This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11: Press for Truth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What possible grounds could there be for deleting this article? It provides good information about a film that has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. It's not a great article, or a complete article, but it is an article, and one with more relevance than many hundreds of other WP articles. -- Nemonoman 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This article contains no information that points to why this documentary is in any way important or relevent. Please add references or additional external links that demonstrate external press coverage this film has received (the current AfD conveniently has a few links that should get you started).-- Isotope23 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've seen it. It's a documentary that presents reasons for concern that 9/11 investigations have to date been inadequate. This tack appears to represent primarily the concerns of the 9/11 widows' and relatives' lobbying group.
The film traces numerous items of concern using historical news stories published in 'legitimate' press or broadcast outlets.
Further the film traces the efforts, successful and unsuccessful, of 9/11 relatives to increase visibility and public demand for investigations and accountability.
The film presents no new theories, no questionable science, no interpretations of videos, etc...in other words, this is NOT Loose Change. Its focuses on the politics of the investigations. To this end it utilizes evidence from legitmate, publicly available news sources that are reasonably verifiable (in fact most of the evidence appears to be thoroughly documented in the "Timeline of 9/11" book, and the film cribs from that book constantly).
It does NOT suggest evidence of "conspiracy"...other than to suggest that the investigations into 9/11 are woefully incomplete, and that by inaction certain public officials are trying real, real hard to keep their jobs.
It also presents the widows and family of 9/11 victims as noble, concerned, full of righteous indignation, etc., in a very favorable and uncritical light.
The film clearly has a Non-Neutral POV, but it presents its POV with good sourcing and cogent arguments, coupled with lots of emotional appeal. In other words, it's a good example of cinematic rhetoric.
I don't agree that the film's conclusions are necessarily right, by the way: I'm speaking only to describe the film in response to this request for information. I do believe that the film is reasonably notable, however, at least notable enough to be included in the WP.
-- Nemonoman 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the article contains enough information of importance to remove the 'importance' tag.
I include this passage from Wikipedia:Non-notability
Please note in the above Wiki Example that no "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are included. Importance is simply asserted.
The "importance" tag references an article Wikipedia:Notability, which is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process..." Editors, says the article "...should not describe it as "policy"".
Please also note that this non-policy guideline refers to Notability Criteria for a number of different subjects. Film, documentaries, even 9/11 cruft have NO notability guidelines.
So let's refer to the tag itself for help
Since this tag was originally applied see [1] a number of relevant edits have been made. Edits expanding the article and adding information regarding its importance include:
The signficance of the article has been documented on the talk page. Edits include:
Please note that "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are in no way requirements in affirming the importance of a subject. The elements listed above clearly meet example standards.
As Wikipedia:Notability says
It appears that the importance tag has been added based on a subjective view of 'unimportance'. I would note that Peephole has from all appearance ONLY edited articles on 9/11, and particularly with with a POV that alternate theories of 9/11 are to be removed or discredited, through a variety of clever means. He or she apparently has the subjective view that this article's notablity is also lacking -- just as he/she feels about many other '9/11cruft' articles.
But the Wikipedia:Notability statement quoted above describes notablity as items that might be argued validly in on WP:AFD. That certainly suggests that the OUTCOME of the AFD argument effectively settles the issue of notablity. If the article were not notable, it would have been deleted.
It is redundant and distracting, therefore, to keep the 'importance' tag in place. It suggest that the matter is not settled.
I will go further and suggest that in this case it is clear that the 'importance' tag is being used not as a request for better editing, but as means to assert that the article is somehow unworthy of being read. It is, in effect, an effort to deny the outcome of the AFD decision, or to suggest that the decision was reached in error.
There's probably room for an 'expand this article' tag or for a NPOV tag or some other tag.
Perhaps, as happened in the past, the tag being looked for is yet another AFD tag?
But not the 'importance' tag, IMO.
Therefore I am removing the importance tag. -- Nemonoman 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this really fall under the Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks? I'm removing it pending verification. The film documents unanswered (and sometimes dubious) questions about the attacks, but it does not offer any speculative theories. Peter Grey 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither importance, nor the question of whether the film is really a documentary, is adequately sourced. (The Indianapolis Star page has expired, so we can't tell if it was commentary, a movie review, or an actual article. Only the latter would be adequate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
See this link. It's a real documentary. Badagnani 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have re-written this article providing more detail on what is in the documentary. I am a new editor so please let me know what you think. Corleonebrother 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this true? "Google has banned the video from its video section because of U.S. Goverment pressure." Badagnani 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, that's why I placed it here on "Discussion." Badagnani 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The linked article does not describe the Muhajadeen as a precursor to al-Qaeda, or at least I can't find where it does so. Can an editor quote the relevant text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding the "9/11 conspiracies" tag. As mentioned earlier in "Discussion," the film is full of questions, with no conspiracies or answers given. Badagnani ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Unlike some other 9/11-themed films, no conspiracy is proposed in this film. The film is full of questions, with no conspiracies or answers given. Badagnani ( talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, User:Badagnani, share your concerns here. So that you can stop the constant reverts.-- Sloane ( talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I followed the referenced cites used in the article and not one is actually about this film. Is this specific film notable? Are there reliable sources about this specific film? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines for the notability of films are outlined in WP:FICT:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. [1]
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. [2]
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. [3]
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
I'm not sure how this film can possibly be considered notable given the above. Perhaps the criteria for the notability of films has changed since 2006? Someone should nominate this article for deletion. I would do it myself but I am not familiar enough with the process. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
References
User:Badagnani seems to have issues with edits made to the article again. He can share them here. -- Sloane ( talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, help me to add this data about budget http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm2209801/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.19.99 ( talk) 09:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11: Press for Truth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What possible grounds could there be for deleting this article? It provides good information about a film that has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. It's not a great article, or a complete article, but it is an article, and one with more relevance than many hundreds of other WP articles. -- Nemonoman 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This article contains no information that points to why this documentary is in any way important or relevent. Please add references or additional external links that demonstrate external press coverage this film has received (the current AfD conveniently has a few links that should get you started).-- Isotope23 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've seen it. It's a documentary that presents reasons for concern that 9/11 investigations have to date been inadequate. This tack appears to represent primarily the concerns of the 9/11 widows' and relatives' lobbying group.
The film traces numerous items of concern using historical news stories published in 'legitimate' press or broadcast outlets.
Further the film traces the efforts, successful and unsuccessful, of 9/11 relatives to increase visibility and public demand for investigations and accountability.
The film presents no new theories, no questionable science, no interpretations of videos, etc...in other words, this is NOT Loose Change. Its focuses on the politics of the investigations. To this end it utilizes evidence from legitmate, publicly available news sources that are reasonably verifiable (in fact most of the evidence appears to be thoroughly documented in the "Timeline of 9/11" book, and the film cribs from that book constantly).
It does NOT suggest evidence of "conspiracy"...other than to suggest that the investigations into 9/11 are woefully incomplete, and that by inaction certain public officials are trying real, real hard to keep their jobs.
It also presents the widows and family of 9/11 victims as noble, concerned, full of righteous indignation, etc., in a very favorable and uncritical light.
The film clearly has a Non-Neutral POV, but it presents its POV with good sourcing and cogent arguments, coupled with lots of emotional appeal. In other words, it's a good example of cinematic rhetoric.
I don't agree that the film's conclusions are necessarily right, by the way: I'm speaking only to describe the film in response to this request for information. I do believe that the film is reasonably notable, however, at least notable enough to be included in the WP.
-- Nemonoman 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the article contains enough information of importance to remove the 'importance' tag.
I include this passage from Wikipedia:Non-notability
Please note in the above Wiki Example that no "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are included. Importance is simply asserted.
The "importance" tag references an article Wikipedia:Notability, which is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process..." Editors, says the article "...should not describe it as "policy"".
Please also note that this non-policy guideline refers to Notability Criteria for a number of different subjects. Film, documentaries, even 9/11 cruft have NO notability guidelines.
So let's refer to the tag itself for help
Since this tag was originally applied see [1] a number of relevant edits have been made. Edits expanding the article and adding information regarding its importance include:
The signficance of the article has been documented on the talk page. Edits include:
Please note that "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are in no way requirements in affirming the importance of a subject. The elements listed above clearly meet example standards.
As Wikipedia:Notability says
It appears that the importance tag has been added based on a subjective view of 'unimportance'. I would note that Peephole has from all appearance ONLY edited articles on 9/11, and particularly with with a POV that alternate theories of 9/11 are to be removed or discredited, through a variety of clever means. He or she apparently has the subjective view that this article's notablity is also lacking -- just as he/she feels about many other '9/11cruft' articles.
But the Wikipedia:Notability statement quoted above describes notablity as items that might be argued validly in on WP:AFD. That certainly suggests that the OUTCOME of the AFD argument effectively settles the issue of notablity. If the article were not notable, it would have been deleted.
It is redundant and distracting, therefore, to keep the 'importance' tag in place. It suggest that the matter is not settled.
I will go further and suggest that in this case it is clear that the 'importance' tag is being used not as a request for better editing, but as means to assert that the article is somehow unworthy of being read. It is, in effect, an effort to deny the outcome of the AFD decision, or to suggest that the decision was reached in error.
There's probably room for an 'expand this article' tag or for a NPOV tag or some other tag.
Perhaps, as happened in the past, the tag being looked for is yet another AFD tag?
But not the 'importance' tag, IMO.
Therefore I am removing the importance tag. -- Nemonoman 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this really fall under the Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks? I'm removing it pending verification. The film documents unanswered (and sometimes dubious) questions about the attacks, but it does not offer any speculative theories. Peter Grey 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither importance, nor the question of whether the film is really a documentary, is adequately sourced. (The Indianapolis Star page has expired, so we can't tell if it was commentary, a movie review, or an actual article. Only the latter would be adequate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
See this link. It's a real documentary. Badagnani 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have re-written this article providing more detail on what is in the documentary. I am a new editor so please let me know what you think. Corleonebrother 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this true? "Google has banned the video from its video section because of U.S. Goverment pressure." Badagnani 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, that's why I placed it here on "Discussion." Badagnani 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The linked article does not describe the Muhajadeen as a precursor to al-Qaeda, or at least I can't find where it does so. Can an editor quote the relevant text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding the "9/11 conspiracies" tag. As mentioned earlier in "Discussion," the film is full of questions, with no conspiracies or answers given. Badagnani ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Unlike some other 9/11-themed films, no conspiracy is proposed in this film. The film is full of questions, with no conspiracies or answers given. Badagnani ( talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, User:Badagnani, share your concerns here. So that you can stop the constant reverts.-- Sloane ( talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I followed the referenced cites used in the article and not one is actually about this film. Is this specific film notable? Are there reliable sources about this specific film? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines for the notability of films are outlined in WP:FICT:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. [1]
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. [2]
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. [3]
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
I'm not sure how this film can possibly be considered notable given the above. Perhaps the criteria for the notability of films has changed since 2006? Someone should nominate this article for deletion. I would do it myself but I am not familiar enough with the process. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
References
User:Badagnani seems to have issues with edits made to the article again. He can share them here. -- Sloane ( talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, help me to add this data about budget http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm2209801/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.19.99 ( talk) 09:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)