This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2009. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original AfD was made in April of 2009 when the movement just started. Now, satisfying the concerns of the editors agreeing with the deletion in April, there is much more information out there backed by RS for a separate article. The political movement is much more well known since its inception and has branched away from Glenn Beck, achieving notability. -- Triadian ( talk) 23:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The current draft is sympathetic in tone. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
None the less it is political, and the article should be edited to reflect this obvious fact. The very first sentence states it is non-political but the article goes on to profess it's anti-government TEA party affiliation. I don't recall standing 'against the government' as being one of the sentiments felt on 9/12/2001. This is the underlying philosophy of the 9-12 Project. Clean up that, and the article might be somewhat accurate. As it stands it is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.202.2 ( talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've started this page and yes, it is a mess right now, but I hope with a collaborative effort here we can clean it all up. It needs a lot of work. I've listed the 9 principles and 12 values and given a relatively unsourced intro to start from. We could use some reliable sources for the criticism section, the events section... and well, all sections actually. If any of you have any ideas on the best way to go about getting this article in shape, please share. Right now, I'm just one man on a mission. -- Triadian ( talk) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
9/12 Project →
9-12 Project — Change slash to dash per
Wikipedia:SLASH.
Triadian (
talk) 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Triadian - I have added a couple of photos I took on 9/12 - please feel free to delete, reduce or move around as you see fit. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Mission Statement (abbreviated) - This is a non-political movement. The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created.That same feeling – that commitment to country is what we are hoping to foster with this idea. We want to get everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again.
Ask yourself these questions:
If you’ve answered YES, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull back the curtain, you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them. [1]
I moved this here so we can pull from it without advertising the group on the front page, which is unarticle-esque. Will revise. -- Triadian ( talk) 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In some articles, well we had it at one time in IBDP but they got rid of it, the Mission Statement for an organization is put in a nice little blue box. I don't know how to do the html for that, mebbe you are better at that than me. Whatever you think. I'm easy. ;-) Regards, ObserverNY ( talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Places to start: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=9-12&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1230
The problem is picking genuine criticism from what appear to be angry rants such as this one. Soxwon ( talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if one were to argue that this topic now is notable enough to warrant an article (something I completely disagree with), there is a ton of info that is not sourced, or only covered by one tiny local paper. Notability does not mean we have carte blanche to write about whatever we want here. Please stick to only what is covered by the reliable sources. — Mike : tlk 04:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I removed a lot unsourced of information per WP:WEIGHT. Just a reminder, this is not an advertisement for the organization. It is a summary of what reliable sources have reported on, regarding the 9/12 project. — Mike : tlk 04:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Triadian, I'll remind you to assume good faith and not accuse me of letting "personal bias influence what is considered promotional". Companies make wikipedia pages for themselves all the time, and add a bunch of information that, while not biased, is promotional in nature. Usually, this is info that has not been reported on by the media much, or has been reported on only in passing (the article referenced simply mentions it -- i.e. the 'taxpayer march on washington' articles), and it was exclusively info of that nature that I removed.
You claim that there are plenty of other sources out there that could be used for what I removed (i.e., the info pertaining to the logo, the info pertaining to the organizational structure, the info pertaining to the 9 values and 12 ideals, etc...), so please replace the fact tags with proper references ASAP. Remember, even if the 9 12 project its self is deemed to be notable, we must still stick to reporting only information that is notable about the 9 12 project. Per WP:WEIGHT, this means if few or no sources have reported on something, it doesn't belong in the article. I will not remove the violating material for another day or two (per WP:PRESERVE), but please properly source everything quickly. If it is clear that nobody is interested in properly sourcing this stuff, it will get moved to this talk page for people to work on until it is not in violation of wikipedia policies. Again, this has nothing to do with bias. The 9 12 project has received a small amount of press for very specific things, and those are what this article needs to report on; nothing more, nothing less. — Mike : tlk 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible efforts could be hampered here, in the aspect of charting the accurate measure of an events 'notable' quotient, by the fact the media is underreporting it? Certainly it would look unbalanced if all the sources came from Fox, which has had the only extensive coverage. Yet to see the affects of this, all one has to do is live near a major city or be a 9/12r or have a 9/12 neighbor yourself, or watch youtube videos of the events. It is not that I think that it is not good to take how noteable something is into account - but I would expect even wikipedia would not make the mistake of thinking that if no one reports it it didn't happen. I would guess that a measurable percentage of the populace, though not as large as for the tea party protests, knows about the 9/12 project, and so it would seem noteable enough they might search for information one what it is, as it is not a self-descriptive title, etc. This does however bring up the quandary of how to accurately report when there are few sources to pull from. ```` —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.28.204.79 (
talk) 09:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:MOS comment - footnotes should go after punctuation. Just thought I would mention it. Morphh (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder, per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion, op-eds may only be used as sources for the opinions contained within, and not for statements of fact. This includes
Also, please remember that glenn beck's show, his website, the project's website, or other organizations involved with the 9 12 project (i.e., FreedomWorks) should be used as a source only with caution and care. — Mike : tlk 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I don't know where else to put this comment: I just want to state also, that this is not just about Glenn Beck and the 9/12 project website. I'm trying to get the article away from that. -- Triadian ( talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Per the statements of opinion clause, the op-eds we are using are only used for the opinions within. I would consider the statement "The project claims to be nonpartisan" as a valid opinion to be used, although I would like another source. Come on people, where is my backup?! I can't be the only one editing this article. Sources need to be put in there! Facts need to be presented. We need to figure out what can stay and what has to go! -- Triadian ( talk) 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
ObserverNY, to answer your question, we don't use Beck because he is not a reliable, third party source for WP:NPOV factual information on this topic, except when reporting on the project's own claims, views, etc... Since, as you put it, "he is the one who launched the 9/12 project", he is most certainly a first party source. He speaks for the project, he is the project, and thus we must consider that anything he says about it could be self-serving. Obviously, when it comes to the aims and views of the project, as declared by Beck, he is a perfectly fine source. However, if you were to say that the organization's wanting to find 56 congressmen to "anonymously stand against government corruption and become whistle blowers" is "symbolic" of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, you may not use beck's site as a source. The reason for this, is you have gone beyond reporting on views, and have started to assert views as fact (while WP:NPOV violating in the process). Whether or not something is "symbolic" or not is a POV. I hope I have been clear. — Mike : tlk 06:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So here we go. I'll pose the question: which of these sources can we actually use?
Eh, it's a start. Sources already in use not listed. -- Triadian ( talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We had our first act of vandalism today. I'm so proud. It was properly rolled back. -- Triadian ( talk) 02:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have given the interested editors ample time to come up with sources for the remaining unsourced, or improperly sourced information. To make this stuff easy to find, I have fact-tagged the key phrases in the article. Please find proper sources, or the information has to go, per WP:RS and WP:V. — Mike : tlk 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It appeared that someone tried to bring the criticism section back to life. I've since deleted it, as what it said was not true, and only had one source (from USA Today). Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the peacock words banner since I believe I've removed all the words that can't be sourced. I've tried to be as neutral as possible here. The history section needs some work. As for the "not all significant viewpoints" banner, are there viewpoints that should be included that aren't already here? If so, let's get to work on that with some sources and such. I agree with Jzxpertguitarist that we should avoid a criticism section, so we need to incorporate any criticism in other ways. It's all open for discussion. -- Triadian ( talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the page The 11/3 project should be merged with this one, since the 11/3 project was a satirical response to the 9/12 project and doesn't really have the notability to be a stand-alone article. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Merger - I don't see how The 11/3 project merits its own page. Pdcook ( talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete The 11/3 project - It already has mention enough here; there's no need for a merger since it's already been merged, just delete it. -- Triadian ( talk) 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Pdcook ( talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this actually done? I can't see any mention of the 11/3 project here, and it's a bit weird to get redirected here when there is no mention of it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.88.72 ( talk) 11:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A quick check of the history shows that an IP user removed the response section which featured the content in question with a comment saying: removed irrelevant material, commentary from comedians is not part of wiki facts. It appears since then nobody has brought it back which I agree with since I don't think the 11/3 movement is an actual movement, so I don't see any reason it needs to be mentioned. You're right though, it is a little weird that the 11/3 project redirects here with no mention of it, but thus is wiki. Ink Falls 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliefappearance is making unconstructive edits to this page. I'll be away for a while and won't be monitoring this page, so someone should keep an eye out. Pdcook ( talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the eponymous 9 principles and 12 values because that seems rather central to the whole topic(it's in the organization's name, right?) Apparently someone else had done it before, but it was removed(?) One question though: the primary source for the 9 principles, glenn beck's own www.the912project.com, has numerous typographical errors. Eg,
I don't think I have the right to spell-check his founding principles, but rather than throw a whole bunch of [ sic]'s around them, i corrected the capitalization and left the "who" with a [ sic].
First, the 9/12 Project does not qualify as a political movement. The TEA Party movement is clearly a 'political movement,' but the 9/12 Project is more of a Manifesto since it is a declaration of principles 'political in nature.' Second, as either a political movement or manifesto, it shouldn't be said to have been 'founded' (since a foundation typically relates to an organization, business, or some other institution), but instead 'introduced,' 'written,' or 'published.' There is also an implied assumption in the lead that the values and principles expressed by the 9/12 Project are that of the founding fathers, but there is no citation or source to support that information. Since the intentions of the founding fathers are a subject of debate and interpretation in constitutional law and US history, I suggest changing this in order to appreciate the complexity of the historical debate. That being said, I'd like to propose something like this for the lead. Any help would be greatly appreciated:
"The 9/12 Project is a political manifesto created by American talk show host and radio personality Glenn Beck. On the March 13, 2009 episode of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel, Beck introduced the 9/12 Project, stating that its mission is "to bring us all back to the place we were on Sept. 12, 2001 ... we were not obsessed with red states, blue states or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created [citation 3, Standard Journal]." Though 9/12 refers to the day following the September 11th Attacks, it also represents the 9 Principles and 12 Values Beck believes represent the Founding Fathers' view of the United States.
The 9/12 Project has strongly influenced the TEA Party movement, serving as a sponsor of the Taxpayer March on Washington on September 12, 2009. Although Beck and other supporters of the 9/12 Project describe themselves as nonpartisan, it is largely perceived as an American conservative movement by political analysts and the media."
I'm putting together the sources and citations, so the language is subject to change. But hopefully you all see where I am coming from, at least in the effort to clean up the lead. Treefingers1206 ( talk)
Someone please nominate this article for deletion again. 128.211.198.168 ( talk) 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I left this page alone largely for a few months and now it's become another propoganda piece. Editors, please read the arguments we've had on this talk page before doing substantial editing. We had reached a nice happy consensus on what all the sections should say in a balanced and SOURCED manner. For political articles in particular, Wikipedia's policies need to be followed closely because as you know political orientation can be very divisive. Everything in this article must be SOURCED. The sources should drive everything, not personal perceptions... unless you can source the points with neutral sources. We report what the verifiable and reliable sources say... no original research. 912Project.com is not one of those neutral sources. While you can say what that website says the 9/12 Project means, you can't use it as your primary source of info and expect this article to have credibility. So, either we go far back into the past and revive the old article and do our revision from there or we fix it like it is. -- Triadian ( talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
What is a "personal responsibility group"? Are there anti-personal responsibility groups? This term doesn't even make sense as an ideological statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefingers1206 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the 9/12 group websites I've looked at have been updated lately and Beck has long since gone bye-byes. Time to start using the past tense when referring to this movement? FOARP ( talk) 11:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
...and now their website has gone down. Yup, this group is definitely an ex-group. Use the past-tense. FOARP ( talk) 09:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 9-12 Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.yournorwin.com/norwinstar/article/local-912-project-picks-steam{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cherokeescout.com/articles/2009/09/01/news/doc4a9d879be7708517445245.txtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 9-12 Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2009. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original AfD was made in April of 2009 when the movement just started. Now, satisfying the concerns of the editors agreeing with the deletion in April, there is much more information out there backed by RS for a separate article. The political movement is much more well known since its inception and has branched away from Glenn Beck, achieving notability. -- Triadian ( talk) 23:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The current draft is sympathetic in tone. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
