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:

Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Libertarianism Low‑importance 9-12 Project is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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) reply

I would say it's not really a "movement" at all. At least, not a movement of its own. In what way is it separate from the Tea Party movement? 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 02:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Some of it is the same movement. The largest protest Taxpayer March on Washington was also called the 9/12 Tea Party, organized on 9/12. In any event, the 9-12 Project in itself has reached a level of notability to receive its own article, so regardless of who's movement, what movement, etc.. it's irrelevant. Morphh ^(talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The current draft is sympathetic in tone. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You are correct. It's just a start so I can gather enough info in one place to pass AfD. -- Triadian ( talk) 22:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hopefully, I've cleared up a lot of that. Removing the tag unless objections remain. I know there isn't much criticism yet, but I'm hoping someone can find reliable sources for that sort of thing. -- Triadian ( talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems pretty fact-based now and the too few opinions tag might not be needed anymore. Pdcook ( talk) 22:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I think you have done an excellent job in the creation of this article. I will be happy to try and contribute to the "criticism" section. I think I should have no trouble finding some in what are considered "mainstream" sources. It may have to wait until tomorrow though. ;-) ObserverNY ( talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY reply

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 reply

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:

• Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?
• Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
• Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

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) reply

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 reply

Well, the WP:CVU does that but those are Wikipedia/Wikiproject pages, not articles. The WP:MOS promotes having similar articles in a similar format, so I'm trying to make this look like any other article you'd find on a movement or organization. The blue boxes may look nice, but they don't really look article-esque. Wikipedia has a history of favoring summaries of text rather than transclusions of quotes, so I'm being consistent and going that route. -- Triadian ( talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Generally speaking, WP guidelines discourage 'Criticism'/'Controversy' sections. A better idea would be to integrate both negative, mixed, and positive responses to the project into one section. The Squicks ( talk) 02:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Some reliable sources (for their own opinions and not as statements of fact, of course) could be this critical response from Salon.com and this critical response from CBS News. The Squicks ( talk) 02:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've deleted the section for now. As The Squicks says criticism sections are not encouraged, though we obviously need to integrate negative reactions throughout the article. More importantly "causes more division among the people of the country than unification" is not a prominent criticism as far as I know. Projecting "hatred toward President Obama" is, I suppose, a criticism, but that's not how I would put it. Though all of the following would need actual sourcing, among the most common criticisms of the 9/12 project are: many of it's supporters embrace conspiracy theories such as the "birther" conspiracy about Obama; Beck himself is an entertainer/"rodeo clown" and thus not a serious enough person to be leading a political movement; the outrage directed at Obama for spending and the like was not directed at Bush when he ran up enormous debts; and the makeup of the 9-12 project is overwhelmingly white and has strong undertones (or overtones) of racism. Actually the most common reaction among critics is probably to simply make fun of (or ignore) the "9-12 Project," and to the extent that that is reflected in sources it should also be discussed. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Why would you outright delete a section like that if you were already planning to include some of the previous information? :\ That doesn't make make sense. It would make much more sense to just retitle it to "responses", and then tag it for POV so people know to including the non-opposing/non-critical views, wouldn't it? Not only that but it would a.) be a lot fairer to all the editors before you who worked on that section including citations and b.) better retain the record of the page's edits. I realize this seems like a moot point by now due to the fact that there is a "responses" section that includes criticism, etc., but for future reference, I would advise against outright deletion of a section when there's already a plan to include some or all of the information in said section anyway. It's just kind of overkill, and makes tracking the actual edits and who's added what info, a lot harder, and that's in addition to the fact that it (even if only briefly) removes legitimate material from the article's coverage of its subject. 70.118.24.50 ( talk) 05:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I put the criticism section there in the first place and I don't mind it being deleted now. I just don't know how to "include other points of view" as the tag claims without one. The criticism is out there, but it's not all centralized. Every blog has its own unique opinion, so I don't know how to work that in. We should avoid a criticism section, but as for including criticism into the article, I don't have a solution yet. -- Triadian ( talk) 06:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

