Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:22, 20 September 2006 editChrisp7 (talk | contribs)211 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 00:19, 21 September 2006 edit undoShortfuse (talk | contribs)326 editsm Strong Keep.Next edit →
Line 91: Line 91:
*'''Delete''' POV fork. ] 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' POV fork. ] 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Valid, relevant, a key question on the 911 offical story of events and a sub topic all of its own. I see absolutely no reason why this should be deleted, however yes edited. ] 13:00, 20 September 2006 (GMT) *'''Keep''' Valid, relevant, a key question on the 911 offical story of events and a sub topic all of its own. I see absolutely no reason why this should be deleted, however yes edited. ] 13:00, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
*'''Strong Keep''' per Titanium Dragon. Just because you dont like what it says, dosent make it not notable and suddenly subject to deletion. --] 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:19, 21 September 2006

Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory)

This article was split off from 9/11 conspiracy theories without any discussion. I believe one 9/11 conspiracy article is more than enough, similar to the Kennedy assasination which also has only one page dedicated to CT's. Peephole 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • To the closing admin: If no consensus can be reached in this afd, I would suggest deleting the article anyways. As there was no consensus in the first place to split off the article. --Peephole 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To the closing admin: I cant really see how peephole can justify deleting something just because no consensus is found!? a) Its highly unlikely consensus will be found considering the widely differing views. b) Peephole, is very obviously biased, looking at his other posts, arguing the case very strongly against such conspiracy theories, hence has a vested interest that this article be deleted. c) A huge amount of detail/information is contained in this page because this is a key part/question over the offical version of events. I agree however it may well need to be edited however it is an invaluable resource and unfathomable why it should be deleted. --Chrisp7 12:53, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment Peep, why do you want this article deleted AND are deleting WTC 7 info from the main conspiracy page? see the edits: --Chrisp7 13:21, 20 September 2006 (GMT)

Note for detailed dicussion on this AfD, please see the talk page.

Note Due to a procedural error in this split, we are trying again. Naturally, we will respect the outcome of this VfD as applying also to the newly created article, but a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories#World Trade Center as it now stands, and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center will give a better impression of the issue at hand.--Thomas Basboll 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; the 9/11 conspiracy theories page is over 120 kB in size and needs to be split up. This article is already 22kb, and probably should take other parts of the other article as well and will probably end up being about 30 kB in size. We have seperate pages for Creationism and Intelligent Design; just because people are kooks doesn't mean that they aren't notable, and given how many people believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories (especially regading WTC 7) I think it is relevant to Misplaced Pages. In any event, having a 120+ kB article is rather unreasonable; its just too long and deserves to be split up into a number of subarticles rather than just being a 40 page long mess. Titanium Dragon 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep as per Titanium dragon. Good article too. --Pussy Galore 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned user for trolling

  • POV fork? This is a copy of the sections from the main 9/11 conspiracy theories page; if there are NPOV problems with it, then they should be corrected anyway. Also, I added in the rest of the relevant sections having to do with this topic from the main article; once this vote is over and we decide to keep this subarticle, we should remove those sections from the main article and summarize them, with a link to this article. As of right now, this article is 32kB, right up at the maximum limit.
I agree that the intro needs work; I wrote it but it isn't really very good at introducing the article. Obviously, help is appreciated. Titanium Dragon 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Titanium Dragon. Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)***Comment Fiddle Faddle, why did you edit Titanium Dragons 'strong keep'??
    • Strong Delete Ok, in view of Peephole's comment 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC) that the original text remains in the original article this cannot be anything other than a POV fork, since it was never actually split in the first place. Since that text remains I have changed my vote to delete, and withdraw my arguments below in favour of keeping the allegedly split article. A half split is no split at all. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
      • Comment Hey, but this is exactly what are we voting for, aren't we? - to replace this part of 9/11 Conspiracy theories article with an overwiev and work further on the CD offspring. This hasn't been done yet, as Peephole, in his infinite vigilance, nominated this article for deletion within minutes from being forked. So, I guess now everyone waits for decision... (I do) --SalvNaut 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • No. we are voting on a matter in a compartment. That is the continued existence of this separate article. It does not matter that the article has merit or has no merit, since it is also contained within the "parent article". Voting for a split is done on article talk pages. Where a split has already happened by virture of a 'bold edit (and no harm in that) the original material must be removed and a short prćcis put in its place. Since this was not completed the article we are voting on is, by definition, a POV fork. So, let's get rid of it. Then, if it is the correct thing to do, let's have an editor who understands the issues split it properly and completely. I'm disappointed, because I view the concept of a split as correct. It is this unfinished split that must be ended. there was nothing to prevent the splitting editor from finishing the job, nomination or no nomination. Fiddle Faddle 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • C'mon, don't be a bureaucracy type :) The discussion on the Talk:9/11 Conspiracy theories had begun before TitaniumDragon created this page. 4 or 5 ppl were discussing this matter. There was no clear consensus - everyone stood with one's arguments. Then, sort of indenpendently, this page was created and the case went "public". I see it as a continuation of that discussion, I understand you may not. I know it does not follow "protocols" but since we're already here - don't let the bureaucracy machine got you between it's gears ;) --SalvNaut 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know it looks like bureaucracy. But this AfD has become so complex and so oddly political that it would genuinely behove us to delete the thing, and to do the split as a separate exercise. There is a huge danger of confusion otherwise, and the closing admin doesn't stand a chance of getting it right. There are times when a procedure is needed, and when things have become overcomplicated, such as here, I believe process is approriate. Note that I am in favour of a proper split. I just do not think that this is the discussion to do it in. I fear that if we do it here then everyone loses Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This is hot issue right now and will continue to be -- the official story defenders have not yet examined it in detail, so the debate rages. It does have a huge amount of detail that bogs down the CT page. Agree with Titanium Dragon. bov 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. --Mmx1 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. The main 9/11 conspiracy article can be shortened by eliminating material that is poorly cited, with unreliable sources, and summarize the article more. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, and yes the main article can have about 100kbs of junk science taken out and the issue of splitting up is resolved.--MONGO 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • On Misplaced Pages, alternative points of view should be discussed and analyzed, not suppressed. — goethean ॐ 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. It has a role in documenting as an encyclopaedia the phenomena of the world. Thus articles which are notable, not original research and which have or strive to have a neutral POV should be created and survive deletion attempts. However, this AfD is not about any of that, since it is, or should be, discussing the clerical activity of splitting a lengthy article. Were this article about rabbits I doubt we would be having this AfD issue at all. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article will allow us to make the 9/11 CT article much more surveyable, i.e., easier to read and use, while affording editors a separate space to hash out the many tricky details of the WTC argument. It seems to me to be exactly what splitting articles is all about. Opponents might think of this as a temporary solution, a place where the WTC section of the CT article can be improved until it can be merged back into the CT article without causing undue clutter. It's way too early to suggest deleting this potentially very useful work-in-progress.--Thomas Basboll 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Adding more unreliable sources on top of unreliable sources and self-appointed "researchers" doing clueless junk science is not an improvement. Weregerbil 08:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I do not see the logic in this argument from the encyclopaedia's perspective. I am not singling you out, here, but am really answering all such comments. As an encyclopaedia it is part of Misplaced Pages to document in an encyclopaedic manner the phenomena of the world. The various conspiracy theories, whether pseudo-science or founded on reality, are individually and collectively a phenomenon worthy of inclusion, the more so since they are properly cited. The article that has been split off and the parent article which spawned it have a place here. The rationale for the split is simply a matter of filing, not a matter of forking any point of view. We need to be very clear that this anniversary period of the atrocity is a period when clarity of thought about an article set to which many people have a huge emotional attachment is essential. Let us please look at editing standards, not at other issues. Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Titanium Dragon and Fiddle Faddle's comment. Those who don't like it might want to look under Internet phenomenon and see how many junk forks link from there. It's our job to document reality (people's beliefs are part of it). --SalvNaut 10:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete another 9/11 conspiracy theory pov fork, not supported by consensus on the talk page. Tom Harrison 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think we did this a month or so ago. Is this a speedy delete as recreation of deleted material? Tom Harrison 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Tom, this is not a POV fork. This is not the article about "how did it happen" but "what common people (and some researchers) say about it" on the Internet. This could change your view on sources. As Thomas said(Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, the criticism would apply even stronger on the splitted page. I see it a bit like internet phenomenon. You must admit that CD became a very notable myth. It is a fact from the field of sociology that many people do not want to belive the official explanation of the collapse(with a variety of reasons for it - looks, CTism, pseudoscience, NIST report, WTC7, science(?Jones), etc..). The topic is definately worth it's own article. Titanium Dragon, Fiddle Faddle, Thomas Basboll made similiar remarks. --SalvNaut 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Conspiracy theories should not be allowed to grow, they need to be reported in an NPOV encyclopedic way, rather than amplified and extended.--Cberlet 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question This AfD is a strange phenomenon. As a general principle we split articles which are too long into articles which reference other articles.. Patently the parent article is too long. According to the author all that has been done is to split out and slightly reword for clarity the section suggesting CD, but that the new article is a verbatim (plus minor edits) version of the original text. Under those circumstances how can it be a fork? How can it be allowing conspiracy theories to grow, and how can it suddenly be non NPOV? Surely there can only can only be a fork if the original text has been left behind? I admit to not checking in detail if the text remains in the original article. If it does then the simple solution is to finish the split and discard this AfD? Perhaps the author would comment on this. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- It was POV before it was split. The original article has failed and will continue to fail WP:OR and WP:RS, but we tolerate it because it is a catch-all for this sort of thing. We don't, however, tolerate an expansion of what's already broken. Morton devonshire 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Maybe you don't tolerate it, Morton, but wikipedia is not about the tyranny of the majority. If the believers of the official story have a point to make then that is provided space on wikipedia. Alternate viewpoints are also provided space. This issue is not large, it is huge. Over 100 million Americans believe something fishy is going on with 9/11. And that's just Americans. Just because en.wikipedia.org is in English doesn't mean it is the "Voice of America." If wikipedia can have individual articles about and obscure primitive fish-like animal from the Middle Cambrian Maotianshan shales of China then it definitely has the space, in fact the imperative, for articles about the thesis that the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on 911 due to fire, an unprecedented historical event, is untrue, and that the event is more consistent with controlled demolition. If you don't like the article, list points that refute it, but you may not delete it. Kaimiddleton 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment WP: OR and WP: RS are very important, which is why this page is so well sourced. All research is original; OR bans users from doing original research then putting it into articles. However, this is not OR from readers, but external OR which is readily verifiable. As WP: RS points out, our job is to report facts and opinions; a lot of this article is about opinions of people, and as such the title of the page reflects this. Additionally it is pointed out who thinks these things and why, the sources of these opinions, and the sources they got their information from (such as video footage of the event). This article has very few things which are not sourced, and though it could certainly use some work making it read better and sound more professional, on the whole it is one of the better sourced articles on Misplaced Pages; it isn't like Otherkin or Therianthropy, other articles I try and deal with but which have severe problems with source material being unreliable as it makes sweeping claims but often does so without any actual basis for those claims, and as they are trying to describe a phenomenon rather than what otherkin.net says, it is a problem. This article doesn't have this problem as it is about what conspiracy theorists say and various theories they hold and why they hold them; the fact that they are conspiracy theorists doesn't matter as we want to know what they think and why, not what actually happened. This article describes one of their theories, and is, I think, pretty clear on the matter. It needs some work, and I'd be glad to have help cleaning it up. Titanium Dragon 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no doubt in my mind that it is appropriate to keep this article. 1) The controlled demolition debate is deep and non-trivial thus justifying an in-depth, continuing, exposition. 2) Many authors write about this subject, thus providing many links. 3) There is a clear pattern of obstruction by certain editors who prefer to extinguish very important, very topical current day discussions, and these editors should not be permitted to brow-beat those who wish to give clear exposition on the subject. Kaimiddleton 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep' - the article is clearly a distinct subject matter and should be allowed to stand.Eva Jlassi 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sort of Weak Keep - article isn't exactly great, but it is salvageable. I don't consider its length to be an argument for keeping, however. If it continues to accumulate cruft without the theory gaining more widespread interest, I might reconsider. My Alt Account 23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep as a reasonable branch of a larger article. At present it has only some NPOV issues that are repairable and the main article is too long. JoshuaZ 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. --Aaron 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Completely impertinent comment - I'm wondering, if the Illuminati were trying to provoke the US into war, why didn't they just do a nasty UNCONTROLLED demolition? It would have done a hell of a lot more damage to nearby buildings, plus it wouldn't have set off the radars of the conspiracy nutbags defenders of truth and justice. Furthermore, I think it was a poor decision to let the towers sit there smoking for so long before they collapsed, they could really have killed a lot more people if the collapse took place ~30 minutes earlier. Maybe someone here knows the answer to this. My Alt Account 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh man, you really can't think of a reason why US gov (illuminati - where did you got them from?) wouldn't like the towers to look like being blown up? I'll give you a hint - "1993 bombing, security strengthened,who's to blame?" Eh, those home-made "debunking" arguments... Focus on the article, sources, papers, etc. --SalvNaut 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Completely impertinent response: Actually, the way the Towers were designed, pretty much any failure of its internal support structure, no matter how or where it was caused, would have let to a straight-down collapse. You might be able to have designed a way to "get lucky" and have the collapse tend to be directed a few hundred feet in one direction or the other, but that's about it. A lot of people think that if, say, you'd knock out all the ground supports on only one side of a building, that it would tend to tip over horizontally like someone knocking over a soda bottle. But that's just not the way physics works. (Okay, okay, if Godzilla came along - a really f---ing gigantic Godzilla - and yanked the towers right out of the ground with his mighty paws, I'm sure a lot more damage would have been caused in the immediate area. But that's the only way.) --Aaron 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, one of the things I've heard about skyscrapers is that firefighters really fear this type of design that tends to "pancake" vertically (usually without much warning) in a chain reaction fashion. Anyway I still feel that the controlled-demolition theory forces us to conclude that the illuminati are both lazy and stupid. I predict that a new class of more clever evil overlords will soon unseat them. My Alt Account 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I thought at first it would likely tip over as well, but once I thought about it at length I realized that the physics I'd learned in HS pretty much showed that it would just pancake. The only way a building like that wouldn't is if it actually got hit hard by something which pushed the building a long ways horizontally without destroying enough of its veritcal integrity that it would just collapse straight down or near straight down. Of course, some of the local stuff might be ejected, but given the building stood up to the inital blow (a plane really doesn't weigh -that- much compared to something as big as the WTC towers) it should have pancaked. Of course, a lot of the basis of the argument is that the tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, given no other scyscraper had. Titanium Dragon 07:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • C'mon, you (me too) probably don't know anything about the towers for real. All you know is something you heard about the towers and what you like to belive. Bazant&Zhou paper - tell me, which one of you understands it completely? Let the scientists do their job, we will report it. --SalvNaut 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Theory has wide currency (whether true or not), and the merits or flaws in this theory should be discussed in this article. This is clearly an important function of our project. Badagnani 02:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep too big now to be merged back. If this one is a POV fork, then 9/11 conspiracy theories already was anyway. --Húsönd 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs some work but is large enough to deserve its own page. Mujinga 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If it needs editing, feel free. A large segment of the public believes something likt that happened, however unlikely, so use you editing skill to debunk the theory better than the 9/11 Commission did. NIST is still investigating controlled demo as an explanation of the third building to collapse. Edison 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No it's not. --Peephole 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Agree. I'll make a less subtle request for a citation, then: Edison, if you're going to make claims like that, you need to be able to back them up. Do so for this one, please. Evidence your claim that NIST is investigating controlled demolition as a credible explanation. - Adaru 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Lovelight 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have no time for those who peddle flawed and irrational claims like this - those who prefer drama over sense and science. Nevertheless, there are those who take the question seriously and therefore it must be dealt with seriously. The conspiracy enthusiasts must be able to state their point of view and make their claims, and the public must see clearly how easily those claims can be refuted with a little logical thought and basic research. The article should stay. - Adaru 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete PoV fork, forked without discussion or consensus.--Rosicrucian 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment Anyone who takes an objective look at the 9/11CT article in its present form can see that much of the material on the WTC needs to be removed for the sake of length, surveyability and general tidyness. No consensus can be won for simply deleting it. So the split is the best way forward. Does it normally take this long not to delete an article that has as much support as this one does?--Thomas Basboll 09:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but let's do it properly. Splitting is not complete until the old article has the stuff removed. That has led to this whole discussion. Far better to start again by deleting this (but allowing re-creation), recreating with a proper split, and splitting out other splittable stuff correctly. This then becomes an exercise in controlled editing, not in POV fork discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've read your comments up there and here. Starting the case from the begining doesn't appeal to me (will it take so long, too?) but I trust that your experience tells you (and the closing admin) the right thing to do. Just to note: some have already started working on Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) article and it's more current than the subsection in 9/11 conspiracy theories.--SalvNaut 10:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • One more thing - we aren't here to excercise but to write a better article. This split has been proposed many times before but a group of editors decided to keep all 9/11 conspiracy theories in the single article (so the article to be clumsy I guess). My POV is that it was mainly due to their POV on the CTs - this should not matter here. We want a better article which deals (contra&pro) with CD theory. The topic deserves it. --SalvNaut 10:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • By exercise I mean the noun, not the verb. I also mean let us get to a datum point and then split. To this end any editor can be bold provided they do not create a POV fork and provided the split is performed correctly, which this one, technically, was not. Splitting the article into correctky manageable chunks provides readability and editability, thus a better article is written. Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Correct. If for example the namespace was more focused on 9/11 World Trade Center conspiracy theories in general (Including for example the theories on Larry Silverstein's insurance stake, the gold reserve beneath the WTC, and so forth) it would not be a PoV fork, and would still serve the purpose of trimming the main article to manageable standards. It would also be a much more desirable search term.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid, relevant, a key question on the 911 offical story of events and a sub topic all of its own. I see absolutely no reason why this should be deleted, however yes edited. Chrisp7 13:00, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep per Titanium Dragon. Just because you dont like what it says, dosent make it not notable and suddenly subject to deletion. --Shortfuse 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: