Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:27, 23 September 2006

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Article forked from 9/11 conspiracy theories due to length of that article, but since the split, this article has become a hopeless quagmire of conspiracy theory nonsense, and even simple demands that the article try to meet NPOV have been met with further POV pushing. This is simply not what wiipedia is about...wikipedia is not for soapboxing, and is not an indiscriminate collection of misinformation. Delete.--MONGO 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - since the split article has only become more NPOV, and better sourced (it almost hasn't grown in size and putting it back is out of the question). Simple demands you mention: well everyone can check on the talk page that your demands were very simple (Fix the problems that are in this article or it will be removed as an egregious violation of WP:NOT) and quite short and not explained and you made them yesterday. This is not what wikipedia is about... Check below for other arguments.SalvNaut 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong...the article is huge compared to when it was on the 9/11 CT article...when it was there, the complaints were that adding more nonsense then would make that article too big. After forking, conspiracy theory folks have made this a repository of junk science. I asked to get the known facts about Steven E. Jones put in the article and was essentially laughed off. Misuse of Misplaced Pages to push conspiracy theory propaganda such as this makes folks like yourself nothing but problem editors. I mean look at the singular focus you and the rest of the cruftists have...a blind man could see that your agenda is to POV push conspiracy theory nonsense...you hardly edit anything else. You're not fooling anyone.--MONGO 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong: MONGO laughed off?? - the facts about Jones you asked for are already in the article since yesterday... maybe you should concentrate on its content not your personal POV on this matter? What I edit is my personal thing - is it ad hominem argument you just brought on? To make this even I'll say that you make yourself look like a problem admin. No offence. SalvNaut 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic. Per nom. Vote Early, etc, etc. --Tbeatty 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and severely undue weight to a minority viewpoint as well as synthesis of facts in order to support a hypothesis in violation of WP:OR. A minority viewpoint("hypothesis") does not require a full article explanation and this current treatment goes way afield of WP:NPOV's dictum on undue weight and POV fork. Delete with prejudice. --Mmx1 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article violates no wikipedia policy and is a legit, well written, and sourced article about a extensivley argued theory. If there is an issue with specific content then address the specific content, don't AfD the entire article. NeoFreak 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  It's hopeless. efforts to get a NPOV in this article will be impossible.--MONGO 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's "extensively argued" if at all, on the internet. If that were a criteria for inclusion, we would have an article on every crackpot physics "hypothesis" posted on usenet, and articles on which of the Manning brothers is a better quarterback. --Mmx1 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis. Do I believe it? No. That doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Because it is a touchy subject and is prone to POV doess't qualify the article for deletion. This article needs work, not a all out deletion. NeoFreak 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis" I see; it's an essay? --Mmx1 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The main reason the article exists is because folks were unable to get this nonsense in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article...it is a definite POV fork therefore.--MONGO 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not just making a case in the sense of debate but its continued existence on wikipedia which is really what I meant. An article talking about a POV or a established hypothetical concept has to do that. Which I think it does. I'd hate to see a article get deleted because the POV is covers is unpopular. NeoFreak 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary...I believe the POV it covers is popular...the problem is the ability of this article to be neutral, which I see no prospectus for.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case it only helps the case for keeping it in an encyclopedia. Besides NPOV issues is not and never has been grounds for deletion. NeoFreak 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not if it is a gross violation of WP:NOT, which it is.--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This article is a black hole of POV forkery, and roughly half its references are blatant violations of WP:RS. --Aaron 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Keep Not sure what the other people are even reading unless they have a personal bias stake in this. WP:POINT afd nomination that appears trolling or disruption attempt? This is a fork that includes 95 sources, from nytimes.com to house.gov to all sorts of international coverage. The theory as a theory is notable, and 40% of Americans polled per CNN believe in theories. There is a criticism section and volumous sourced data. Why is this even nominated? Close afd as farcical--why is this even open...?
• This version of the article has 108 references. Of them, just at a glance, I count at least 70+ that meet all Policy requirements for RV and V. They range from a variety of US government documents that touch on the theory, to news sources ranging from live reports by Dan Rather to the NY Times to the BBC. Seems notable enough to be an automatic keep, and rereading AfD policies we do not delete for POV reasons, nor neutrality reasons. We rewrite the article together, which is the only reason, and the only reason we're here: write 💕 about notable things that are reported on by secondary sources. Closing admin: this article therefore per RS meets all qualifications that I can see. · XP · 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) · XP · 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trust me that I am not a troll, so I'll assume your commentary must be. The farce is when people misuse Misplaced Pages to POV push nonsense

such as this.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the theory isn't notable based on the mountains of media coverage? Or that it's too big for the parent page, and per policy shouldn't be forked off? Those two policies say that this article has legs and stays. Policy is on it's side, at this time, from what I've read. If you can cite in policy with examples why it shouldn't be, I will reconsider my opinion. · XP · 05:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Efforts to have much of this information in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article failed, so it was then built up on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This was split, and retitled and technically survived a different Afd, but this article has now developed into a repository of misinformation deliberately designed to give credence to something that has no basis in fact...it is an article that will perpetually masquerade as a scientific treatise. WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is not a soapbox, which this article is...a soapbox to promote conspiracy theory nonsense. Furthermore, I see no chance the article can be a neutral one and will ultimately be a battleground, further violation of policy. I rarely nominate articles for deletion, so when I do, I am most serious about my reasoning.--MONGO 05:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it will be the community that decides if it stays or goes 5 days from now, with no one getting their points attacked I should hope. · XP · 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then best you don't refer to my nom as trolling?--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the first paragraph, demolish the rest - That's all that's needed. Of course, the conspiracy theorists would never allow such an edit to stand. Sigh. - Richfife 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Such a summary already exists in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The question is exactly whether or not the rest of the article should exist. --Mmx1 06:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic per nom. Pull it. Dual Freq 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article passed an AfD at 09: 42 on 22 on September. This nomination for deletion appears to have been made under 24 hours later. The phrase "since the split" should be read with that in mind. The requests to establish an NPOV and an encyclopedic approach have been met with friendly assurances that "we're working on it". The problems with this article had, as the nomitation notes, previously been problems with the 9/11 conspiracy theory article (which is coming around nicely) and (though this is before my time) the article on the collapse of the WTC (which is in great shape now - in part due to the efforts of editors who are working on this article). At this stage it is clear that the sections need to be trimmed in its "collection of information". As the closing admin on the recent AfD said, "it is clear that needs to be made more neutral etc, but this is going way outside the area of AFD.". I agree with that judgment, and it is too soon to say that the challenges have not been met. Anyone who reads the articles last few days of history will see it is going in the right direction. Anyone who reads its talk pages will be able to see the spirit in which the changes are being made.--Thomas Basboll 07:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a seperate issue, so no it's not too early. Now we can directly discuss the reason why we should allow articles like this to be on wikipedia...since the focus is now and always will be an advocacy platform and a gross violation of original research in that you have a "hypothesis" and then deliberately seak out sources to support that hypothesis. Sorry, but misuse of Misplaced Pages for this purpose is not to be condoned.--MONGO 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Was this article up for AfD? This seems like a separate POV fork from the one that was deleted although it contains the same information. Tbeatty 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the result was to keep it.--Thomas Basboll 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)ø

• Keep - Notable theory on a notable event. Sources are clear that this theory is asserted by a number of people. Cleanup concerns should not be dealt with through an AfD. JASpencer 07:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like its the same old group of people who are proposing deletion of anything that doesn’t fit the 9/11 official story and the same people are against it. Gee, I wonder if that’s a coincidence. I'd bet not. Shortfuse 07:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee, it seems like the usual POV pushers of nonsense are all lining up to vote keep...I wonder if that is a coincidence? I'd bet not.--MONGO 07:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this hypothesis exists and has been widely publicized. Article is no less encyclopedic than Nazi UFOs. Gazpacho 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the hypothesis is nonsense; however, it is notable. the article is a good place to document the nonsense. if the article is poor now, the solution is to fix it. if that is too difficult, npov tag it. Derex 09:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep we want to honestly present in this article the status of knowledge about the hypothesis, which already caused quite a mess in the world. It's very notable among Internet users, it's made its way to the media, it's been considered among engineers (NIST, Bazhant - then dismissed) and there are academic papers promoting it (Jones,Cherpanov, Greening, who considers thermite reactions). There are voices form experts abroad (Swiss professor of structural engineering; Dutch, Danish demolition experts) agreeing with it. We want to present most notable points of this hypothesis (and there is a lot of them, they are mentioned in academic papers, summaries of researches, on thousands of blogs), present a critique of them (it's already done in many cases). There are secondary sources presenting this hypothesis, there is a critique of it, so the article can be very encyclopedic.

Proponents of deletion bring following issues on: WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:OR. My opinion:

• Propaganda,self-promotion, advertising, or advocacy - it's not propaganda cause the hypothesis lives its own life and this article only presents it. It's not advocacy because article is written in NPOV language and criticism is already there and more is very welcomed.
• publisher of orginal thought: the article presents thoughts which are on minds of millions of people(many scientists) - such thoughts deserve to be described and discussed, criticised.
• WP:OR:the hypothesis has been published, has been engaged with (NIST discussed it,FAQ). There is no drawing conclusions in the article, no orginal thought (please work on that more if you wish).

Proponents of deletion, instead of working on the article to make it better, would prefer to delete it. They're using this tactics very often with regard to 9/11 articles - I agree that in some cases they're correct - not in this one, and recent AfD voting has shown that, too. Again - strong keep per above, per Thomas Basboll, per XP about quality of sources. --SalvNaut 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Derex. People (including some Americans) seriously believe it, made a DVD out of it, etc. --Storkk 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This was split from the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think this material needs to be put back in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It can be shortened by cutting OR, unreliable or non-sourced material, etc. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think the name of the article is really insane (jeeze), but given the enormous list of references it certainly appears to be notable and not original research or indiscriminate information. If there are POV issues, those can probably be dealt with independently. Might need to be shortened a bit as well. ~ lav-chan @ 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, not a publisher of original thought, and not a free web space provider for conspiracy theorists. The sources the article has are mostly self-published conspiracy sites — unreliable, systematically and purposefully unbalanced sources. The phenomenon of conspiracy theories can be covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the point-counterpoint argumentation (the bulk of this article) is utterly unencyclopedic original research soapboxing. To improve the article: cut down the soapbox part (vast majority of it) and roll it back to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Weregerbil 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates