User talk:Cs32en

This account has been named as a suspected sock puppet in a sockpuppet investigation. Please exercise extreme caution when communicating with this user. Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful. Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

Template:Do not delete

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.

Why I support a new investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001

People who read this page might wonder why I am interested in the events of Sept. 11, 2001, so I give a brief explanation here.

On the day of Sept. 11, I was in the capital of a large Asian country, and, like everyone else, I was stunned by what I saw. Video from CNN, with commentary in a language I did not understand, was one of the few news sources I had. Internet connections broke down or were very unstable. My first thought was: Am I safe in the place where I was at the time? As I assumed that an imminent large-scale attack on the city where I was at the time was not in the interest of any conceivable source of such an attack, I concluded that there would be no reason for panic. However, I also remembered a news item from a few days earlier, citing a US military officer that warned Russia not to violate North American airspace during a scheduled exercise of the Russian Air Force.

As many German citizens, I have been opposed to the policies pursued by former U.S. President G.W. Bush. Like the German Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Joschka Fischer, I did not believe in claims that the government of Iraq would be involved in the conspiracy that perpetrated the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. I was very sceptical of the claims that Iraq would pursue a program to develop and produce weapons of mass destruction, and I considered much of the evidence presented by the U.S. government as unreliable or forged. It was not so much the opposition to the policies of the U.S. administration as the methods it used to advance its case that reduced, in my view, the reliability of any statement by the U.S. government, including statements on the events of 9/11.

At that point, I had a look at some alternative hypotheses about what happened on that day. These hypotheses (no plane at the Pentagon, thermobaric bombs, etc.) seemed outlandish to me, and there is indeed overwhelming evidence that they are not true. I believed for some time that the behaviour of George W. Bush at the Booker Elementary School in Florida would be evidence that Bush knew about the attacks, and that he knew he was not in danger. This assumption is probably held by most people who question the official investigations into the events of Sept. 11. However, if Bush knew, he would have also known that he would behave in a suspicious way if he would not take action immediately. So I rather think that Bush or people very close to him wanted to check the Secret Service personnel, the Air Force One security detail, and the Presidential limousine before Bush left the school, because they could not rule out a danger to the President from someone who would have, for example, infiltrated the Secret Service. All alternative hypotheses leave a lot of aspects of the Sept. 11 attacks unexplained, as does the official investigation.

I have not been engaged in any extended discussions about Sept. 11 until February 2009, but I was in contact with people who were posting, among information about many other topics, views and information related to the attacks. I again looked at the Sept. 11 attacks when I received the information that the head of the FBI Counterterrorism Division considered the theory of an architect, Richard Gage, as "backed by thorough research and analysis". Looking at the website that presented the information, I noticed that it was designed in a way quite different from the internet sites I remembered having seen a few years ago.

What convinced me of the need for a new investigation was not all the speculation about whether Bush knew something, or whether Silverstein, the owner of the WTC, would have been involved. Having some background in chemistry and physics, I was convinced of the need for a new investigation by looking at the way the Towers (and WTC Seven) collapsed (video).

Outside of the realm of nuclear physics, the rule of conservation of energy applies. If no explosives were in the building, there would have been only the potential energy of the elements of building available, i.e. gravitational energy. This energy would have to be used to destruct the building (weakened and intact steel columns, and the pulverization of the concrete) and accelerate the elements of the building both vertically and laterally. There is not enough potential energy present that could be transformed into the energy that was needed, and, even if there would have been enough, there would not have been a mechanical way to transform this energy into the pulverization of the concrete. Even if the top of one of the towers would have been dropped from 500 meters above it, this would not have resulted in the pulverization of the concrete. So there must have been a source of energy in addition to the potential energy of the building. NIST, the lead investigative agency of the government, has stated that they did not look for traces of explosives, and this was justified with the argument that "NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive". --Cs32en (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add comments to this text here. This is not intended to be a blog. Any discussions related to articles on Wikipedia on the events of Sept. 11, 2001, should take place on the respective talk pages of these article, or, in conjunction with such discussions on article talk-pages, and as a personal exchange of ideas between Wikipedia editors, in separate sections of this talk page, or on other editors' talk pages. See WP:TALK and WP:SOAP for further information. --Cs32en (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cs32en (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring on this article. However, the paragraph in question was first added to the article by another user on April 4. The paragraph has been modified several times, and I also have modified the paragraph with the aim of improving it, and to respond to complaints with regard to its content. The addition of the paragraph has been reverted several times, without waiting for a consensus to emerge in the talk page. The last removal has been justified with the argument that the paragraph would be in the wrong section. I therefore moved the paragraph to a different section of the article. While I understand that people who just remove or revert things without attempting to find a compromise that takes into account the views of all sides, are subject to being blocked, I do not think that I have acted in this way. An allegation that my account would be a sock puppet account is also being made, although this is not given as a reason for the block. While my account on the English Wikipedia is new, I have been contributing to the German Wikipedia since July 1, 2006 [1]. A small fraction of my contributions to Wikipedia were about the attacks on Sept. 11 (first contribution on March 8, 2009), and my contributions to the German article have helped to develop this article. (One has not been contested by anyone, another one has led to a constructive discussion and a modification of the respective paragraph.) I hope that the decision to block my account is being reviewed, and that my account is being unblocked, or a more specific justification for the blocking of my account is given. --Cs32en (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes. Well you indeed were edit warring and did violate the three revert rule. I don't know, maybe that's acceptable at dewiki, but it certainly isn't here. —Travis^talk 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)

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)

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 ([2],[3]). 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 [4] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Arbitration enforcement

I have started a thread at WP:AE about your editing. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather that you weren't topic banned. All you need to do is acknowledge that 9/11 is a troubled area of editing, and that you'll seek out feedback from uninvolved editors. You don't need to listen to me. Feel free to get advice from anybody else who has had substantial experience on en-wiki. I'd recommend you take a tour of the place and edit a diversity of articles to get a more representative view of how things work here. Jehochman ^Talk 00:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reference to the unrealiable CNN story about "box-cutters" has been removed by MONGO, after a rather difficult discussion, in which an editor who read about the policy issues on the WP:V talk page had become involved. You might have noticed that I haven't changed anything in any 9/11-article from April 9 until today, and I have received a lot of feedback during this time. So the allegation that I would not seek out feedback from anyone who wants to join in the discussion seems rather strange to me.

I am acknowledging that 9/11 is a troubled area of editing (I have never claimed anything to the contrary), and I'll continue to seek out feedback from uninvolved editors (as well as from involved editors). --Cs32en (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Will you test the waters with a few other articles? If you have concerns about reliability of sources, WP:RSN is a great place to ask for help. For questions about undue weight (probably what MONGO was concerned about), there is WP:NPOVN. If you will take concerns to the noticeboards and follow whatever advice appears to be the consensus, I see no need for any arbitration enforcement, and I'll agree to remove my request. Jehochman ^Talk 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)