None the less it is political, and the article should be edited to reflect this obvious fact. The very first sentence states it is non-political but the article goes on to profess it's anti-government TEA party affiliation. I don't recall standing 'against the government' as being one of the sentiments felt on 9/12/2001. This is the underlying philosophy of the 9-12 Project. Clean up that, and the article might be somewhat accurate. As it stands it is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.202.2 ( talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've started this page and yes, it is a mess right now, but I hope with a collaborative effort here we can clean it all up. It needs a lot of work. I've listed the 9 principles and 12 values and given a relatively unsourced intro to start from. We could use some reliable sources for the criticism section, the events section... and well, all sections actually. If any of you have any ideas on the best way to go about getting this article in shape, please share. Right now, I'm just one man on a mission. -- Triadian ( talk) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
9/12 Project →
9-12 Project — Change slash to dash per
Wikipedia:SLASH.
Triadian (
talk) 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Triadian - I have added a couple of photos I took on 9/12 - please feel free to delete, reduce or move around as you see fit. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Mission Statement (abbreviated) - This is a non-political movement. The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created.That same feeling – that commitment to country is what we are hoping to foster with this idea. We want to get everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again.
Ask yourself these questions:
If you’ve answered YES, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull back the curtain, you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them. [1]
I moved this here so we can pull from it without advertising the group on the front page, which is unarticle-esque. Will revise. -- Triadian ( talk) 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In some articles, well we had it at one time in IBDP but they got rid of it, the Mission Statement for an organization is put in a nice little blue box. I don't know how to do the html for that, mebbe you are better at that than me. Whatever you think. I'm easy. ;-) Regards, ObserverNY ( talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Places to start: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=9-12&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1230
The problem is picking genuine criticism from what appear to be angry rants such as this one. Soxwon ( talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if one were to argue that this topic now is notable enough to warrant an article (something I completely disagree with), there is a ton of info that is not sourced, or only covered by one tiny local paper. Notability does not mean we have carte blanche to write about whatever we want here. Please stick to only what is covered by the reliable sources. — Mike : tlk 04:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I removed a lot unsourced of information per WP:WEIGHT. Just a reminder, this is not an advertisement for the organization. It is a summary of what reliable sources have reported on, regarding the 9/12 project. — Mike : tlk 04:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Triadian, I'll remind you to assume good faith and not accuse me of letting "personal bias influence what is considered promotional". Companies make wikipedia pages for themselves all the time, and add a bunch of information that, while not biased, is promotional in nature. Usually, this is info that has not been reported on by the media much, or has been reported on only in passing (the article referenced simply mentions it -- i.e. the 'taxpayer march on washington' articles), and it was exclusively info of that nature that I removed.
