Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 27 March 2006

Charlie_Sheen_and_Alex_Jones_interviews

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apparently added due to the fact that consensus was that this interview was just a blip in the actor's bio; Striver created this fork to present the interview in its entirety. Individual interviews aren't notable of mention Mmx1 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sure, there have been other figures to come out and questioned 9/11, including a former member of Bush's own cabinent, but few interviews have garnered as much interest in as short a period of time. There is too much information on that one page to realistically merge it into Charlie Sheen's page, besides, as someone else pointed out, it's an interview between Sheen AND Jones. Does the "merge" group think it should be "merged" into both pages? Also one has to wonder why we're even having this debate. Is wikipedia running out of hard disk space? Nakedtruth 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This guy said it best: "No, its creating a breakout article about a event that would dominate the main article, exactly what Wikpedia Policies command in this kind of situations. --Striver 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)" (anon comment made not by striver --Striver 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC))
• Speedie Keep historical event, first time Hollywood actor goes mainstream regarding 9/11. --Striver 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• And, will we do the same thing the first time someone from another profession goes on the record? What's so special about actors? jacoplane 17:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per POV fork and per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Not encyclopedic, there are thousands of interviews given between more notable figures everyday. Furthermore, the interview is already mentioned in the Charlie Sheen page.--Jersey Devil 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedie Keep Or you must be advocating adding all of this to Charlie Sheen's page/article? There seems to be a great deal of non-redundant, well-cited material here. Plus it does seem noteworthy; this is making an impression whatever you want to believe about 9/11.(Antelope In Search Of Truth 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

• While citability is a necessary criteria for inclusion, it's not a sufficient one. It's making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, he said he's a member of the 9-11 truth movement. That's about as notable as this event gets. You don't need an article discussing the very salient points he's making, especially when there are more intelligent people making those points. Man, don't you realize fame is usually inversely proportional to intelligence and that he's just parroting what he's heard. You might as well go right to the source and quote Alex Jones. Ya'll are aware that the political opinion of actors isn't very notable to begin with, right? First civil engineer to doubt 9-11 theories - notable. First actor - who cares? Since when did actors become authorities of truth?--Mmx1 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• considering Hannity and Colmes bothered to talk about it, and even inviting guest to talk about it, and CNN having three (3!) shows about it, going so far as inviting Alex Jones himself, i have a problem seeing how this is not notable.--Striver 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This can be discussed in other relevant articles, but is not notable enough to merit its own article. dbtfz 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Again, Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver. Royboycrashfan 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, or merge to relevant articles --TBC 00:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Good info here should fit on Mr. Sheen's page. - N1h1l 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & JerseyDevil's note above. --mtz206 01:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment User:Striver seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT by creating/editing other articles in order to include links to this one: Showbiz Tonight, A.J. Hammer, Ellis Henican, --mtz206 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And that is a problem because? And exactly how is that POINT? --Striver 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamJacobMuller 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge material to any of the many existing articles. Tom Harrison 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge what is notable into Sheen's page. Bucketsofg 02:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe merge a very abbreviated summary to relevant pages. A Hollywood actor espousing a theory does not move it out of the crackpot column, and a Hollywood actor expressing their opinion about anything other than acting is most assuredly not an "historical event". This is not nearly notable enough. --Deville (Talk) 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Antelope In Search Of Truth. Seano1 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a mention of the the interview on Charlie Sheen and 9/11 Truth Movement is more than enough. The article is to "forkish" to survive on its own. Eivind 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A mention in the Sheen article and the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement is more than sufficient. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is basically a platform for conspiracy theorists to push their beliefs: the "references" section mostly consists of links to Alex Jones pages which are not related to Sheen. It is not a proper reference section at all. Anything useful here can be merged to Alex Jones. Rhobite 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The cources are to Alexs Jones site, since it is there Charlie Sheen gave the intervies and they share conclusions and information, Charlie Sheen returned to Alex Jones to talk more about it. Remberer the articlename? "Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews"--Striver 11:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the above, soapboxery Sandstein 04:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge This article is a recent event about a set of theories that claim possible 'conspiracy' which in and of itself is not illegitimate for that. Conspiracy is by definition when a group gets together to commit an act. Like Lincoln's assassination and JFK's which more and more evidence indicates was a conspiracy by others. Alex Jone's does not just come up with quack conspiracy's but has massive documentation behind them. I do not agree with all his assertions but he is well sourced. Charlie Sheen is well known and this article fits wikipedia. He is not the only one who questions the official version of 9-11. Indeed it is not wrong to question, it is wrong to blindly follow anything the government says...Freemen are not Yes men, and Democracy encourages legitimate questions. Some in Academia are beginning to question 9-11 on the evidence alone. --Northmeister 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

comment I have changed my vote to merge with 9/11 conspiracy theory, as the best alternative for this article in lieu of discussion with Mmx1 and reconsideration of material's place. I would advocate that other's consider this idea, including Striver. --Northmeister 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My resonse: --Striver 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver makes legitimate points above at my talk page as well. My vote is 'merge', with the addition that if it comes down to the wire over deleting (which I oppose), then it is a Keep. --Northmeister 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete soapboxing strivercruft, not a newspaperBlnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep What is strivercruft? Page looks fine. --LordoftheFLIES 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trim and add important info back to Sheen's article. Crumbsucker 08:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The info was originaly at Sheens article, but people did not want to see it, since it dominated the article: Talk:Charlie Sheen. The only way to cover the article fully and fairly is to give it its own article. --Striver 12:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, the event is now bigger than just Charlie Sheen, it has been covered on CNN, FOX News, Prisonplanet, Rense, and mutliple other places. We cant have a duplicated of the event on all those articles.--Striver 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, soapboxing and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Terence Ong 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable in the least.--MONGO 13:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

CNN and Fox News do not agree, see the video: First show, second show, Hannity & Colmes.--Striver 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and smerge back to either the actor or the conspiracy. This is neither the first nor the last cause a Hollywood actor has been involved in. In fact there is hardly a weird cause that doesn't have an actor supporting it, from PETA to the NRA to Earth First. We can't have a separate article for each of the cross product of "actors" x "causes" - squeeze it into one of them. GRuban 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the causes you mentioned are this controversial, in fact, everyone of the causes you mentioned are perfectly mainstream. What makes this even unique is that it is the first time ever that American mainstream media covers someone from Hollywood who staunchly insists that the buildings where brought down by explosives: This has never been done before!--Striver 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, even the controversy doesn't make it worthy of an article in and of itself. If Pope John XXIII endorsed the Flat Earth Society it would be a valuable addition to each or both of those articles, but not call for a Pope John XXIII endorses the Flat Earth Society. GRuban 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - a interview on a lame consipracy theory is not encyclopaedic. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on Wikiquote, so perhaps consider, um, transwikificationalorgarating to there. I don't know what the adverb is, so I made one up. It's already mentioned in the Charlie Sheen article, so no need to splurge any of this back into there. Proto||type 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote? That is a new one, squizing three CNN coverages and a FOX News coverage to Wikiquote... --Striver 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then just delete. And GRuban makes a good point. If George Bush drove a Buick, would we have a George Bush drives a Buick article? No. At best, it would be mentioned in the two individual articles. Proto||type 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if it was covered in 3 CNN shows, and a FOX News show, and Rense.com and people all over his view called him a hero for that, yes we would. Want proof? See: You forgot Poland and Human-animal hybrid. --Striver 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Northmeister. --Siva1979 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Good article on current event. Seabhcán 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV, well-sourced. TacoDeposit 16:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - No valid reason to delete has been produced. --Irishpunktom\ 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - facts are facts and what more is so desireable than the truth- soo just keep it -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvianT Sun (talk • contribs)
• Merge into the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. And for god's sake, clean it up. Nedlum 17:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Yes, merge. A conspiracy theory espoused by an average actor (or even a good one), is still just a conspiracy theory. Should we have a separate page on Tom_Cruise_Meets_Scientology? tharsaile 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. So there's a factoid involved; great, put in the main articles. Considerably more notable information goes into most Playboy Interviews; do we really need seperate articles for the last five hundred or so of those as well? RGTraynor 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I volunteer to do the research for that --Mmx1 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A series of interviews is notable enough for its own article. We have articles on a telegram, a memo, and some letters, so why not an interview?-PlasmaDragon 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• You mean to say this is as notable as the Zimmerman Telegram, Downing Street Memo, or Cato's Letters? --Mmx1 18:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• In its own way, yes and maybe. Luckily, there is lots of space on wikipedia and we don't need to await the judgement of history before begining an article. I see no reason to delete this article. Seabhcán 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Striver AlexLibman 18:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, to a mention on the conspiracy theory and actor pages; many actor pages include excerpts from their wacky opining without forking. Doesn't really need its own article, and I think that an external link to the interview's transcript would be more effective than a running commentary rife with typos. -Dawson 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If necessary, merge onto 9/11 Truth Movement. But it doesn't make sense to merge onto 9/11 CTs because it would be redundant with a lot of the info -- what is most relevant is the event of him saying it and the public and media response. I would prefer that it were not merged, however, because it is a unique historical event and is already well covered here on it's own. Bov 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup. This needs to be placed on the Charlie Sheen page, but clean it up as well. It doesn't seem fit for Misplaced Pages in it's current state. ♠ SG →Talk 19:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A separate article? Why, because an actor "dared" to talk about theories that have long existed? --Rishiboy 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interviews? an Interview? Because Charlie Sheen spoke? no, not worth an article. If the editors at Charlie Sheen didn't like the box, hey, remove the box. Don't push it into fork-ville. KillerChihuahua 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)