There's much more than one tiny paper. Besides, it is a RS and there is more out there. It takes time to get this all in order and no, personal sandbox in this case is not beneficial for the mass editing we need. If nothing else this is a good example for WP:IGNORE, since it's just common sense for article building. There's a guideline out there somewhere to cover it. I can't stay online much longer tonight. Goodnight all. -- Triadian ( talk) 04:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Yes, and I need to remind everyone the UC tag is there for a reason. It's a work in progress and citing things is difficult and takes time. Unless you want an article full of incomplete sentences, bear with us for a while. Find ways to fix any WEIGHT issues. I've invited other editors to this page for input. We need counterbalance here. There are many more articles on Wikipedia that have much more unsourced material than this one. I ask for your patience and not repeated reverts every minute. Rome wasn't built in a day and sandboxing this won't give others a chance to edit this stuff correctly. This is why Wikiprojects have collaborations to fix issues like these. This is why the "FACT" tag was created. Some of us apparently have different styles of editing. -- Triadian ( talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The UC tag doesn't give us license to add inappropriately sourced or unsourced information. Please add information as you find WP:RS and cite properly. This will keep the article accurate and in obedience to Wikipedia policies at all times. Especially in a situation where the very existence of the article may be disputed, adding unsourced or improperly sourced information could be misunderstood as an attempt to create the illusion of added notability. Having the 9 values and 12 principles listed, sourced only to the organization's homepage its self, put the article well into being an advertisement. — Mike :  tlk  04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Triadian, I mean no harm here, but this article was created before in much the same way, sourcing a couple of very small local papers and the project's homepage. Much of what I removed was not simply an unsourced fact, but information that was promotional in nature. I apparently do have a different editing style, as I would find it somewhat confusing to decide what information should be in the article and then find sources. Seems sort of backwards. — Mike :  tlk  04:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You should know very well that there are much more sources than what have just been given. The 9 and 12 principles and values thing is repeated many places. You don't have to throw out all the rules like we're trying to advertise here. Just chill. Besides, I disagree that the info was promotional in nature. It was simply being descriptive. And for the record, I believe this article would easily survive an AfD today. Back then, the article couldn't even pass the Google test, but now it easily can. Don't let personal bias influence what is considered "promotional". Also, I'm not just putting in info and then finding the sources to back them up... you're probably going to have to take my word on it, but it's information that I've found before and I have to find again so I can source it. I'm not just making things up out of the blue and trying to find things for it. I want others to help out with this. I know you're trying to be civil here, but the words you use suggest that you want this article destroyed, and it doesn't seem that beneficial. I am well aware of WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT, etc. A previous editor just tagged the article for sympathetic tone; I ask of you: can you please use tags first and give us time to respond and correct without burying things in the article history? That's what I mean by style of editing. -- Triadian ( talk) 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've tagged the article with a peacock tag, because, despite the too-common general practice otherwise, the editing ideal, per Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:PRESERVE is to fix salvageable material or tag it. ↜Just M E here , now 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

WP:MOS comment - footnotes should go after punctuation. Just thought I would mention it. Morphh ^(talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks. I get them confused with MLA essays. -- Triadian ( talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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

• [ [1]
• [ [2]] (also a WP:PRIMARY violator, depending on whether the "marion star" is considered a "mainstream" newspaper)

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) reply

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) reply

Mike - You appear to be a long time editor here at Wikipedia so I need for you to explain something to me. How is it not permissible to use Glenn Beck as the primary source of information for this article when he is the one who launched the 9/12 Project? I am going to refer you to a series of articles here in Wikipedia about an educational program(me)in which almost EVERY source is attributed to the organization that sells the program(mes) IBDP... EVEN to the point where supporters of IB have fought (and won) at including proprietary IB sources which are not accessible online and must be purchased.

Just as an aside, not for addition to any article, but I appear in Beck's show today on 9/12 Moms. And he smells good. (Okay, okay that's WP:OR, I know..... LOL!) ObserverNY ( talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY reply

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) reply

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) reply

So here we go. I'll pose the question: which of these sources can we actually use?

• [3] Fox13 News story, Utah rally
• [4] Salt Lake Tribune news
• [5] Topeka's 9/12 org news article
• [6] Ft Worth
• [7] This one is sad lol
• [8] A brief, yes, but this one gives out one key piece of info that we need about the grassroots.
• [9] Backs up key points.
• [10] something
• Colbert Report's mock movement: The 10/31 project
• [11] "fiscal conservatives"
• [12]
• [13] Not this source per se, but the msnbc commentary, just criticism sake?
• Tons of op eds and opinion commentary from news org's

Eh, it's a start. Sources already in use not listed. -- Triadian ( talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Found a USA Today article [14] 98.21.147.240 ( talk) 14:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Because this is a national story I would limit sources to national news sources, like USA Today. Also, if only Fox picked up a story it would be a non-notable news event, because basically they are reporting on events led by one of their employees. However this does not exclude using local coverage for local 9/12 groups, provided they have notability for their own articles. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that national sources will generally trump the local news sources in giving a generalized picture, but in doing so we lose the "grassroots"/local aspect of the organization. It's not just Glenn Beck, it's individual chapters doing independent things based upon the national project's "ideals" (which they may or may not follow exactly as intended i.e. anti-Obama rallies) so I think local articles tell a more accurate story. This goes along with WP:TOWN since I don't think they are run-of-the-mill yet. In a nutshell, I say don't start removing local news sources until there is a more national, unified and uniform presence in the media. -- Triadian ( talk) 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Sorry for my leave of absence for this article, but I've gone ahead and sourced a lot and reworded some things. There's still a lot to be done. I removed a little bit of vandalism along with the edits. The history section needs the sources now. We can use the primary source, Glenn Beck's actual words if anyone can find it, as a basis for finding the secondary sources (that aren't blogs). Google can't find what I need because I can't phrase the search correctly. I'm open to any further suggestions and everyone else is free to add. -- Triadian ( talk) 04:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Support Merger - I don't see how The 11/3 project merits its own page. Pdcook ( talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Agreed. Pdcook ( talk) 13:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I think maybe an extra sentence or two in the 9-12 Project page could be warranted. Maybe even a section entitled response or criticism. Either way, I'll probably move some (not all) of the content from The 11/3 project to this page and redirect to this page (or section). Pdcook ( talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I would agree with this. It honestly doesn't need more than a sentence or 2 (certainly not a whole article), but I didn't think it really warranted deleting the entire The 11/3 project page without mentioning it somewhere on this page. Inks.LWC ( talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, do that. I'm in favor... just no criticism sections. -- Triadian ( talk) 02:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Pdcook ( talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

An IP user removed the Response section and I added it back. The IP user then trimmed a few sentences out of it, and I think that is fair. It seems fine now. Pdcook ( talk) 17:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

10-4, I also found his last edit to be unconstructive and bordering vandalism. Will keep an eye on it. Morphh ^(talk) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Reliefappearance has a history of conflict and I've posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reliefappearance if anyone wants to monitor that. Pdcook ( talk) 16:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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,

• "America Is Good." and "I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life." [capitalization]
• "I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to." ["who" should be "whom"]
• "I do not answer to them, they answer to me." [run-on sentence: comma should be replaced by semi-colon.]

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)

This article was very neutral, but now it seems very sympathetic again. Glenn Beck may have launched it, but he doesn't claim to be its leader, and the organizations have gone with their own approaches. Where are all the sources we once had? They can't all be used to back up that one last fact at the end. -- Triadian ( talk) 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Someone please nominate this article for deletion again. 128.211.198.168 ( talk) 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I've cleaned up the lead a bit more, including the source information. I've also attempted to provide criticism to address the balance; however, almost every mention of the 912 Project in reputable sources is either a short sentence in a piece about Beck or mentioned briefly as an affiliation of the TEA Party movement.

It is hard to really defend the case for having a 912 Project page; its doesn't have much notability outside of the Tea Party movement or Glenn Beck. But, then again, because it is often distinguished as a group involved in the Tea Parties, and because it has inspired 912 groups, it seems notable.

On that note, I think we should treat it solely as Beck's manifesto, as opposed to organization, club, or political entity; it is often cited as a group/website started by Beck that has inspired people to start 912 activist groups, which are hardly distinguishable from Tea Partiers. An analogy would be like the distinction between Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which outlined the principles and pillars of communism and called for action, and the various Communist parties formed around it. What do you think? Treefingers1206 ( talk) 20:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

...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) reply

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:

• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.yournorwin.com/norwinstar/article/local-912-project-picks-steam
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.cherokeescout.com/articles/2009/09/01/news/doc4a9d879be7708517445245.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022153327/http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a20_5protest.7057960oct18%2C0%2C3460654.story to http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a20_5protest.7057960oct18%2C0%2C3460654.story

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC) reply

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718180311/http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090919/NEWS/909199983/-1/rss06 to http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090919/NEWS/909199983/-1/rss06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022102830/http://www.wyff4.com/news/21331154/detail.html to http://www.wyff4.com/news/21331154/detail.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply