terrorist. It is not a POV statement to say that a murder victim was murdered. Thus, delete as a POV fork. BigDT 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete admitted POV fork [3] "...return later when their guard may be down" This has all gone sideways a bit but this won't help. Rx StrangeLove 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userify Wikipedia:Consensus can change; if they want to have this version around to argue for, it should be less disruptive than having the same faction editing the article to make the same points. But if there is consensus against it now, it should be out of mainspace. Septentrionalis 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, this is a bad idea. We don't want to have parallel POV forks of articles maintained in user space, and we certainly don't want to establish this as a precedent. I think it must either live or die in article space. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do editors widely believe that this is either new or avoidable? Forks in user spaces are positively customary, especially with controversial articles. Septentrionalis 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Forks for the purpose of creating a usable revision, not forks for the purpose of an article indefinitely living in user space in order to avoid issues that would not be tolerated in an article. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Kind of like a parallel but POV universe? Good point. And you know, Google hits our stuff constantly. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is a rewrite. There is no consensus on these pages, as any user can see here: Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and rename it. There is no reason to delete a rewrite, and it can be done on a users talk page and then pasted into the article, not moved, when its ready. I asked this editor to give me an idea of what they had in mind when they said the article was POV, what they wanted to add, what they felt needed changing, this is their attempt to do that. I say move it to userspace so they can continue their work. --NuclearZer0 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, either where it is or in userspace. Letting them work on a draft, then submit the draft to their opposition, then discuss the two options and merge them might help prevent disruption and edit warring, and in the end generate a better article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.