You claim that there are plenty of other sources out there that could be used for what I removed (i.e., the info pertaining to the logo, the info pertaining to the organizational structure, the info pertaining to the 9 values and 12 ideals, etc...), so please replace the fact tags with proper references ASAP. Remember, even if the 9 12 project its self is deemed to be notable, we must still stick to reporting only information that is notable about the 9 12 project. Per WP:WEIGHT, this means if few or no sources have reported on something, it doesn't belong in the article. I will not remove the violating material for another day or two (per WP:PRESERVE), but please properly source everything quickly. If it is clear that nobody is interested in properly sourcing this stuff, it will get moved to this talk page for people to work on until it is not in violation of wikipedia policies. Again, this has nothing to do with bias. The 9 12 project has received a small amount of press for very specific things, and those are what this article needs to report on; nothing more, nothing less. — Mike : tlk 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible efforts could be hampered here, in the aspect of charting the accurate measure of an events 'notable' quotient, by the fact the media is underreporting it? Certainly it would look unbalanced if all the sources came from Fox, which has had the only extensive coverage. Yet to see the affects of this, all one has to do is live near a major city or be a 9/12r or have a 9/12 neighbor yourself, or watch youtube videos of the events. It is not that I think that it is not good to take how noteable something is into account - but I would expect even wikipedia would not make the mistake of thinking that if no one reports it it didn't happen. I would guess that a measurable percentage of the populace, though not as large as for the tea party protests, knows about the 9/12 project, and so it would seem noteable enough they might search for information one what it is, as it is not a self-descriptive title, etc. This does however bring up the quandary of how to accurately report when there are few sources to pull from. ```` —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.28.204.79 (
talk) 09:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:MOS comment - footnotes should go after punctuation. Just thought I would mention it. Morphh (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder, per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion, op-eds may only be used as sources for the opinions contained within, and not for statements of fact. This includes
Also, please remember that glenn beck's show, his website, the project's website, or other organizations involved with the 9 12 project (i.e., FreedomWorks) should be used as a source only with caution and care. — Mike : tlk 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I don't know where else to put this comment: I just want to state also, that this is not just about Glenn Beck and the 9/12 project website. I'm trying to get the article away from that. -- Triadian ( talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Per the statements of opinion clause, the op-eds we are using are only used for the opinions within. I would consider the statement "The project claims to be nonpartisan" as a valid opinion to be used, although I would like another source. Come on people, where is my backup?! I can't be the only one editing this article. Sources need to be put in there! Facts need to be presented. We need to figure out what can stay and what has to go! -- Triadian ( talk) 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
ObserverNY, to answer your question, we don't use Beck because he is not a reliable, third party source for WP:NPOV factual information on this topic, except when reporting on the project's own claims, views, etc... Since, as you put it, "he is the one who launched the 9/12 project", he is most certainly a first party source. He speaks for the project, he is the project, and thus we must consider that anything he says about it could be self-serving. Obviously, when it comes to the aims and views of the project, as declared by Beck, he is a perfectly fine source. However, if you were to say that the organization's wanting to find 56 congressmen to "anonymously stand against government corruption and become whistle blowers" is "symbolic" of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, you may not use beck's site as a source. The reason for this, is you have gone beyond reporting on views, and have started to assert views as fact (while WP:NPOV violating in the process). Whether or not something is "symbolic" or not is a POV. I hope I have been clear. — Mike : tlk 06:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So here we go. I'll pose the question: which of these sources can we actually use?
Eh, it's a start. Sources already in use not listed. -- Triadian ( talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We had our first act of vandalism today. I'm so proud. It was properly rolled back. -- Triadian ( talk) 02:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have given the interested editors ample time to come up with sources for the remaining unsourced, or improperly sourced information. To make this stuff easy to find, I have fact-tagged the key phrases in the article. Please find proper sources, or the information has to go, per WP:RS and WP:V. — Mike : tlk 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It appeared that someone tried to bring the criticism section back to life. I've since deleted it, as what it said was not true, and only had one source (from USA Today). Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the peacock words banner since I believe I've removed all the words that can't be sourced. I've tried to be as neutral as possible here. The history section needs some work. As for the "not all significant viewpoints" banner, are there viewpoints that should be included that aren't already here? If so, let's get to work on that with some sources and such. I agree with Jzxpertguitarist that we should avoid a criticism section, so we need to incorporate any criticism in other ways. It's all open for discussion. -- Triadian ( talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the page The 11/3 project should be merged with this one, since the 11/3 project was a satirical response to the 9/12 project and doesn't really have the notability to be a stand-alone article. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Merger - I don't see how The 11/3 project merits its own page. Pdcook ( talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete The 11/3 project - It already has mention enough here; there's no need for a merger since it's already been merged, just delete it. -- Triadian ( talk) 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Pdcook ( talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this actually done? I can't see any mention of the 11/3 project here, and it's a bit weird to get redirected here when there is no mention of it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.88.72 ( talk) 11:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A quick check of the history shows that an IP user removed the response section which featured the content in question with a comment saying: removed irrelevant material, commentary from comedians is not part of wiki facts. It appears since then nobody has brought it back which I agree with since I don't think the 11/3 movement is an actual movement, so I don't see any reason it needs to be mentioned. You're right though, it is a little weird that the 11/3 project redirects here with no mention of it, but thus is wiki. Ink Falls 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliefappearance is making unconstructive edits to this page. I'll be away for a while and won't be monitoring this page, so someone should keep an eye out. Pdcook ( talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the eponymous 9 principles and 12 values because that seems rather central to the whole topic(it's in the organization's name, right?) Apparently someone else had done it before, but it was removed(?) One question though: the primary source for the 9 principles, glenn beck's own www.the912project.com, has numerous typographical errors. Eg,
I don't think I have the right to spell-check his founding principles, but rather than throw a whole bunch of [ sic]'s around them, i corrected the capitalization and left the "who" with a [ sic].
First, the 9/12 Project does not qualify as a political movement. The TEA Party movement is clearly a 'political movement,' but the 9/12 Project is more of a Manifesto since it is a declaration of principles 'political in nature.' Second, as either a political movement or manifesto, it shouldn't be said to have been 'founded' (since a foundation typically relates to an organization, business, or some other institution), but instead 'introduced,' 'written,' or 'published.' There is also an implied assumption in the lead that the values and principles expressed by the 9/12 Project are that of the founding fathers, but there is no citation or source to support that information. Since the intentions of the founding fathers are a subject of debate and interpretation in constitutional law and US history, I suggest changing this in order to appreciate the complexity of the historical debate. That being said, I'd like to propose something like this for the lead. Any help would be greatly appreciated:
"The 9/12 Project is a political manifesto created by American talk show host and radio personality Glenn Beck. On the March 13, 2009 episode of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel, Beck introduced the 9/12 Project, stating that its mission is "to bring us all back to the place we were on Sept. 12, 2001 ... we were not obsessed with red states, blue states or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created [citation 3, Standard Journal]." Though 9/12 refers to the day following the September 11th Attacks, it also represents the 9 Principles and 12 Values Beck believes represent the Founding Fathers' view of the United States.
The 9/12 Project has strongly influenced the TEA Party movement, serving as a sponsor of the Taxpayer March on Washington on September 12, 2009. Although Beck and other supporters of the 9/12 Project describe themselves as nonpartisan, it is largely perceived as an American conservative movement by political analysts and the media."
I'm putting together the sources and citations, so the language is subject to change. But hopefully you all see where I am coming from, at least in the effort to clean up the lead. Treefingers1206 ( talk)
Someone please nominate this article for deletion again. 128.211.198.168 ( talk) 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I left this page alone largely for a few months and now it's become another propoganda piece. Editors, please read the arguments we've had on this talk page before doing substantial editing. We had reached a nice happy consensus on what all the sections should say in a balanced and SOURCED manner. For political articles in particular, Wikipedia's policies need to be followed closely because as you know political orientation can be very divisive. Everything in this article must be SOURCED. The sources should drive everything, not personal perceptions... unless you can source the points with neutral sources. We report what the verifiable and reliable sources say... no original research. 912Project.com is not one of those neutral sources. While you can say what that website says the 9/12 Project means, you can't use it as your primary source of info and expect this article to have credibility. So, either we go far back into the past and revive the old article and do our revision from there or we fix it like it is. -- Triadian ( talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
What is a "personal responsibility group"? Are there anti-personal responsibility groups? This term doesn't even make sense as an ideological statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefingers1206 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the 9/12 group websites I've looked at have been updated lately and Beck has long since gone bye-byes. Time to start using the past tense when referring to this movement? FOARP ( talk) 11:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
...and now their website has gone down. Yup, this group is definitely an ex-group. Use the past-tense. FOARP ( talk) 09:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 9-12 Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.yournorwin.com/norwinstar/article/local-912-project-picks-steam{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cherokeescout.com/articles/2009/09/01/news/doc4a9d879be7708517445245.txtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 9-12 Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)