| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | 9-11 conspiracy theories |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Mojokabobo, OpenFuture |
| Mediator(s) | Vermin1302 ( talk); Mr. R00t Leave me a Message |
| Comment | Awaiting feedback from requesting party; Okay. Main problem is the very concept of the idea is a violation of WP:NPOV |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
Mojokabobo OpenFuture Ghostofnemo Arthur Rubin Hipocrite
What is the dispute?
Greetings! I have been having a lengthy debate in the discussion page for 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have been having troubles gaining any sort of consensus or agreement with the editor OpenFuture. It is really a simple edit that I want to do. I will try to make the argument simple.
In the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, in the section titled World Trade Center Collapse, I found a portion of text that I believed to be biased. The paragraph is the third in the section and goes like this: "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility. [1] Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. [2] [3] [4]
The first statement is a cherry picked statement from the source. If you actually click the source and read the article, the article is about contrasting the mainstream POV with the group scholars for 9/11 truth, which goes on to state that they are a tiny majority of scientists who consider it the job of the scholar to always question that which has been told to us.
I wanted to include that text, which would balance out the idea that the mainstream scientists/NIST refuse to debate the 'conspiracy theorists' by mentioning that there is a minority of scientists who question the official findings (this is a minority viewpoint article, so it is not undue to give the minority viewpoint).
This suggestion was shot down repeatedly by OpenFuture. Every single possible reason that you can imagine was given.
To make things absolutely simple, here is the text as is:
"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility. [5] Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. [2] [3] [4]
And here is what I want to change it to so as to enhance neutrality:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have examined and rejected the theory. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. [2] [6] [7] However, a current petition signed by more than a 1,000 architects and engineers states that they question the results of NIST investigation, and calls for a new investigation. [8] [9] [10]
- References
- ^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
- ^
a
b
c
Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007).
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J Engrg Mech. 133 (3): 308–319.
doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved August 22, 2007.
As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...]
- ^ a b Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 26, 2009.
- ^ a b Asquith, Christina (September 7, 2006). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
- ^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
-
^ Cite error: The named reference
Chroniclewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
- ^ Jennifer Harper (February 22, 2010). "Inside the Beltway: Explosive News". The Washington Times.
- ^ "The AE911 Truth Petition". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.
- ^ "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth home page". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Retrieved March 10, 2010.
How do you think we can help?
I don't know. A part of me has been thinking about just giving up, because I've written dang near 5 pages of text in the discussion section trying to get this section to be unbiased, to no avail. Is it really WP Undue to include this text? OpenFuture has consistently tried to claim that it gives undue weight to the group.. but this is a minority viewpoint article so I don't see the problem.
Mediator notes
Just a thought, if these sources from the paragraph you spoke of earlier that is apparently biased was properly cited than you should look at what source it came from and see if it can be called a reliable source. Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Mr. R00t's comments above. If the source was properly cited, and the reliability of the source is in question, I would suggest removing the reference entirely, or searching for a more credible source to replace it. Vermi ( talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Some notes:
- The use of "however" may come across as weasely, as though it's being used to negate the previous statement. Usually called a WP:Coatrack.
- Extraordinary claims (things that are generally considered WP:Fringe) ought to have explicit attribution. The Washington Times, for example. Remember not to cite the primary sources.
A note on WP:Fringe: It's an ugly word, I think many of us can agree. Beyond that, though, it is a good guideline. A rule of thumb is that if someone calls something WP:Fringe, it probably is WP:Fringe (but not necessarily fringe, if you get my gist) and so needs to be introduced in a very careful way, and with due weight in its proper section.
Just some thoughts. -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input. It's appreciated to hear some tips. Mojokabobo ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see too many problems here. Looks like interesting and referenced data is being added to an article. This is an article about a controversy, so the point should be to document all the notable arguments made, properly referenced. On that note, I don't see why the mention of NIST and mainstream scientists refusing to debate about the issue should be removed. It's a common phenomenon when it comes to controversial theories, and should be mentioned when it happens.
I agree that "however" is a bit problematic, and if the passage can be rewritten to avoid it, it'd be better. Zigorney ( talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, there's a reliable secondary source that positively states the silence of NIST and other mainstream scientists, correct? Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
As an involved party, apparently (though I was never informed), I reject mediation as stale. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | 9-11 conspiracy theories |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Mojokabobo, OpenFuture |
| Mediator(s) | Vermin1302 ( talk); Mr. R00t Leave me a Message |
| Comment | Awaiting feedback from requesting party; Okay. Main problem is the very concept of the idea is a violation of WP:NPOV |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
Mojokabobo OpenFuture Ghostofnemo Arthur Rubin Hipocrite
What is the dispute?
Greetings! I have been having a lengthy debate in the discussion page for 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have been having troubles gaining any sort of consensus or agreement with the editor OpenFuture. It is really a simple edit that I want to do. I will try to make the argument simple.
In the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, in the section titled World Trade Center Collapse, I found a portion of text that I believed to be biased. The paragraph is the third in the section and goes like this: "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility. [1] Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. [2] [3] [4]
The first statement is a cherry picked statement from the source. If you actually click the source and read the article, the article is about contrasting the mainstream POV with the group scholars for 9/11 truth, which goes on to state that they are a tiny majority of scientists who consider it the job of the scholar to always question that which has been told to us.
I wanted to include that text, which would balance out the idea that the mainstream scientists/NIST refuse to debate the 'conspiracy theorists' by mentioning that there is a minority of scientists who question the official findings (this is a minority viewpoint article, so it is not undue to give the minority viewpoint).
This suggestion was shot down repeatedly by OpenFuture. Every single possible reason that you can imagine was given.
To make things absolutely simple, here is the text as is:
"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility. [5] Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. [2] [3] [4]
And here is what I want to change it to so as to enhance neutrality:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have examined and rejected the theory. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. [2] [6] [7] However, a current petition signed by more than a 1,000 architects and engineers states that they question the results of NIST investigation, and calls for a new investigation. [8] [9] [10]
- References
- ^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
- ^
a
b
c
Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007).
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J Engrg Mech. 133 (3): 308–319.
doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved August 22, 2007.
As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...]
- ^ a b Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 26, 2009.
- ^ a b Asquith, Christina (September 7, 2006). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
- ^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
-
^ Cite error: The named reference
Chroniclewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
- ^ Jennifer Harper (February 22, 2010). "Inside the Beltway: Explosive News". The Washington Times.
- ^ "The AE911 Truth Petition". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.
- ^ "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth home page". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Retrieved March 10, 2010.
How do you think we can help?
I don't know. A part of me has been thinking about just giving up, because I've written dang near 5 pages of text in the discussion section trying to get this section to be unbiased, to no avail. Is it really WP Undue to include this text? OpenFuture has consistently tried to claim that it gives undue weight to the group.. but this is a minority viewpoint article so I don't see the problem.
Mediator notes
Just a thought, if these sources from the paragraph you spoke of earlier that is apparently biased was properly cited than you should look at what source it came from and see if it can be called a reliable source. Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Mr. R00t's comments above. If the source was properly cited, and the reliability of the source is in question, I would suggest removing the reference entirely, or searching for a more credible source to replace it. Vermi ( talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Some notes:
- The use of "however" may come across as weasely, as though it's being used to negate the previous statement. Usually called a WP:Coatrack.
- Extraordinary claims (things that are generally considered WP:Fringe) ought to have explicit attribution. The Washington Times, for example. Remember not to cite the primary sources.
A note on WP:Fringe: It's an ugly word, I think many of us can agree. Beyond that, though, it is a good guideline. A rule of thumb is that if someone calls something WP:Fringe, it probably is WP:Fringe (but not necessarily fringe, if you get my gist) and so needs to be introduced in a very careful way, and with due weight in its proper section.
Just some thoughts. -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input. It's appreciated to hear some tips. Mojokabobo ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see too many problems here. Looks like interesting and referenced data is being added to an article. This is an article about a controversy, so the point should be to document all the notable arguments made, properly referenced. On that note, I don't see why the mention of NIST and mainstream scientists refusing to debate about the issue should be removed. It's a common phenomenon when it comes to controversial theories, and should be mentioned when it happens.
I agree that "however" is a bit problematic, and if the passage can be rewritten to avoid it, it'd be better. Zigorney ( talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, there's a reliable secondary source that positively states the silence of NIST and other mainstream scientists, correct? Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
As an involved party, apparently (though I was never informed), I reject mediation as stale. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)