This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cerejota (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 30 August 2011 (→so many issues, so much time: problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:04, 30 August 2011 by Cerejota (talk | contribs) (→so many issues, so much time: problems)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 35 days  |
Template:WikiProject September 11, 2001
 | United States Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Sources for the article can be found at this subpage. |
Fifth Estate, number of links
There are three links supporting the statement that Richard Gage was interviewed for a Fifth Estate program. The first is directly to video of the program, and text beneath the video window says that Gage is in the program. That makes the first sufficient for this support, and the other two links can be dropped. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity why are links being dropped from the article? Misplaced Pages is not finished, such links can serve as references for future research. Culling existing links could lead to WP:LINKROT as seems to have happened with the ZDF source above. Please refer to alternate techniques for minimizing WP:CLUTTER. A more worthwhile use of time might be to ensure that the links are mirrored for future reference. Best, Unomi (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like to discuss why links are being discussed, please use the discussion section above where we talked about it for quite a while. This section is about two redundant links to support the innocuous statement that Gage was interviewed for a Fifth Estate program. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you are concerned about the amount of visible ref links you can use the techniques outlined in WP:CLUTTER, if you wish to add other supporting or summarizing sources you are free to do that in the same go. Sources represent a considerable investment of time and effort of a number of editors to find, discuss and ultimately find consensus to include, doubly so so for an article like this. If there are other concerns than visible links then it is not apparent to me from the section above. Unomi (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Unomi on this. We shouldn't be removing links just because they are redundant; although it is appropriate to remove them if they do not support the associated text. Links help to establish notability, and extra links provide a backup if an existing link goes dead. Where notability exists, we should record and document it (without going into every minor detail), so that it can be weighed when considering mention of the topic in other articles. Retaining links helps serve this purpose. Wildbear (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does the fact of Richard Gage being interviewed for the Fifth Estate program need to be verified by three links? Is there anyone so argumentative in denying this simple fact as to require three links to verify this as a fact? Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. There are indeed editors who would argue for multiple sources to indicate that an event or interview deserves mention. Furthermore, I would venture that a large number of improvements to wikipedia are made by editors who read through existing sources and add more information from them, considering that I would find it unfortunate to remove relevant sources. I propose that the sources that were previously considered relevant to the article but removed for purely aesthetic reasons are reinstated and massaged per WP:CLUTTER or alternatively, a Talk:Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth/Sources page is created as a repository. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, stop saying WP:CLUTTER to me. I've read it. What I'm doing here is right along the lines of that page. Here's a quote from that page: "A rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is enough, two begins to look untidy, and more than three is definitely clutter." That's been my rule of thumb from the beginning. If we need a Sources page, I'll be happy to build it and contribute to it. But most of these articles are repetitive - read them and you'll see what I'm talking about. Sources reporting on novelty usually are. They rely on press releases from the group. The really good ones are being retained. For you to come in after we'd talked about this up above and established consensus for reworking this article is all well and good, but I think you really need to review everything we've been doing before coming down hard on me. I've removed a link attacking Richard Gage. I've found alternate links with the same information for dead links. Judge me on the totality of what I've done here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- And there already is an archive of sources in the archives. I thought I had seen that there. Nothing is being lost here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I truly apologize for coming across as coming down hard on you, it was not my intention though on rereading my comments I can sympathize with that perception. Editors come and go, different perspectives are brought to bear and changes based on varying interpretations of policy are proposed, that is the nature of wikipedia and a source of its dynamism. My only concern is with the removal of research material, especially from sources where we can point to previous consensus for inclusion. I did not intend to imply that you were setting the article up for gutting or otherwise undermining the article intentionally, merely commenting on the wider value of sources. I agree completely that the number of reflinks are distracting, but I find grouping them together to be a superior and more forward looking solution. As an example, while the first link for the line you mention does indeed fulfill the task of sourcing this line, the 2 other sources have a plethora of additional information that might be useful later, sourced to an RS or at least a notable commentator. Apologies for not noticing the archive of sources, mea culpa, in the light of that my major objections are rendered moot, apart from the lack of visibility of those sources to the casual editor. Unomi (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, as you can see from that discussion page, the number of sources played a critical role in the discussion for including various elements of the article. I will also note that this particular source list is incomplete and deals with only one small issue. Unomi (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've started the Source page that you suggested. I took the incomplete list of sources I had linked and added all links (but the one we all agreed was an attack) to the chart. The list still doesn't have all sources in the article, and I didn't know enough about all of the articles to fill the charts out completely. However, I'm sure my work will get checked and we can complete the Source page over time. Joseph.nobles (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, as you can see from that discussion page, the number of sources played a critical role in the discussion for including various elements of the article. I will also note that this particular source list is incomplete and deals with only one small issue. Unomi (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I truly apologize for coming across as coming down hard on you, it was not my intention though on rereading my comments I can sympathize with that perception. Editors come and go, different perspectives are brought to bear and changes based on varying interpretations of policy are proposed, that is the nature of wikipedia and a source of its dynamism. My only concern is with the removal of research material, especially from sources where we can point to previous consensus for inclusion. I did not intend to imply that you were setting the article up for gutting or otherwise undermining the article intentionally, merely commenting on the wider value of sources. I agree completely that the number of reflinks are distracting, but I find grouping them together to be a superior and more forward looking solution. As an example, while the first link for the line you mention does indeed fulfill the task of sourcing this line, the 2 other sources have a plethora of additional information that might be useful later, sourced to an RS or at least a notable commentator. Apologies for not noticing the archive of sources, mea culpa, in the light of that my major objections are rendered moot, apart from the lack of visibility of those sources to the casual editor. Unomi (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. There are indeed editors who would argue for multiple sources to indicate that an event or interview deserves mention. Furthermore, I would venture that a large number of improvements to wikipedia are made by editors who read through existing sources and add more information from them, considering that I would find it unfortunate to remove relevant sources. I propose that the sources that were previously considered relevant to the article but removed for purely aesthetic reasons are reinstated and massaged per WP:CLUTTER or alternatively, a Talk:Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth/Sources page is created as a repository. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does the fact of Richard Gage being interviewed for the Fifth Estate program need to be verified by three links? Is there anyone so argumentative in denying this simple fact as to require three links to verify this as a fact? Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Unomi on this. We shouldn't be removing links just because they are redundant; although it is appropriate to remove them if they do not support the associated text. Links help to establish notability, and extra links provide a backup if an existing link goes dead. Where notability exists, we should record and document it (without going into every minor detail), so that it can be weighed when considering mention of the topic in other articles. Retaining links helps serve this purpose. Wildbear (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you are concerned about the amount of visible ref links you can use the techniques outlined in WP:CLUTTER, if you wish to add other supporting or summarizing sources you are free to do that in the same go. Sources represent a considerable investment of time and effort of a number of editors to find, discuss and ultimately find consensus to include, doubly so so for an article like this. If there are other concerns than visible links then it is not apparent to me from the section above. Unomi (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like to discuss why links are being discussed, please use the discussion section above where we talked about it for quite a while. This section is about two redundant links to support the innocuous statement that Gage was interviewed for a Fifth Estate program. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That, my friend, was beautiful, thank you! un☯mi 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
FBI letter - WP:UNDUE?
Are we not giving the FBI letter undue weight by mentioning it? Here's the letter. It's an acknowledgement. It's also had just about no mainstream news coverage. Does it really match the spin put on it by the Santa Barbara Independent article? The article is written by Jay Levin, who appears to be a supporter of AE (here's another of his articles). Even he admits that no one outside the truth movement is paying attention to the letter. I suggest its removal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot engage in original research when assessing the report about this letter. There is no indication that the factual information carried in the source would be wrong, and we do not mention any commentary that the news magazine may have included in the article. Furthermore, any conclusion that the content would be WP:UNDUE would need to be based on an assessment that the information would be undue in relation to other content of the article. However, a number of other pieces of information are not widely reported either. Certainly, the article is not too long by our agreed standards. The notability criteria demand that there must be multiple sources on a given subject so that the subject may be covered in its own article. There are no such conditions with regard to the content of existing articles. As the content is not relevant with regard to WP:BLP or other such criteria, and there does not seem to exist a policy-based reason for its removal, I am going to restore it to the article. Cs32en Talk to me 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Original research applies to actually published article content, not to conversations on the talkpage. (Discussions of due-ness and source reliability would be impossible on your interpretation - there is no RS list of what is RS, or what topics are notable, for example). At the most here, you have to attribute this interpretation of the letter to Jay Leven. It's a remarkable claim, and requires rather better sourcing than a couple of obscure media outlets quoting the same non-specialist journalist. He's the founder of an alternative entertainment magazine, not an FBI expert. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The writer of the article reports about the letter sent by Michael Heimbach, and we have a primary source that indicates that the report is accurate. The article contains a quote from Heimbach's letter; I can't see how this quote would amount to an opinion that needs to be attributed to the author. If you think that we need to attribute the content to the source in-line, I'd be open to adjusting the article accordingly. There are no clear-cut policy guidelines for in-line attribution of sources of factual statements, but it's ok as long as we don't clutter articles with in-line attributions. Cs32en Talk to me 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Using the term "original research", I did not mean to refer to your assessment of the source, but to your interpretation of what Michael Heimbach would have expressed in his letter. Cs32en Talk to me 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jay Levin's report clearly gives a spin and a weight to the letter from the FBI that is his own. He is treating it as evidence that the FBI genuinely intend to investigate, and as evidence that the FBI genuinely give credence to the material they received, and that, therefore, it has at least some merit. In his words "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This is his interpretation of the letter. You call my "intepretation" original research, but this is a misunderstanding of the principles of OR on wikipedia. There is pointing out the bleeding obvious (it's an acknowledgement of receipt letter, which surely you're not disputing) which is not OR, and then there is showing how a secondary source interprets a primary source to provide a meaning that quite plausibly would be rejected by others. It's about keeping undue and extreme minority view material out, not putting OR in. Here's a simple question: where does the letter actually say it will look at Gage's material specifically?
- "As with all cases, the FBI will continue to examine the 9/11 investigation from every angle, utilizing all leads available"
- "The case agents in charge of the investigation will undoubtedly review all relevant material before reaching an unbiased decision".
- Neither of these two phrases says the FBI consider Gage's work relevant, or that it in particular merits scrutiny. There's a sentence in between which says
- "Mr Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis."
- "Interesting" might just as well mean "bollocks" ("interesting" is a very common codeword in academia, at least), and "backed up by thorough research and analysis" is also true of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Which (pace Dan Brown fans) is a work considered by experts to be bollocks. Note how the first and third cited sentences painfully fail to make a direct inclusive connection with the second. To treat the importance that Levin gives to this letter (and it's only Levin, an entertainment journalist, and his friend McKenzie, a journalist of apparently no note at all) as a simple statement of fact is not plausible (Which on wikipedia does matter. Editors do have to pass judgement on what counts as RS, and what is opinion and what is verified fact). But more than that, there appears to be no other source remotely reliable that treats such an interpretation of the letter (or indeed mentions the letter) as meaning what Levin thinks it means. Given that his spin is that "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny", this is not what we would expect. We should expect there to be multiple sources independent of the truth movement. It's a bit like finding an obscure science article where someone claims to have disproved relativity. If they had, there should be more noise than that. I'm for keeping the whole thing out, which is not original research; it's preserving the value of the encyclopaedia. Why should we give any weight at all to what this non-expert Levin says, and says in a couple of really obscure places (one of which is a free newspaper specialising in entertainment)? If it were the FBI themselves, or NYT, or more than a few journalists, that would be another matter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the letter shouldn't really be used here. The letter exists on its own; it's not really connected to anything. Further, the letter says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research". The theory is what he's saying is backed, not "the group's analysis" - and I think saying that theory == group's analysis is a bit misleading. I find using this letter in this capacity is misleading in general, as it seems to be saying that someone at the FBI also validates the claims. Anyway, a third editor (aside from myself and VsevolodKrolikov) seems to be against the use of the letter. — HelloAnnyong 13:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the source reports on the letter in a way that is based on an interpretation that may be more favorable towards AE911Truth's theory or analysis than other possible interpretations. However, I do not share your view that the letter is a "receipt letter" and that, therefore, any interpretation should consistently follows the least favorable variant. Of course, the letter is a receipt letter. However, including a phrase such as "backed by thorough research and analysis" is not, in my view, what one would expect in a formal letter of receipt. In addition, while "interesting theory" may be used as irony, that form of usage would be odd in an FBI letter. All news sources present factual content in a way that also incorporates some interpretation. The Wall Street Journal and Le Monde will present things in different ways. So what we would need to check is (a) is there evidence that the source would have a bad track record with regard to the accuracy of its factual statements, (b) is the interpretation that may be associated with the content outside of what we can see as a plausible interpretation of the information, (c) if there is doubt, is there a way to present the information in a way that it based on the factual information as much as possible. I do not see evidence of (a) being true, I do not find the interpretation to be implausible, and I have adjusted the content of the article, so that it reflects the factual information contained in the source (as well as in the primary source). Cs32en Talk to me 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cs32en, I'm not putting a spin on anything, because I'm not saying my alternative reading is correct, merely that it is more than reasonable. Instead, I'm showing that Levin puts a distinct POV spin on the letter - which you now agree, when you say he interprets it in a favourable light. Your points (a) and (b) need work. A reliable source is not a reliable source in its essence. RS exists in context. People who are experts in one area are not experts in all. I see Levin has no established track record at all in covering the FBI or security issues. Furthermore, the outlets are so minor that they are far from ideal in providing us with RS on national political and security events, and by no stretch can their articles be presumed to represent considered opinion in the way that major outlets sometimes can. Is the Santa Barbara Independent of the same stature as Le Monde? No. Local papers are often the best RS for local news, but this topic is not local. So there are big question marks over point a. Point b appears to conflate two issues - is the interpretation the single plausible one (ie a statement of fact) and is the interpretation actually implausible. The first one we answer by comparing the primary and secondary sources, and we all agree that Levin's interpretation is not the only plausible one. The second one we can answer by seeing if anyone else repeats the claim that the FBI think Gage's theory is substantiated enough to merit investigation. After all, it's a hell of a claim, and we'd expect some other coverage, and in more serious RS. But there appears to be nothing. Nada. No one else gives this extraordinary claim credence. So why should we give it any weight at all by including it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The claim that the letter written by Michael Heimbach says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed up by thorough research and analysis" is not extraordinary; in fact, the primary source confirms that claim. Thus, the claim is not extraordinary, and we do not need multiple sources to corroborate the information. There are many pieces of information on Misplaced Pages that are reported by a single source. To invalidate the interpretation given by a source, it would not suffice to show that an alternative interpretation would be more reasonable, but it would instead be necessary to demonstrate that the interpretation given by the source would be implausible. Many news items are not written by experts, nor by journalists who specialize in a specific topic. While such assessments may carry some weight when deciding how much weight to give to different views in those cases in which multiple reliable sources present events differently, I don't think that we can invalidate a source just because the writer is a journalist, and not an expert in the relevant field at the same time. Cs32en Talk to me 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't think that implying the FBI thinks AE9/11's case has merit is implying something extraordinary, then I'll respectfully, but also categorically, disagree. There is no reliable evidence that the FBI takes Gage at all seriously. Gage is a conspiracy theorist. Even your own source admits mainstream journalism won't credit Gage with anything. It's true that Levin faithfully quotes from the letter, but that is not enough. It's why he quotes from it that matters - why he thinks the letter is significant (and thus why we should include it in the article). He only gives the letter any significance because he believes it means "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This reflects a seriously fringe point of view, expressed by someone with no apparent expertise in FBI operations, and it is not expressed by anyone else remotely qualifying for RS. It's very important not to go cherry picking within a source to prove a case. You can't cite Levin's giving the letter weight but pretend the reason he gives it weight isn't also there. It's not how to handle sources. It's important we reflect the balance of RS faithfully (including what is due and undue for inclusion), and not go rummaging around to see what we can find to put forward a certain point of view. If you can find RS evidence that the FBI actually spent or plans to spend notable resources (manpower etc.) investigating Gage's claim, I'd be all for inclusion. These two Levin articles are not enough for what you're trying to imply.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion has gone back and forth for a while, so perhaps it needs another opinion to help reach resolution. Levin has written much good material in this area; but the first time I read his interpretation of the FBI letter, it caught my attention as an eyebrow-raiser. I saw it as likely stretching the FBI's meaning a bit farther than they intended. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov and HelloAnnyong in that including this item in this article may be giving it more weight than it deserves. And I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's stated conditions for appropriate inclusion (RS documentation of FBI spending or planning to spend resources investigating the issues brought to their attention.) I prefer to see Misplaced Pages stick to less dubious interpretations when selecting reliably sourced material for inclusion. Wildbear (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- As the item is now removed from the article, the discussion is already closed for practical purposes, in my view. There is no reason not to discuss the views further, however, as it may clarify the interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. (For the purpose of formally closing a discussion, however, an uninvolved administrator would be needed to review the arguments and close the section.) Cs32en Talk to me 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion has gone back and forth for a while, so perhaps it needs another opinion to help reach resolution. Levin has written much good material in this area; but the first time I read his interpretation of the FBI letter, it caught my attention as an eyebrow-raiser. I saw it as likely stretching the FBI's meaning a bit farther than they intended. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov and HelloAnnyong in that including this item in this article may be giving it more weight than it deserves. And I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's stated conditions for appropriate inclusion (RS documentation of FBI spending or planning to spend resources investigating the issues brought to their attention.) I prefer to see Misplaced Pages stick to less dubious interpretations when selecting reliably sourced material for inclusion. Wildbear (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't think that implying the FBI thinks AE9/11's case has merit is implying something extraordinary, then I'll respectfully, but also categorically, disagree. There is no reliable evidence that the FBI takes Gage at all seriously. Gage is a conspiracy theorist. Even your own source admits mainstream journalism won't credit Gage with anything. It's true that Levin faithfully quotes from the letter, but that is not enough. It's why he quotes from it that matters - why he thinks the letter is significant (and thus why we should include it in the article). He only gives the letter any significance because he believes it means "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This reflects a seriously fringe point of view, expressed by someone with no apparent expertise in FBI operations, and it is not expressed by anyone else remotely qualifying for RS. It's very important not to go cherry picking within a source to prove a case. You can't cite Levin's giving the letter weight but pretend the reason he gives it weight isn't also there. It's not how to handle sources. It's important we reflect the balance of RS faithfully (including what is due and undue for inclusion), and not go rummaging around to see what we can find to put forward a certain point of view. If you can find RS evidence that the FBI actually spent or plans to spend notable resources (manpower etc.) investigating Gage's claim, I'd be all for inclusion. These two Levin articles are not enough for what you're trying to imply.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The claim that the letter written by Michael Heimbach says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed up by thorough research and analysis" is not extraordinary; in fact, the primary source confirms that claim. Thus, the claim is not extraordinary, and we do not need multiple sources to corroborate the information. There are many pieces of information on Misplaced Pages that are reported by a single source. To invalidate the interpretation given by a source, it would not suffice to show that an alternative interpretation would be more reasonable, but it would instead be necessary to demonstrate that the interpretation given by the source would be implausible. Many news items are not written by experts, nor by journalists who specialize in a specific topic. While such assessments may carry some weight when deciding how much weight to give to different views in those cases in which multiple reliable sources present events differently, I don't think that we can invalidate a source just because the writer is a journalist, and not an expert in the relevant field at the same time. Cs32en Talk to me 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cs32en, I'm not putting a spin on anything, because I'm not saying my alternative reading is correct, merely that it is more than reasonable. Instead, I'm showing that Levin puts a distinct POV spin on the letter - which you now agree, when you say he interprets it in a favourable light. Your points (a) and (b) need work. A reliable source is not a reliable source in its essence. RS exists in context. People who are experts in one area are not experts in all. I see Levin has no established track record at all in covering the FBI or security issues. Furthermore, the outlets are so minor that they are far from ideal in providing us with RS on national political and security events, and by no stretch can their articles be presumed to represent considered opinion in the way that major outlets sometimes can. Is the Santa Barbara Independent of the same stature as Le Monde? No. Local papers are often the best RS for local news, but this topic is not local. So there are big question marks over point a. Point b appears to conflate two issues - is the interpretation the single plausible one (ie a statement of fact) and is the interpretation actually implausible. The first one we answer by comparing the primary and secondary sources, and we all agree that Levin's interpretation is not the only plausible one. The second one we can answer by seeing if anyone else repeats the claim that the FBI think Gage's theory is substantiated enough to merit investigation. After all, it's a hell of a claim, and we'd expect some other coverage, and in more serious RS. But there appears to be nothing. Nada. No one else gives this extraordinary claim credence. So why should we give it any weight at all by including it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jay Levin's report clearly gives a spin and a weight to the letter from the FBI that is his own. He is treating it as evidence that the FBI genuinely intend to investigate, and as evidence that the FBI genuinely give credence to the material they received, and that, therefore, it has at least some merit. In his words "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This is his interpretation of the letter. You call my "intepretation" original research, but this is a misunderstanding of the principles of OR on wikipedia. There is pointing out the bleeding obvious (it's an acknowledgement of receipt letter, which surely you're not disputing) which is not OR, and then there is showing how a secondary source interprets a primary source to provide a meaning that quite plausibly would be rejected by others. It's about keeping undue and extreme minority view material out, not putting OR in. Here's a simple question: where does the letter actually say it will look at Gage's material specifically?
- Original research applies to actually published article content, not to conversations on the talkpage. (Discussions of due-ness and source reliability would be impossible on your interpretation - there is no RS list of what is RS, or what topics are notable, for example). At the most here, you have to attribute this interpretation of the letter to Jay Leven. It's a remarkable claim, and requires rather better sourcing than a couple of obscure media outlets quoting the same non-specialist journalist. He's the founder of an alternative entertainment magazine, not an FBI expert. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a group of Engineers and Architects
An english-italian journalist and hoax debunker (Paolo Attivissimo) was listed as an engineer under this group’s list of engineers and architects, when he is neither an architect nor an engineer. He was listed under the name “Massimo dell’Affidabilitá”, italian for “top (maximum) of the credibility” (see picture). His credentials were never verified, and he stayed in that list until he himself admitted that he did this to prove the credibility of this group. Should this get a new section, or under which section could it go? The sources are, of course, in italian.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) edit here's the picture, sorry. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z78Sur1T1lY/Rv1SkTnbTGI/AAAAAAAAATc/yayFU_vw9nM/s1600-h/max1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There is, of course, the whole "Mike Rotch" story, that i can find nowhere on this article... i guess this will need a separate section then... i'll be working on itIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- How can we be sure this is not a hoax? As far as I see, no reliable source has reported on this. With regard to the list, the current font type looks quite different, so this may be something that has happened several years ago, if it's indeed true. Cs32en Talk to me 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There's an article by the debunker and a saved screenshot, plus independent sources. And the "Mike Rotch" thing was spread through several "truth" movements like Scholars for 9/11 and PatriotsQuestions. I'm writing the part and there are of course sources.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that you need to use reliable sources, if you intend to add content to the article. Cs32en Talk to me 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to ask if a screenshot of a youtube video like this http://bp2.blogger.com/_ebKDfm0h1oI/SHHhf8AcEVI/AAAAAAAACrQ/h2IgjWjsWyQ/s1600-h/richard-Gage-hardfire-WithBoxes.jpg where Gage explains the physics of the WTC collapse using cardboard boxes is usable, as an example of the scientific methods used by the leader of this movement.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- The image is of low quality, and the copyright situation is unclear. Cs32en Talk to me 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, i can of course easily get one of higher quality, that was just an example, and a screenshot of a video someone put on youtube and that isn’t about copyrighted content should not have any copyright issue. The original video has no copyright claims, so a picture of it should have no problems.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit: sorry, I didn’t see the previous comment. Yes, said blog is a blog of a journalist who is writing about matters he’s competent in, has published books etc, and it has been used a reliable source already on WP.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Criticism and sourcing
First off, per WP:CRIT, having a separate Criticism section is sort of being deprecated in favor of embedding responses within the rest of the prose. But beyond that, Arthur Rubin is correct in that the entire section is poorly sourced: two blogspot posts and the AE911 site? Not good enough, especially for an article that's this contentious. — HelloAnnyong 14:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"
- Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker (Paolo Attivissimo), aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.
- I'm therefore reverting your edit, since in this case it's a well-known professional journalist. Also, how is a link to a page of the website belonging to the very association being discussed in the article a problem?
- Incorporated the section in the article, avoiding a specific "criticisms" section as requested. Since the only source of the claim that these "architects and engineers" are subject to verification comes from the website itself, and since the members have turned out to be fantasy characters in more than one occasion, this explanation is due. It's properly sourced according to guidelines, and a waybackmachine link to a page of the organization itself is present. Please avoid edit warring over properly sourced claims and even a link to the webpage of the organization itself.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Can you back up that claim of "professional journalist and hoax debunker"? Aside from running a blog, what has this guy done that's notable/reliable enough to qualify him as a reliable source? — HelloAnnyong 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Well-known professional journalist" does not appear in WP:SPS. Can you (Idonthavetimeforthiscarp) tell me where it appears?
- And the fact that the fake name was entered into the site by Attivissimo is WP:SYNTHESIS. You could note that the name was on the site from the archive, but a reliable source has to report it was fake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Can you back up that claim of "professional journalist and hoax debunker"? Aside from running a blog, what has this guy done that's notable/reliable enough to qualify him as a reliable source? — HelloAnnyong 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Arthur Rubin
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F
- Sorry, i maybe mixed up some stuff. The blog entries also claim that it was him to subscribe under that name, i'll add the same source after the waybackmachine link
- @HelloAnnyong
- well i should look up for recordings of TV programs... if you are interested, he has a radio program on the swiss radio in italian, writes for Wired Italy, has been in several hoax-related tv programs in Italy. He published hoax related books and is currently producing "moonscape", a documentary on the moon landing.
- For instance check this link
- http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
- It's the Italian Police (Polizia di Stato) website, and they refer to him regarding hoaxes and precisely 9/11 (bufala, pl. bufale in italian means "hoax/hoaxes"). If you really need it i can dig up all the information, but i am not sure why you are not "assuming good faith".
- Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith does not give you carte blanche to add whatever you want to the article, particularly on controversial articles. The RSE article you linked to allows for some "professional researchers", but I'm not sure that this guy qualifies. Anyway, I've opened a thread on RSN about this; you can see it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Italian hoax debunker on AE9/11?. — HelloAnnyong 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Hoax debunker" is not a profession. It may be a job, and it may be a way to earn a living. So, WP:SPS does not apply here, and the content needs to be removed. Cs32en Talk to me 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I will add back the contents, since i clearly wrote that he is a journalist. Please avoid trying to push some personal agenda on wikipediaIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Idonthavetimeforthiscarp, please refrain from adding content against consensus. Cs32en Talk to me 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Claims to Mainstream Consensus Do Not Stand Up to Scrutiny
In the Section 'Advocacy', under '7 World Trade Center', the last paragraph begins 'The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST' and a reference is given to a paper by Zdeněk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure (2007) which states: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows ". (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure). However, this bald assertion has no basis in fact. There have been very few peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of the collapse of any of the three towers on 9/11. Of those few which support the official account, all of them were authored by Zdeněk P. Bažant, together with a handful of collaborators. This does not amount to any kind of consensus. The first such paper was written just two days after the attacks, when evidence was scant and no one could reliably claim to know what had happened: yet the paper by Zdeněk P. Bažant & Yong Zhou claimed exactly that. That first paper was also rushed to publication within 6 months and is most unlikely to have been adequately peer reviewed, if at all. Subsequent papers have been attempts to support the conclusions of the original paper. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed papers whatsoever which claim to explain the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1a was not subject to the usual peer-review process).
There is clearly no consensus among 'the community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally', either in favour of the conclusions of NIST or the alternative controlled demolition hypothesis. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are composed of nearly 1,500 such experts but there is no comparable independent body opposing their claims. NIST and FEMA are government agencies and do not represent the scientific community at large.
217.207.157.114 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:SYN, your theory doesn't belong in the article. Further, I've reverted your other changes, such as changing it to "Some experts" (which is a weasel word) and "it has been claimed". The statements are well sourced, so changing the tone of the article isn't acceptable here. — HelloAnnyong 15:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is perhaps the most well-written summary describing a particular significant problem within the article that I have seen written yet. Misplaced Pages should refrain from making assertions about a worldwide community based on the writings of a single dubious source (Bažant and Verdure). The claim should either be given better sourcing (broader and more well-researched), or removed. I am not aware of any significant research having been conducted by any entity to substantiate that particular claim. Wildbear (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the anon's theory has no place in the article, and the assertion that 911AE really has "architects" and "engineers" should be considered unusable, per WP:BLPSELF. However, Wildbear might have a point, except that Bažant and Verdure is not at all a "dubious source". I would ask him to provide a real source with a different opinion about engineering consensus, and that information might also be included in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem for all perspectives on the issue is that there have been few (or no) professional studies to determine statistically what the "community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" actually thinks about the issue. I don't question the structural engineering credentials of the authors of the paper. For purposes of this discussion, it is only the "generally accepted" assertion which I intended to have the word "dubious" apply. I used the word "dubious" because the authors didn't provide any information to support the assertion; no references and no indication that any surveys had been conducted. The need for better sourcing, which all would find well substantiated and agreeable, still remains. As has been stated in these pages before, if a claim is truly notable, it shouldn't be difficult to find multiple high-quality sources to support it. Wildbear (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the anon's theory has no place in the article, and the assertion that 911AE really has "architects" and "engineers" should be considered unusable, per WP:BLPSELF. However, Wildbear might have a point, except that Bažant and Verdure is not at all a "dubious source". I would ask him to provide a real source with a different opinion about engineering consensus, and that information might also be included in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I really didn't want to get involved in editing Misplaced Pages articles, but I now have a proper login, so I can respond to the remarks in this discussion section, which I started. First, I'm baffled as to what is meant by my 'theory'. My attempted ammendments to the article were simply to remove contentious and unproven sweeping generalisations which claimed that a scientific consensus existed, refuting the position of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, when it is very clear that there is no such consensus, whatever a handful of individuals may say. I have not attempted to advance any 'theory' of my own (I don't have one), unless the simple observation that there is no consensus is taken to be a 'theory'! (Perhaps we need to reach a consensus that there is no consensus on whether there is a consensus?).
Just to make it abundantly clear, I refer readers to the discussion of Bažant and Verdure (2007) which appeared in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics (October 2008). A number of qualified engineers take issue with Bažant's paper and he replies to the criticisms. Whether you regard his replies as being adequate is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that the paper has attracted critical comment and does not represent a consensus view. There is also a peer reviewed paper which supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, thereby refuting Bažant, published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit et al, 2009): the nine authors are all professional engineers and scientists. In view of these facts, the contention that Bažant represents a consensus view is outrageous nonsense. I do not denigrate Bažant's contributions, but his is only one view among many. However, I do find it extraordinary that the main article makes no mention whatsoever of the paper by Harrit et al: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
My own view (as an applied mathematician with numerous publications in peer reviewed international journals) is that Bažant has presented an interesting but inconclusive mathematical model attempting to account for the dynamics of the collapse of the twin towers. Like any mathematical model, its fit with reality depends crucially on the parameters provided to the model. Bažant has not adequately justified the values of these parameters or every aspect of his model, in my opinion or the opinion of several other qualified commentators. His model remains interesting, but its plausibility as a true account of the collapse of the twin towers remains in dispute within the scientific community. For comparison, one may create a mathematical model of a unicorn, but this does not prove that unicorns exist.
What is not in dispute (one of the few facts on which there is now a general consensus) is that the collapse of WTC 7 proceeded at free fall acceleration for over 2 seconds after onset (this is admitted in the final NIST report). This may explain why there are no peer reviewed papers whatsoever which even attempt to account for the collapse of this building. Bažant's model is utterly incapable of accounting for this and he has never attempted to apply it to WTC 7. The official NIST report originally rejected the free fall claim in its initial draft, but the final report was forced to acknowledge the truth of this fact following criticism of erroneous calculations in the draft.
In summary, I have shown that there is no consensus among the general scientific or engineering community regarding the mechanism of collapse of any of the three towers destroyed on 9/11. The official reports are disputed, as are the very few peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sonmi 451 brings up some good points. We need to keep in mind that Bazant's first paper was what is called a "rapid communication" and was described by it's own authors as a simplified approximate analysis... may be in error by a level of magnitude. The paper has been updated four times since it's publication due to problems other engineers had with his analysis. Also, Bazant is not peer reviewed in the way editors here believe, the peer review was limited to the mathematics Bazant uses, not the analysis itself. His maths do work but he often uses the wrong equations. For example he uses load safety parameters for a standard highrise in 1968 rather than the over engineered specs the WTC used which can result in significant errors (I have not read the latest version so this may have been corrected). The only way to prove Bazant's theory (or NIST's conclusions) is to document and analyse the debris field, but unfortunately NIST allowed the debris to be cleared so Bazant's paper remains only a theory, not a proven fact. Wayne (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- As Sonmi 451 is a new editor I will remind him that the 9/11 articles are not edited by academics and as editors must not allow edits, even if factual or relevant, that give credibility to conspiracy theories, the phraseology tends to be beyond what sources support. As wording is determined by consensus such problems unfortunately are common and hard to correct. Wayne (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The statement should remain. It is well sourced to experts in the field, and published by a mainstream journal. There is no reliable source counteracting this claim. Polequant (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
so many issues, so much time
This article is a mess. Rather than an informative article on the nature of this organization, I come upon an incoherent collection of badly strewn together sources, many of then tangentially related to the topic or mere mentions, many others primary sources. It presents the organization out of context and without a deeper exploration of its reasons to exists. It has too much sources that make it hard to read, but an examination of sources demonstrates that they are tangential or borderline original research, at times even synthetic - some are even presented as supportive when they are critical. There is some peacocking going on etc.
Perhaps the worse offending area is "advocacy", which either duplicates information elsewhere available, unneeded as there is plenty to wikilink to, or coatracks positions that are not notable or relevant in other articles to mention them here. While an encyclopedic overview of the focus of any organization is what we are for, this focus should be made in a way that is encyclopedic, and recognizes the fact that it is a web-available, not paper, encyclopedia, and in a way that doesn't comprise our integrity as an NPOV endeavor. Coatracking is gaming the consensus system to include information that would be harder to include in other articles. We shouldn't allow it. --Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- The article on PETA duplicates a lot of information that can be found in Animal rights movement, which duplicates information of Animal rights. The sections titled "Advocacy" describes the positions taken by the group. As it is one of the larger and more prominent groups within the 9/11 truth movement, it is not surprising that some of these positions are also described on that page, as well as in the articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Cs32en Talk to me 23:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh so because other articles are possibly a mess (I haven't checked) it means this one too has to be a mess? I find that argument unconvincing.--Cerejota (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for NOT checking the other articles ;-) The articles are not a mess. Having some information included in more than one article is a common and accepted situation on Misplaced Pages. In addition, I would suggest that you point out which particular content is duplicated, in your view. You are very likely overestimating the amount of such content. Cs32en Talk to me 22:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did an edit and removed those templates, but you reverted it. I have restored them. If you restore the previous version, the templates remain. This article shouldn't extensively discuss the different claims this organization makes, just provide an overview of them. I am also restoring tags that still remain as issues.--Cerejota (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Cerejota on
manysome of the detailed changes, but ze shouldn't re-make major revisions without consensus. (For example, the fact that "the mainstream scientific and engineering community has generallyridiculedrejected the position taken by the group" should be in the lede.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Cerejota on
- I did an edit and removed those templates, but you reverted it. I have restored them. If you restore the previous version, the templates remain. This article shouldn't extensively discuss the different claims this organization makes, just provide an overview of them. I am also restoring tags that still remain as issues.--Cerejota (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for NOT checking the other articles ;-) The articles are not a mess. Having some information included in more than one article is a common and accepted situation on Misplaced Pages. In addition, I would suggest that you point out which particular content is duplicated, in your view. You are very likely overestimating the amount of such content. Cs32en Talk to me 22:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh so because other articles are possibly a mess (I haven't checked) it means this one too has to be a mess? I find that argument unconvincing.--Cerejota (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ther eis no need for consensus for tags. I tagged and explained the tags. Cs32en questioned the tags, so I fixed the issues the tags addressed. He doesn't like the changes, so he reverts. But doesn't revert the tags. This is either/or: either we fix the problems, or we tag the problems, but the problems are there.--Cerejota (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Categories: