Wikipedia talk:September 11 victims

Introduction

G'day all! I'll answer the first questions before they are even asked: Is this a proposed policy? That's not what it says. When was it discussed?

The policy section is what is happening now. It's nothing new. It's been discussed at great length, and this is the result. If you want to mark the policy as draft or something, fine, I considered that strongly. But IMO it will achieve nothing. Having said that, if you do mark it draft or proposal, let's also have some idea of how and when you envisage having it adopted. And meanwhile I guess we'll still follow it as a de facto policy. Do you see my point? Andrewa 01:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no consensus for it, so it is not a policy, de facto or otherwise. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. The way to test for consensus is to hold a vote. As I've said below, "consensus" (sometimes as low as ~70%, which I don't consider consensus at all) for individual articles time and again is not consensus for the general policy. The number of people voting on those individual articles, many of which were extremely POV and contained numerous non-verifiable facts, was extremely low compared to the number of people on Wikipedia, and in the vast majority of cases there was significant descent. You're right, consensus isn't exactly unanimity, but it's pretty close. There certainly needs to be a meaningful attempt at reaching unanimity. Consensus certainly doesn't mean that everyone gets their number one choice of a solution. That's impossible. But there hasn't even been an attempt to reach consensus on this issue.

Voting is not the way to reach consensus, however, if this policy received and maintained 80% or greater support I would abide by it. The question would be "Do you support this policy, as stated on (give date here and link to policy as of that date)?" Answers would be "Yes", "No", and "Support with changes". Deadline should be at least a week after it is listed on current polls. And there should be at least 5 days before the poll begins to present arguments in a consise form. During these 5 days the policy can be tweaked to put into the form it will be as of the poll.

Don't forget that not everything on Wikipedia requires consensus. With such a large community, it would be impossible. But policies, pretty much by their very nature, do require consensus, and that really means something rather similar to unanimity in that context. Everyone in the community should be willing to accept every policy of the community. If one doesn't support a policy, she shouldn't be part of the community.

Perhaps we need Wikipedia:Consensus, but I'm afraid the ideas of too many differ too greatly to reach consensus on what consensus means, and how it should be applied. Perhaps we should just admit that we're not a consensus-based community any more. I say this from the point of view that consensus means essentially unanimity. See http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/Consensus.html for a description of consensus which is in-line with my concept of it. It just happened to be the first hit on google when I searched for "consensus decision", so it isn't by any means what I would consider a perfect description of it.

anthony (see warning)

I tried to untangle the comments above to separate what was there before I replied below from what was added afterwards. Anthony has now added them again, and in accordance with the principles of harmonious editing I won't try again. It's not too bad, it just means that you need to look at the page history to make sense of my reply to his initial comment, and that we have two copies of his comments now - unless he decides to delete the copy below, as he did his signature on it. Andrewa 22:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't like thread mode, and I don't like my comments being randomly split apart. However, my comment is getting rather long so I might split it into some subheadings. Feel free to remove or not remove the text below. I released it into the GFDL, you can reuse it as you see fit. If you'd like you can put quotes around it, italicize it, mention that I wrote it, whatever. But please don't add my signature to the copy, as I don't particularly approve of my words being split up like that. See also User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning and the linked pages for a bit more explanation why I do this. anthony (see warning)

I'm sorry you feel I misquoted you before, but in modifying text to which I have already replied I feel you are misquoting me. There was nothing random in my editing, have another look if you really believe that. It was an honest (and I still believe successful) attempt to quote you accurately.

And I certainly didn't add your signature to anything. I moved it with the text to which you had added it. I didn't apply it to anything you hadn't written, nor did I delete anything you had written. The only modifications were to separate your new comments from the earlier comment to which I had already replied, and to indent them. The signature appeared twice in the resulting version because of this indenting, which was confusing only because you had decided not to timestamp it. I decided to respect your decision on this.

You now make some good points above, but how do you want me to reply to them? I'd like to. But there's not much point if you are just going to again change the text of your comments after I reply to them, is there? And much of what you say above now is in reply to my comments below. It's a mess IMO.

I'm all in favour of refactoring, but it's a bit premature here IMO. You say you don't like thread mode. OK, how would you like to proceed?

I had a look at your warning, and I don't think it's reasonable at all frankly. Talk pages work in thread mode. I'm quite prepared to discuss new rules. I'm not happy for you to unilaterally change them. I don't even think it's reasonable to expect people to follow the link to find them, let alone to abide by them when it is you who have joined into an already threaded conversation.

But since you have, here's one suggestion. I'll create a subpage of this one (or you can), and you can copy your case into it (or I will, if you give permission - but I do want your signature on it!). Or we can start from scratch if you like. We'll then have two headings, one for your text and one for mine (and a third for anyone else who joins in and so on). The sections will be mutually in reply each to the others. If you choose to timestamp your signature, then by the dates and times on the signatures it will be obvious who has last replied and to whom.

The threads would still be available in the history, just very hard work to follow, as they already are with your comments above IMO. So would the times of the edits, so it wouldn't really matter whether or not people chose to timestamp their signatures. I just think it would be convenient if they did. But it's a bit threadlike I admit!

This may be similar to the double wiki concept that you quote on your warning page (the link is broken so I can't say for sure), in fact it may be identical to what you propose there except I think I've been a bit more specific. It's the best way I can think of right now to avoid this problem. It might work, would you like to try? Andrewa 23:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not an opinion, it's a fact. The way to test for consensus is to hold a vote. As I've said below, "consensus" (sometimes as low as ~70%, which I don't consider consensus at all) for individual articles time and again is not consensus for the general policy. The number of people voting on those individual articles, many of which were extremely POV and contained numerous non-verifiable facts, was extremely low compared to the number of people on Wikipedia, and in the vast majority of cases there was significant descent. You're right, consensus isn't exactly unanimity, but it's pretty close. There certainly needs to be a meaningful attempt at reaching unanimity. Consensus certainly doesn't mean that everyone gets their number one choice of a solution. That's impossible. But there hasn't even been an attempt to reach consensus on this issue.

Hmmm, I don't agree with that last sentence, but let's pursue this anyway. If we did hold a vote and it came out against you, would you accept it?

If so, how would we arrange such a vote? Is this a possible way forward? I asked you these same questions before, but you didn't answer. I think that silence says a great deal

Don't forget that not everything on Wikipedia requires consensus. With such a large community, it would be impossible. But policies, pretty much by their very nature, do require consensus, and that really means something rather similar to unanimity in that context. Everyone in the community should be willing to accept every policy of the community. If one doesn't support a policy, she shouldn't be part of the community.

While Wikipedia is not a deliberate experiment in community, it is one by accident at times. One thing I have learned is that we need some new concepts. Concepts such as vote and consensus don't apply in their old senses, we need new words, and in practice we recycle the old ones to express these new concepts.

Perhaps we need Wikipedia:Consensus, but I'm afraid the ideas of too many, maybe even a majority, differ too greatly to reach consensus on what consensus means, and how it should be applied. Perhaps we should just admit that we're not a consensus-based community any more.

No. We should keep exploring these new concepts in as much as they are important to building the encyclopedia. Thanks for being an important part of that.

Why don't you try to write a policy such as Wikipedia:Consensus? But be warned, I have had several tries at writing new policies, and Wikipedia:9/11 victims is the first one that shows any signs of doing any good. Worse, I have no idea what if anything I have learned by the previous attempts. It's quite possible that they weren't any help at all (and also possible that they were or will be or both). It's quite a challenge. Andrewa 21:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we just need to agree to disagree on this point. Are you prepared to acknowledge an honest difference of opinion there? If so, how will we move forward from here? Is there any way of testing this consensus that you will accept if it goes against you? Andrewa 06:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not synonymous with "unanimous support". The fact is, consensus to delete has been reached on individual articles time and again. If a position is consistently arrived at for the individual articles, a consensus on a general policy can be assumed to exist.

If Mr. DiPierro wants to show there isn't a consensus, he's going to have to do more than just assert it. -- Cyrius|&#9998 08:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the adoption of the policy

Mark it as draft for a week or two. Need to give people who disagree, like anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) and Everyking, a fair shot at voicing their objections before they see it quoted at them as policy.

That said, the only problem I have with it is that some of the language is cumbersome (a crime of which I am guilty elsewhere).

-- Cyrius | Talk 01:52, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, fair comment, and thanks for the support. Feel free to try to rephrase if you like.

And yes, those are the usual suspects. So, your suggestion is to put a notice such as This is a draft policy and will be regarded as accepted in five days time unless... on it? I considered that. But that's just asking for disputes about what our policy is on policies, and I have no idea what to say after the 'unless'.

I'm wrangling about it and will continue to. Perhaps This is an attempt to codify the existing policy. The text is a draft and always will be, that's what a Wiki is like.

But I think it's fair enough to quote it (the paragraph on policy) as policy right now. It is the policy, we just haven't written it down before in quite those terms.

As for people having their say, well, yes, but there's quite a lot of that on the page already! And that's only the last two relevant votes, there are several more this year alone if you dig them up (but it's a bit of hard work), and at least one currently in VfD. Andrewa 02:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've had my say in several of those votes. My concern is keeping everything on the up-and-up, so nobody can come back and say "this policy doesn't really represent what wikipedians want." I want to be able to say "Memorial and delete - 9/11 victims policy" without having to answer objections to the use of the policy. -- Cyrius | Talk 03:28, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

OK. I think that's impossible, there will always be objections regardless of the process. But I'd certainly like to keep them to a minimum. So, how do I do this? A poll? A notice with a deadline?

It did occur to me that we do have one proven and fairly effective consensus builder: VfD itself! So if someone would like to list this page, in five days we'd either have it supported or deleted. But I don't think I can do that myself, and I don't think the opponents of the policy would be silly enough. Pity. Andrewa 04:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I've had a go at a suitable notice, to try to avoid claiming that this is agreed policy without destroying the effectiveness of the page and risking having it become a(nother) discussion page on the subject that will become useful when pigs fly. Comments? Andrewa 20:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved that coment down here from the top of the page, in hindsight it should have gone here right from the start. Andrewa 01:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Note: This page describes the current practice. At some stage it will become agreed policy, and this notice can then be removed.

At some stage it will, huh? Is this just a natural progression from point A to point B, allowing nothing to interfere? Everyking 20:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion.

It's deliberately vague. I hope the process will be decided by the community. Your suggestions are welcome.

I also hope nothing will interfere with this, yes. Andrewa 01:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about "it will become policy if a community consensus is reached"? If the outcome is predetermined, what's the point? Everyking 01:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Both excellent questions. Consensus was reached long ago, and this is demonstrated by the history of consistent VfD decisions. How would you suggest we further demonstrate this consensus? Andrewa 13:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, you must've had something in mind when you started this page and stated that at some point it would become agreed policy. Everyking 14:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nope. When I started this page I didn't even include the notice. See the above discussion, and the page history.

It's quite pointless me suggesting ways of further demonstrating this consensus, because IMO it's already plain as beak on eagle's face (as the chief said once in Carl Barks' Little Hiawatha). But if you or anyone else who doesn't accept this can suggest ways that you will accept, that would be progress. Andrewa 14:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I will gladly accept and support a policy that states that NPOV, verifiable information on 9/11 victims has a place on Wikipedia. Is the idea here that making the "practice" of deletion "agreed policy" will facilitate the prompt removal of all the remaining victim pages? Everyking 16:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we all know what you want the policy to say.

The idea is both to make VfD a little more efficient, and to reduce the number of times it is needed. I'm not seeking to change any of the eventual results, just to make them a little less trouble. If the best claim the subjects of these articles have to an article is that they perished in the 9/11 attacks, then yes, this will make it both easier to delete them and less likely that they will be innocently recreated. Is that a bad thing? Andrewa 17:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear on how this policy would make VfD more efficient. If the victims are still being nominated for deletion, I and probably some others will still vote keep, and the articles (if it is decided to delete them) will still be deleted according to the usual VfD timetable. I guess the idea is that you will then be able to point to this in a lecture about policy after your votes? Everyking 18:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

<<<<<<<<

The process will be improved in several ways. Here are some of them.

Firstly, people will not need to relist arguments for deletion every time there's a vote, as these are already listed in the archives section of the policy page. Someone might one day refactor them, but I don't see any immediate need for this. Newcomers will be able to see the arguments, and not need to reinvent them, old timers will know they are there and not even need to look at them, just a link will do.

Secondly, perhaps in time you will also get sick of relisting the same old rejected arguments every discussion. We can't force you to do this, but at least you will have the opportunity. This is a similar logic to not feeding the trolls. I don't suggest that you are trolling, but IMO it's a sort of sub-trolling to ignore the consensus the way you do. It sometimes seems as though you are quite deliberately wasting our time, just because you do not agree with the consensus. I doubt I am the only one who feels this.

Thirdly, even if you don't ever give up, the pattern of your behaviour will be even more obvious, and people will be better able to allow for it. Because the impact of this behaviour will be reduced, so will the annoyance factor, and there's more chance of avoiding anger on both sides, and of keeping you as a valued contributor.

I can see it's not easy. You may eventually need to take a holiday to consider your position, but I'm very hopeful you will be back.

Fourthly, discussion here on this talk page may result in a win for you, and the change of policy you want. I don't think it will happen, personally, but also I think there's a lot more chance of it happening here than on VfD. On VfD we are just frozen into prepared positions. That's not good.

I have no intention of lecturing you on VfD, just the opposite. This page will remove any need for that IMO.

Feel free to air the arguments for your proposed altenative policy on this talk page, however many times you may have put them before in other places. This, not VfD, is the place for them. I've made a start below. You can refer to the archives of closed discussions on the policy page, and/or use the links below to find the open discussions now on VfD. Andrewa 22:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it's wrong of me to cast a minority vote? I respect consensus to the extent that I do not believe in doing things in defiance of consensus, but one cannot have consensus until the voices of an array of people have been heard. And if there is, in the future, a policy to delete articles on 9/11 victims, one still has every right to vote against implementations of that policy as long as one does not actually act in defiance of it...I presume you agree with that? And besides, if there truly is consensus -- as I concede there sometimes is in these votes -- my votes should not be causing any trouble for anyone. So I find this logic odd. Also, parts of your response could be construed as subtle threats, but I assume that this interpretation is needlessly paranoid: surely no one would feel strongly enough about deleting information on 9/11 victims to try to threaten dissenters into silence. Everyking 22:57, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly not complaining about your casting votes. If we can't have dissenting votes why have votes at all? But I think we can and should cut down on some of the repetitive discussion that's cluttering VfD. That's all.

I'm very sorry that you find some of my responses threatening. Please accept my assurance that they are not meant to be. Perhaps my remarks could have been better put. I do think you risk annoying people, and that you should think carefully about the wisdom of this. And I don't know how to put that in a non-threatening way, which is a worry.

The strangest thing is that nobody is deleting information, or even proposing to. It's just a matter of where it is stored and how it is indexed. Andrewa 00:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, people don't like to be told to think carefully about the wisdom of what they are doing, as if they are not already. Even if it isn't threatening, it is insulting, and definitely undiplomatic...but either way, it's not important.

OK. Again, I'm sorry if these particular remarks weren't helpful.

What is important is that you accused me of a "sort of sub-trolling" just for voting according to what I think is correct. Can you explain how you reconcile the belief that opposing votes are "sub-trolling" -- I presume you meant counter-productive or motivated by hostile intent -- with "If we can't have dissenting votes why have votes at all?"

OK. Firstly, as I thought I said above, I didn't ever mean to criticise you for voting. Is that clear now? If not, what did I say that gave this impression?

Secondly, the first alternative you offered, counterproductive, is what I mean by sub-trolling. I did not mean trolling, any more than a substub is a stub. Trolling is prohibited here. By sub-trolling I mean behavior that is predictably counterproductive so far as Wikipedia's goals are concerned, but is neither malicious, nor prohibited so far as I know and I'm not suggesting that it should be. But obviously, what is productive and counterproductive here is a matter of opinion.

Finally, I have no objections to the sep11 wiki in principle, but I think it should be reserved for tributes; instead, we are often moving NPOV encyclopedia articles there. Of course, you must be aware that this is a major issue. Everyking 00:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're again going around in circles. The whole question is, are these 'NPOV encyclopedia articles' at all, as Wikipedia uses these terms? There's a consensus that they are not. That's why they are deleted.

How can you say that they are not? Generally they consist of a bare minimum of information: name, date of death, profession, cause of death, age at death, survived by so and so. How is any of that POV? If they include tributes, we can simply move those to talk pages. Everyking 03:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

None of it is necessarily POV. That's not the point at all. The problem is, assuming that by encyclopedia articles you mean articles that meet Wikipedia's standards for an article, that's exactly what these are not, because their subjects do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

You've assumed what you were trying to prove. That's what is circular. Andrewa 04:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, that's just splitting hairs. My point was that moving NPOV material to a tribute site is a poor tradeoff. People who want info on 9/11 victims will naturally look here; I suspect few except active Wikipedians are aware of the sep11 wiki. Moreover, people who want an objective biography may not be pleased with the standards of a tribute site. By including the information here, we commit ourselves to providing proper information on these victims, and leave the sep11 wiki for its intended purpose: tributes, personal experiences, etc. Everyking 04:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Well, I'm not agreed about splitting hairs, but I do think you make some good points there, which I'd therefore like to make more prominent. Were they made in previous votes etc and then lost in the enormous archives? No matter, we have found them now in any case. Watch this space, I'll think about how to proceed. Andrewa 05:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For a start, I've copied the relevant comments to the policy discussion area below. Andrewa 21:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So far as what should be in the Memorial Wiki goes, that's a matter for there, not here. I just wanted to make the point that, AFAIK, no information about the victims is in any danger of complete deletion. It's just being moved out of the Wikipedia article namespace. Andrewa 03:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

policies and guidelines

Copied from my talk page, discussing a different policy but IMO very relevant to this one Andrewa 22:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC):

Now, how do we get it adopted? Can we label it as a draft, and quote it right now as the draft policy?

Wikipedia policies become more "official" as people agree with them, link to them and call them policy, and less official as people disagree with them, and edit them to insert "not policy" qualifiers. There's no hard-and-fast seperation. Martin 13:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New discussion:

Hmmmm. Then I might have a go at removing the "draft" notice in a week or so, assuming nobody objects to its going within that time, and reducing the tone of the internal disclaimers as well. Andrewa 06:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa 03:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the policy itself

Copied from discussion of the process of adoption of the policy above (resetting the indenting and snipping):

Well, I will gladly accept and support a policy that states that NPOV, verifiable information on 9/11 victims has a place on Wikipedia. <snip> Everyking 16:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New discussion:

There is a place for some of this information already. There's a list of their names, and there's the Memorial Wiki. But there is also consensus that their being 9/11 victims does not of itself merit a page in the main article space for each person who died. Andrewa 22:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"But there is also consensus that their being 9/11 victims does not of itself merit a page in the main article space for each person who died." You keep stating this, but it just isn't true. There was no vote on whether or not all 9/11 victims should be included. There were individual votes, some of which survived, and some of which didn't, but that just shows that the people who want to delete the articles are more persistant than those who don't. It doesn't show a consensus, because there is no consensus. anthony (see warning)

We should of course include the evidence of this on the project page, to balance the mounting body of evidence that this consensus does exist and that only two people, two persistent (sp?) people to borrow you term, oppose it. When was the most recent vote that resulted in a 9/11 victim article being kept? Or any such vote, for that matter? Andrewa 04:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I've said, votes on individual articles do not constitute votes on this policy. And that you only see two people who oppose this policy is an addition to the mounting body of evidence that you are either intentionally being deceptive or not examining the issue very carefully. anthony (see warning)

Well, I have no wish to deceive you or anyone else on this matter, so I guess you're claiming here that you see something I don't. One thing you do see that I don't is that there have been votes on VfD that support your view. These certainly belong in Wikipedia:9/11_victims#Archived_discussions, as I said before. Can you remember anything about them? The victim name would be enough for me to find it. It's not all that helpful to claim to have evidence and then to refuse to produce it when asked politely. Andrewa 15:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I think you will see that there are more than two people voting against deleting 9/11 victims. Also, as I've already pointed out, on Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance there are many people who do not believe that fame or importance are criteria for inclusion. Looking at meta you will find a list of "inclusionists". On Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies you will see quotes like "Because Wikipedia is not paper, the only relevant criterion (of those listed on the page) is verifiability.We need nothing more. -- Toby Bartels 21:27, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)" Take a look at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper . While not directly applicable, you'll see comments like "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above?" and "I agree with this one completely. --w:Jimbo Wales". See Wikipedia:Verifiability, where it says "Some Wikipedians say that verifiability is the only criterion needed to decide whether something should be kept, so that any verifiable fact can be included." anthony (see warning)

Actually, in hindsight I was too cautious here, wasn't I? There are places for all of this information. Andrewa 21:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Copied from discussion of the process of adoption of the policy above (resetting the indenting and snipping):

<snip> My point was that moving NPOV material to a tribute site is a poor tradeoff. People who want info on 9/11 victims will naturally look here; I suspect few except active Wikipedians are aware of the sep11 wiki. Moreover, people who want an objective biography may not be pleased with the standards of a tribute site. By including the information here, we commit ourselves to providing proper information on these victims, and leave the sep11 wiki for its intended purpose: tributes, personal experiences, etc. Everyking 04:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New discussion:

Watch this space, I'm thinking, and checking more closely what the Memorial Wiki really is and how it works. Andrewa 21:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look now, and at the risk of being blunt, IMO you have thoughtlessly defamed a very special site and some very special people who are the registered users there and do much of the editing and all of the admin.

I can see no basis for your claim that Wikipedia is in a better position to offer accuracy or objectivity. There is some vandalism, certainly, which isn't all that surprising, these pages are a magnet for anti-Americanism and pro-Americanism too. That would happen here too, and does.

Certainly the site offers tributes too, and this becomes a bit tricky when, for example, a former lover wants equal time with the current one at the time of the attack. It's a special site, with special issues. I recommend a reverent visit, to anyone interested enough to be reading this page in the first place. Keep the Kleenex handy. Andrewa 06:30, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is addressed to me? I have "defamed" no one; I have simply stated that providing NPOV information is the task of Wikipedia and tributes and personal accounts is the realm of the sep11 wiki. I never stated any objections to the existence of the latter; I am merely arguing for a natural and logical division of roles between them. Everyking 07:13, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. You are arguing for a particular division of roles, which appears 'natural and logical' to you. Other people have come to a different conclusion which is equally logical. In arguing vigorously for the particular division you personally favour, you called the 'standards of a tribute site' into question. My investigations lead me to believe that this is quite baseless. The site contains factual material as well as personal tributes, and there is no reason to think that the quality of this factual material is any worse than that of Wikipedia. Is there? Andrewa 12:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "standards of a tribute site" are not the same as our commitment to NPOV and verifiability. I don't see why I have to argue this; the main page of the sep11 wiki does it for me: "The aim of the Wikipedia encyclopedia itself, in response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack is the inclusion of a neutral and complete history of the attack, including the background history, the aftermath, and more.

The pages of In Memoriam provide the additional resource of personal opinions, individual experiences, memorials, and tributes, unlike the encyclopedia proper." Everyking 17:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are twisting these words IMO. Perhaps they could be better put, but I think their meaning is clear.

You stated above people who want an objective biography may not be pleased with the standards of a tribute site. By including the information here, we commit ourselves to providing proper information on these victims which seems to me to indicate that you think that there is a commitment (as you later call it) to providing or verifying this information on Wikipedia that doesn't exist on the memorial Wiki. And now, you are providing this quote to back this claim, is that right?

There is not. Inaccurate or POV material presented as fact is equally unacceptable in either place. So this commitment, if you want to call it that, is shared. If this isn't explicitly stated, it is only IMO because nobody felt up until now that there was any need to do so. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the passage to clarify this?

Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary, nor a place for personal reflections. In these senses, content that is not acceptable in Wikipedia is acceptable in the memorial Wiki, that much is true. But the factual material presented is equally reliable, or otherwise.

Because, on the other hand, the commitment of both sites is limited. I think it's a very misleading term, perhaps ideals or just standards is better. The two sites both have exactly the same failings regarding accuracy, completeness, POV etc., and we have accepted these by the very nature of our processes, which are also shared. Andrewa 21:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All right, then. I think you're wrong and you think I'm both wrong and defamatory towards the editors of the 9/11 wiki. Wikipedia is the proper place for factual and objective biographies; the 9/11 wiki is the proper place for tributes and personal accounts. Everyking 21:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

<<<<<<<< resetting the indentation

Yes. Fair enough.

It seems to me that the only thing on which we disagree is where to put factual information about people whose only claim to fame is that they are on the list of 9/11 victims. And, perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this. You haven't responded to my claim that there is consensus (as Wikipedia defines it) supporting my view.

My suggestion would be that you get involved in the Wiki Memorial yourself. (I assume you're not currently registered there, if so it's under a different name.) You obviously have a passion for making this information available and accurate, and the welcome mat is out for it in the memorial. If the standards or commitment or whatever of that site need raising in order to do this properly, then the way to do that is as a contributor. As to your earlier argument that the memorial is not well known, obviously you aren't going to promote it until it's fixed to your satisfaction.

The Wikipedia list of victims has an interwiki link to the list in the memorial site, so anyone who searches Wikipedia for a victim name will get to this link. I don't think the memorial site is all that hard to find myself, but if it is, that can and should be fixed. Andrewa 22:20, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the memorial site is that it is riddled with POV tributes which get in the way of reading the NPOV factual infomation. Yes, the NPOV information is still there, and it can still be found, it's just harder to find in the format of the memorial site. I believe this is what Everyking was trying to say, and it's certainly my main objection to moving everything to the memorial site. anthony (see warning)

I think that if you or Everking showed any interest at all in improving the memorial site, people would be a lot more responsive to your requests to modify the policy here. But you don't. Your interest appears to be purely in changing Wikipedia policy, to the point that you persist in futile attempts that merely waste your time and alienate people. If you are genuinely interested in making this information available, why don't you use the channels that are available to you, and do it?

For example, have you suggested that the Memorial Site might contain a Biography namespace? Or, as an alternative or interim measure, entries such as Joe Bloggs (biography)? If these were combined with a List of victim biographies index, wouldn't that be a good contribution towards overcoming the problem that you are raising here?

Not rocket science, is it? OK, we all know how you'd like to deal with the problem. But it ain't gonna happen, is it now? So, how do we move forward? Andrewa 04:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see what my interest in the memorial site has to do with my interests in Wikipedia. If all of the biographies could be separated into a different namespace in the memorial site that would go a long way toward eliminating my objections from them being deleted from here. And as I've said before, if I had the ability to view deleted pages I would stop participating on VfD altogether. But neither of these things have happened, so my objections remain. anthony (see warning)

Progress! What do you think of my suggestion of just using Joe Bloggs (biography) for Wikipedia-style articles? You could do that immediately, you wouldn't even need to create a user id on the Memorial Wiki to do it, although I'd very much recommend you do.

As for viewing deleted pages, just tell me a page you want to see, and I'll make a copy available for you. Other sysops used to do that for me, my average waiting time was about 30 minutes I think. I can't promise to equal that performance, particularly if you make a lot of requests, but I can't see any problem doing it in a reasonable time. Nearly all of the time it takes to view a deleted page is spent just finding out what the page was called. So if you do that part (which you'd need to do if you were a sysop anyway, and for which you have all the tools available even without being one) I'll do the rest. Andrewa 15:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Using Joe Bloggs (biography) on the 9/11 wiki is a great step in the right direction. In fact, if it was done somewhat consistently (which means it needs to be a matter of policy), and the page histories were kept (which is part of the transwiking which is already described in this policy), I'd agree not to vote in most related VfDs, though I'd still vote to keep the deputy fire chief, for instance. But if it comes down to just me doing the split on the 9/11 wiki, it's not a solution, I might as well do them on Wikinfo or McFly or some other fork. I'm going to give the (biography) idea a start. Apparently the 9/11 wiki only has 200 pages right now, so it shouldn't be too bad. Hmm, as I was just about to begin I realized all the links are now going to be broken. So maybe a better solution is to move the tributes to Joe Bloggs/tributes. I'm going to try that, instead.

As for helping me view deleted pages, thanks. I plan on taking you up on that offer occassionally, but I doubt it is an actual solution to my problem. See, I run a fork of Wikipedia, so the pages I want to be able to view are all of them, so I can consider them for importing into my fork. If I obtained access to view deleted pages I would set up a script to automatically copy them to my computer for safekeeping. If you'd like to do this for me, well, I'll stand by my promise to never participate in VfD again. But I don't expect you to be willing to do this. anthony (see warning) 23:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The memorial wiki is an entirely separate project from Wikipedia. What is done there has no bearing on what should be done here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a complete and self-contained encyclopaedia; we should not delete articles from here just because there are articles on the same subject in a different project. -- Oliver P. 19:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

The proposed policy page seemed to imply that some people wanted special treatment for 9/11 victims. As far as I am aware, this is not true. I think that maybe the common perception that it is true is the source of most of the disagreement. I have rewritten the page to say this. -- Oliver P. 19:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Relevant votes now in progress on VfD

Christopher Zarba - see Template:VfD-Christopher Zarba - delisted but not deleted, comment is (=Christopher_Zarba= rm, listed for transwikifaction), vote is 7/3 = exactly 70% in favour of deletion

Jonas Martin Panik Georgine Rose Corrigan Deborah Jacobs Welsh - see Template:VfD-911victims

Barbara G. Edwards - see Template:VfD-Barbara Edwards

Darlene Flagg - see Template:VfD-Darlene Flagg

(this list may not always be up to date, check VfD itself to be safe)