The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A full explanation is available on this AfD's talk page. Grandmasterka 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

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

Note to closing admin...the previous discussion has nothing to do with the current one.--MONGO 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. The previous discussion can be read here:[1].--Thomas Basboll 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since the split article has only become more NPOV, and better sourced (it almost hasn't grown in size and putting it back is out of the question). Simple demands you mention: well everyone can check on the talk page that your demands were very simple (Fix the problems that are in this article or it will be removed as an egregious violation of WP:NOT) and quite short and not explained and you made them yesterday. This is not what wikipedia is about... Check below for other arguments.SalvNaut 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong...the article is huge compared to when it was on the 9/11 CT article...when it was there, the complaints were that adding more nonsense then would make that article too big. After forking, conspiracy theory folks have made this a repository of junk science. I asked to get the known facts about Steven E. Jones put in the article and was essentially laughed off. Misuse of Wikipedia to push conspiracy theory propaganda such as this makes folks like yourself nothing but problem editors. I mean look at the singular focus you and the rest of the cruftists have...a blind man could see that your agenda is to POV push conspiracy theory nonsense...you hardly edit anything else. You're not fooling anyone.--MONGO 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: MONGO laughed off?? - the facts about Jones you asked for are already in the article since yesterday (were added witihn hours you asked)... maybe you should concentrate on its content not your personal POV on this matter? What I edit is my personal thing - is it ad hominem argument you just brought on? To make this even I'll say that you make yourself look like a problem admin. No offence. SalvNaut 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit histories are transparent...yours are solely agenda driven.--MONGO 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you accuse me of lying? Mine histories are true and real: Revision as of 23:58, 22 September 2006; Thomas Basboll - at the end of The hypothesis (since then has been moved to Conflicts with official explanation) there are sentences about Jones paid leave. You asked for it on the talk page at 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC). 2.5 hours - I feel offended by your groundless accusation. SalvNaut 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you were lying, so don't put words in my mouth. I stated, and looking at your entire editing history this is obvious, that you are here solely to advance conspiracy theories. So far, you have not demonstrated that your purpose on Wikipedia is geared in any other direction. Those links do not demonstrate that Alex Jones has been adequately debunked as would be completely mandatory for this article to ever be NPOV.--MONGO 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is not to debunk anything. Our job is to make articles on any and all notable things reported by secondary sources for a free encyclopedia. Those here for anything else need to leave. · XP · 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, MONGO, no - stop putting your words into my head. I am here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and gain knwoledge about 9/11. I won't discuss anymore with you, because it's got ad hominem and has nothing to do with the case. I can't find any source that would show that Steven Jones has been debunked (he was dismissed-its a big difference in science).SalvNaut 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's "extensively argued" if at all, on the internet. If that were a criteria for inclusion, we would have an article on every crackpot physics "hypothesis" posted on usenet, and articles on which of the Manning brothers is a better quarterback. --Mmx1 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis. Do I believe it? No. That doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Because it is a touchy subject and is prone to POV doess't qualify the article for deletion. This article needs work, not a all out deletion. NeoFreak 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis" I see; it's an essay? --Mmx1 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason the article exists is because folks were unable to get this nonsense in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article...it is a definite POV fork therefore.--MONGO 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not just making a case in the sense of debate but its continued existence on wikipedia which is really what I meant. An article talking about a POV or a established hypothetical concept has to do that. Which I think it does. I'd hate to see a article get deleted because the POV is covers is unpopular. NeoFreak 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on the contrary...I believe the POV it covers is popular...the problem is the ability of this article to be neutral, which I see no prospectus for.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case it only helps the case for keeping it in an encyclopedia. Besides NPOV issues is not and never has been grounds for deletion. NeoFreak 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not if it is a gross violation of WP:NOT, which it is.--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of an independent page for a minority POV is the definition of POV fork. --Mmx1 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me that I am not a troll, so I'll assume your commentary must be. The farce is when people misuse Wikipedia to POV push nonsense

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

Are you saying the theory isn't notable based on the mountains of media coverage? Or that it's too big for the parent page, and per policy shouldn't be forked off? Those two policies say that this article has legs and stays. Policy is on it's side, at this time, from what I've read. If you can cite in policy with examples why it shouldn't be, I will reconsider my opinion. · XP · 05:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Efforts to have much of this information in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article failed, so it was then built up on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This was split, and retitled and technically survived a different Afd, but this article has now developed into a repository of misinformation deliberately designed to give credence to something that has no basis in fact...it is an article that will perpetually masquerade as a scientific treatise. WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is not a soapbox, which this article is...a soapbox to promote conspiracy theory nonsense. Furthermore, I see no chance the article can be a neutral one and will ultimately be a battleground, further violation of policy. I rarely nominate articles for deletion, so when I do, I am most serious about my reasoning.--MONGO 05:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it will be the community that decides if it stays or goes 5 days from now, with no one getting their points attacked I should hope. · XP · 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then best you don't refer to my nom as trolling?--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, fair point and struck. However, please justify and explain the comment you added then removed however of:
"The article will be deleted...I just thought I would bring it here for discussion...it's your job to convince me to not delete it. Since the article is a soapbox platform, that is a clear violation of WP:NOT."
Also per policy do not refactor others' additions to AfD or (I see your an admin now) be the one to close this--so, regretfully, it's not "your" decision for anything directly. Thanks! · XP · 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a summary already exists in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The question is exactly whether or not the rest of the article should exist. --Mmx1 06:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a seperate issue, so no it's not too early. Now we can directly discuss the reason why we should allow articles like this to be on wikipedia...since the focus is now and always will be an advocacy platform and a gross violation of original research in that you have a "hypothesis" and then deliberately seak out sources to support that hypothesis. Sorry, but misuse of Wikipedia for this purpose is not to be condoned.--MONGO 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Mongo's reasons to nominate may technically differ from the original AfD (though it is unclear to me exactly how), it is clear that the editors who are voting here have interpreted the issue in similar terms. Again we talking about "POV pushing" on the one side and "a notable theory" on the other. Importantly, the basic justification for this article is that merging it back into 9/11 conspiracy theories would undo some substantial recent improvements to it. Splitting it has offered a way to make progress on the presentation of both 9/11 conspiracy theories in general and the controlled demolition hypothesis specfically.--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the result was to keep it.[5]--Thomas Basboll 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)ø[reply]
Gee, it seems like the usual POV pushers of nonsense are all lining up to vote keep...I wonder if that is a coincidence? I'd bet not.--MONGO 07:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article does not advance a position; it in fact makes it clear that it is a fictional theme. --Mmx1 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and fictional or a dumb CT, it's still notable however, and thus an automatic AfD pass. · XP · 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx, I don't think you read very far into the article. Gazpacho 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (1)[edit]

Proponents of deletion bring following issues on: WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:OR. My opinion:
  • Propaganda,self-promotion, advertising, or advocacy - it's not propaganda cause the hypothesis lives its own life and this article only presents it. It's not advocacy because article is written in NPOV language and criticism is already there and more is very welcomed.
  • publisher of orginal thought: the article presents thoughts which are on minds of millions of people(many scientists) - such thoughts deserve to be described and discussed, criticised.
  • WP:OR:the hypothesis has been published, has been engaged with (NIST discussed it,FAQ). There is no drawing conclusions in the article, no orginal thought (please work on that more if you wish).
Proponents of deletion, instead of working on the article to make it better, would prefer to delete it. They're using this tactics very often with regard to 9/11 articles - I agree that in some cases they're correct - not in this one, and recent AfD voting has shown that, too. Again - strong keep per above, per Thomas Basboll, per XP about quality of sources. --SalvNaut 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV? How is it NPOV when 10% of the article is criticism and the rest is a WP:OR violation citing evidence in support of this hypothesis? It is wiki's place to state the hypothesis, it is not wiki's place to argue it, even in part. --Mmx1 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agenda driven? This article is the one that is agenda driven.--MONGO 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Hypothesis" is the word that both the official report on the collapse (NIST) and the most detailed statement statement of it (Jones) uses. This is very clear in the present article, which cites both Jones' emphasis on its hypothetical nature and NIST's use of the same word. As for the sourcing, yes, it is uneven. But the hypothesis itself is easily located in a handful of detailed conspiracy theories and mainstream media coverage and the official investigation (brief mention) and the scientific literature (very brief mention). We need to filter out some noise in the article, not start from scratch. (Though the thought has also occured to me.)--Thomas Basboll 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (2)[edit]

Again we behold the wonderous miracle of MONGO logic! Mongo declares above that the article is not 'neutral' on the one hand, yet complains in the previous sentence that the article presents both "citations ... from mainstream science" and from "conspiracy theory websites". Presenting both side of the issue is balance, and I stand by my assertion that it is this very balance that is mongo's main peeve. Mongo wishes wikipedia to contain only his version of truth. If this policy were to hold sway, we should presumably be deleting "Islam" next. Even if the ideas and theories in the article are untrue, the fact that they are notably discussed and believed by many, even by "those who dream and fantasize that controlled demolition", even if Mongo disagrees with these beliefs, this topic warrants an article. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, are you calling him a bigot? Citing "both sides" is not sufficient for NPOV, as Thomas has stated so clearly below, the purpose of this article is to present his "sense" of the theories, a gross violation of WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, regardless of how many citations you put in.--Mmx1 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use terms of abuse on wikipedia. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hum....care to remove your personal attack above. If not I guess the next step will be some further conflict resolution.--MONGO 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal attack it is a statment of fact. If you can show it to be untrue, I will remove it. Your record of personal attacks and abuse are well known on Wikipedia and there is no need to repeat it here. You deletionist tactics are documented in the dozens of AfDs you have stated, solely against topics you personally disagree with or you feel should not be discussed. And is it not true that you have been repeatedly blocked for policy violations? Self-Described Seabhcán 09:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually vote in a lot of afds, but I rarely nominate articles to be deleted, so that is an incorrect statement. The most recent block for 3RR was of about a hour only, and the other fellow had himself violated 3RR on two different articles on the same day. The 15 minute block I got was from another wikipedian that has left the project and was villified for performing that block, the third one was from well over a year ago. Your linking to my arbcom case is ridiculous, and surely you know that...I have been blocked for nothing on that matter and two others, including the one who initiated the arbcom is now permabanned. Besides...your commentary about my editing in general on an Afd has nothing to do with the Afd itself and is a personal attack. If you don't know how to argue the merits of the deletion without pointing fingers at the editors, then you should abstain.--MONGO 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to you to "make sense" of these theories by presenting evidence in support of it. That runs afoul of the "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" part of WP:OR. You are not here to present your interpretation of the facts, merely the facts as the sources state. --Mmx1 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A hypothesis is very often presented along with the prima facie evidence for it. This evidence is of course provisional and does not constitute proof; it merely informs subsequent investigations and (importantly in this case) it helps us to understand the content of the hypothesis. As with any other article, we are here to help each other understand (i.e., make sense of) the topic. A synthesis of, say, three presentations by conspiracy theorists, along with official responses and mainstream media commentary, without any intention of advancing either the truth or falsity of the proposition that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition runs afoul of no policy I am aware of. It does look like this AfD is testing your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. And mine.--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of precedent ("very often"), the WP:OR policy is clear. "A and B, hence C", is inadmissible if only A and B are citable. The entire statement must be made by a RS to be included. Synthethizing the arguments of multiple theorists is a gross violation of that dictum. --Mmx1 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR only refers to presenting a NEW synthesis of events, not reporting on theories published elsewhere. The CT theory has been published outside of Wikipedia. OR doesn't apply. For example, The theory of Evolution was a new theory by Darwin with was Original Research. Had he published it on Wikipedia it would violate WP:OR. However, as it was published eslewhere first, wikipedia may then have an article on evolution with isn't OR. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, synthethizing the various individual conspiracy arguments into some "grand unified theory of controlled demolition" as Thomas Basboll has done, is a violation of WP:OR. It is no longer Jone's theory or Hoffman's theory, it's Basboll's interpretation (see grandparent post). And that is gross OR.--Mmx1 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he had done that then yes. However, I strongly disagree that Thomas has written any new theory. The article doesn't violate OR. Check the references. Anyway, even if there are small localised violations somewhere(I don't see them) they can be edited, the article shouldn't be deleted because of small content errors. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my intention to emphasise the claims that overlap in the presentations I know about. I have then tried to correlate these claims with mainstream media coverage wherever possible. There is, to repeat, a lot of work to do. The schema "A and B, hence C" might be a useful guide when we go through an ensure that our own interpretations and reasonings haven't snuck in along the way. I look forward to any help in pointing out such places. But most of the thinking here is being done by the sources we are citing. We're just trying understand what they say.--Thomas Basboll 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that this AfD is especially interesting to me as a relatively new editor. Not only has my judgment been called into question by the nomination (obviously in a sense, since I created the article), so too have my motives for being here. I should point out that my edits here were made in the same spirit (applying the same sort of synthesis) as the edits that I made on the "official" collapse of the World Trade Center article, where they were met with what I took to be approval. One of the things I will discover is whether my edits are generally considered acceptable, tolerable, or, well, cruft. I, of course, believe they shine.--Thomas Basboll 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the CD hypothesis is acknowledged by the very engineers (Sunder, Bazant) who have qualified opinions about the subject and has been widely reported in the majority of the world's media, although as a minority view. There is no evidence to suggest that the hypothesis is being vetted by "one or a few webmasters". There are, for example, several books that present a version of it, all (as far as I can tell) by independent small publishers [I'm actually not sure how small all of them are]. We must keep in mind that this article is not about the collapse of the world trade center, but about a hypothesis about that collapse. That is why the subject of most of the sentences is either the hypothesis or its proponents, on the one hand, andor the mainstream explanation and its proponents, on the other. In a few cases it presents a fact about the collapses directly (most often with a qualifier like "there were reports of..."). It should of course only do so when the fact is not controversial (the date and time of the collapses, the amount of buildings that collapsed, etc.) My point here is that the article is only "forced to rely on unreliable sources" if it claims controlled demolition brought down the buildings. It clearly doesn't do this. It says that there are people who suspect it was brought down by controlled demolition, and it explicates the main tenets of this suspicion, which, as Time magazine has pointed out, is no longer simply part of a "fringe phenomenon" but of a "mainstream political reality."--Thomas Basboll 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I fully understand most of what you state...but to present this "hypothesis" (if that is even an accurate word for such a matter), then ultimately we rely on references that are not WP:RS and oftentimes fail to meet WP:V. Synthesis of information to advance a position using sources that are tending tremendously towards disqualification for failure to be reliable is not an effort to build a better encyclopedia, but instead one to advocate a position. The undue weight clause of WP:NPOV for this hypothesis is enforced on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, yet here, the minority viewpoint is now the point of advocacy. Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias when we allow this type of article to exist as a fork advocacy article of information that fails to meet policy for inclusion in the main article. Mainstream political reality is meaningless and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia which exists to advance the known evidence that can be referenced by reliable sources.--MONGO 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to cite which of the 109 sources do not meet RS in your definition here, or in a sub page of this AfD to avoid clutter? Many people have mentioned this that are supporting deletion, and I think it will help a lot to illuminate this point, as it seems to be the main point of contention. · XP · 06:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we think of this article as being about "political reality" (i.e., culture) more than about "physical reality" (i.e., engineering). Again, that's why the subject of most of the sentences are people and ideas, not buildings and physical laws. It refers to something people are saying, and only indirectly to what they are talking about. (Unlike the main collapse article, which talks about the facts of the disaster.) None of this is obscure in the article, though the occasional sentence may not quite pass muster. In this sense, the idea that "mainstream policial reality is meaningless" and not of interest to an encyclopedia is of course simply wrong. And that's obviously the sense in which Time mean[t] it.--Thomas Basboll 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of this edit now, link numbers 7, 12, 15, 16 (not working for me), 17, 19,20, 24 (not working for me), 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36 (both), 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 59, 67, 68, 70, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 104....are all links to websites that are unreliable for supporting the information presented, or are here to advance this minority viewpoint in the form of advocacy.--MONGO 07:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this article is good, there is adquate evidence that there should be an article under this name. Also I believe the concept to be WP:NONSENSE, there are a sufficiently notable minority that believe the concept deserves recognition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, as Arthur just mentioned, and also you've also just demonstrated links from a wide variety of global, international sources, highlighting how prominenet in the current world this theory is, and you've also thus demonstrated perfectly it's notability--all those links are talking on a huge array of websites, and also foreign news sources especially, about the theory. Again, as mentioned, international coverage of this is significant, and as Wikipedia does not rely only nor does it apply any special weight or value to any American view or lack of adequate American view... notability and merit for inclusion again demonstrated. Thank you. · XP · 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 43 is a good example of one that is actually quite good but could be improved to be more informative. The sentence claims that some researchers make use of the oral histories of the events. It links to a researcher (Hoffman) who uses them (straightforward correct citation). Hoffman, in turn, has properly referenced his selection of quotes to the officially released oral histories, which have been published by the New York Times, a reliable source. That is, in this case we can say more than just "researches draw on oral histories", we can source those histories themselves to a reliable source.--Thomas Basboll 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How completely wrong the keepers are when they state that the links I menetion demonstrate notability...it only demonstrates that there are a ot of unrelaibale sources. You guys are weren't able to get this information in the factual based article, so you create this farsical one, which is a POV fork. Shame on you.--MONGO 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is a hypothosis like many theories finding third party proof is near impossible (and then it becomes "fact")
  2. can someone point to me the WP:V citable proof of God please (another hypothosis)?
  3. Article is well referenced, could be tidied but hell with the emotions flying here "good luck", and finally
  4. "Kooky" does not equal unencyclopedic (Pee-wee Herman anyone?) Glen 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (3)[edit]

Most/nearly all of the material in the Controlled demolition (CD) article previously existed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Now we have a section, 9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center that discusses CD in brief, with mentions of details (e.g. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote) in both articles. The editorial time commitment to keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories and the CD article both saying the same consistent, NPOV, RS things is arduous. The better solution is to put the CD material back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and get rid of material that is not in compliance with Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:RS). That would take care of the article size issue. The time it takes to keep tabs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories spin-off articles only detracts from the goals of the Wikipedia project. At least, it has taken significant amount of my editing time away from working on other articles, and bringing them to good/featured status. It would be better for Wikipedia to have CD in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, rather than having this spin-off article which would likely be a soapbox venue. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so we are providing space for this "nonsense". --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was already decided when the article Collapse of the World Trade Center was written. The consensus there was that few if any websites that document the controlled demotion "hypothesis" were reliable enough for inclusion in that article, so they were not allowed. This article is a POV fork of the other one, and uses the same websites that were deemed by consesus to not be reliable witnesses. Thonas Basboll, Seabhcan and others weren't able to get the Collapse of the WTC article to look like this one, so this was split, without consesus to do so from 9/11 conspiracy theories and enhanced. The article makes a passing mention that Steven E. Jones has been placed on academic leave for possible misrepresentation that his work on the controlled demolition theory had been properly vetted, yet this article cites Jones work as if it has been deemed reliable. Several articles already summerize the basic arguments of the controlled demolition argument, including and following WP:SS, the article on Collapse of the WTC...it folows the undue weight guidelines of NPOV policy, which is in accord with reliable references. It doesn't matter how many people believe in controlled demolition...if virtually every structural engineer, implosion expert and the world's major media do not support such evidence, then it is a minority viewpoint that deserves, at best passing mention, and/or no mention at all. This POV fork needs to be deleted.--MONGO 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo is right, we do have a place for this type of stuff, but this article is a POV fork. We are not deleting the place for this information, only removing the bad info that we can't include anyways due to policy. -- Ned Scott 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is by far more than enough media coverage of the theory now to warrant the stand-alone article. POV is not a valid reason for deletion per policy. Notability, however, is valid for inclusion per policy. · XP · 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the article, once stripped of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations, would be large enough to warrant a split. Article size is a reason to split, not "importance". -- Ned Scott 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is incontrivertable that the theory exists, is believed in to some degree (according to constant poll results) by a significant portion of both American and international populations, and therefore "exists". So therefore the question is whether the article content is significant enough size wise to warrant a split. MONGO referenced approximately 1/4 of the listed references. However, many are primary sources about the theory, so they can be linked to as explanations of the theory. That does leave a possible portion of them up for debate--but thats not a deletion clause. For arguments' sake, if neutral, uninvolved individuals were to delete "in contest" content simply to see what was left, the existing article would be roughly 60%-70% of it's current size--altogether too big to merge into the original parent or grandparent, and therefore under policy due for a split. As the theory's notability is also established beyond a doubt, closing admin should thus close this as a pure Keep. · XP · 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I listed almost half the references as being unreliable and yes they establish notability, but they are all from websites that are unreliable for anything other than to be able to say...there a lot of websites that discuss controlled demolition. The problem is simply that no reliable websites, published engineer reports or even the media support the notion of controlled demolition, so since nothing reliable can be sourced, it isn't encyclopedic except to say that a lot of people believe this issue of controlled demolition. I have made it clear...this article is a POV fork of content that was disallowed for the very reasons of lack of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other guidelines and policies from the Collapse of the WTC article, so it now resides here...that is the definition of a POV fork...look it up.--MONGO 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have and I strongly disagree with your interpretation and reading of this. Established, incontrovertable facts: 1) The theory is notable in and of itself now due to the massive array of media coverage of it, the 911 Truthers, Jones, Scholars, et al. 2) Many, many people believe in the existence of these theories and their basis, based on the various polls that constantly go around these days. 3) The content simply is notabable enough for coverage on WP, and this seems to revolved around one camp saying x links aren't valid RS, and the other saying they are. 4) #3 is not grounds for deletion. 5) This was a pure fork of the parent, which then expanded--that's not a POV fork, thats what articles do. 6) The parent is already too large. 7) Proper procedure is to clean up this article as it is, not delete it. 8) If the resulting article is too small, then it can be AfD'd for a merger. 9) There is overwhelming concensus here for a keep, as displayed so far, based on all these facts. 10) Above and beyond all these, for procedural reasons this AfD should be tossed as a close. The 1st AfD was 11 September 2006, this one was 22 September 2006. That is highly inappropriate as AfD is not to be reran until a desired result is reached. 11) AfD is not a shortcut for editorial process. · XP · 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XP...have we met before? I see you're new editor for the most part, but I could swear we have run into each other somewhere else on wiki. The previous Afd did not discuss this article directly...so this on does. There already is an article at Collapse of the World Trade Center that uses reliable sources and facts...that's why this one is a POV fork. I don't see what further discussion the matter between us will do...time for some super sleuthing.--MONGO 06:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently discovered that the guidelines on forking say that "since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as 'POV' — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." Mongo, of course, does believe that this case constitutes an exception. The troubling thing is that he has now included my work on the collapse of the World Trade Center in his (somewhat implicit) history of the (presumably) "repeated vandalism" that allows him to refer to this article as a "POV fork". I encourage everyone to have a look at my edits on that article, and especially this [12] talk archive to see how a consensus for the most controversial of them was built. If I understand Mongo's insinuation here then my work on the article between, say, July 20 and 26 (see[13]) constitutes an extreme case of POV-pushing, which despite the sweeping changes it brought about, left me so unsatisfied that I had to create another article to get all the things in there that were reverted by other editors. Obviously, there is no basis for that insinuation: the article's form and content is very much in line with what I was after and I have come to be very happy with the outcome. Like I say, I am really curious to see what the community's take on Mongo's arguments turns out to be. If they are taken to hold water then Wikipedia is something very different from what I thought it would be. It would mean that this extremely hostile editing environment is indicatitive of the norm, and is not an unfortunate (and hopefully temporary) lack of restraint on the part of what appears to be a perfectly good editor and administrator when working on topics he has a real fondness for and interest in.--Thomas Basboll 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, it seems very apparent from my previous workings with you, that had you been allowed to violate policy on the Collapse of the WTC article and create an article such as has been done here, you would have originally done so. You did seem to understand at that article why you couldn't have the links you want in this one...what better definition do you want of POV forking?--MONGO 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clearer. As I understand the guidelines, you need to identify a set of edits to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article that constitute vandalism, and repeated vandalism at that. Though it would not be sufficient, you need to identify the edits by which I tried to get those links into that article. (Like you say, I made no such attempts, because I had read the previous discussion and understood the consensus for that article.) You need to identify my attempts to violate policy, or retract your accusations about my intent to do so. Sources are reliable relative to the claim being made. Finally, sources that are not suitable for one kind of article may be suitable for another (obviously, I would think). But all this misses the main point: all these links were already in another article. The article was split because the WTC stuff was way too long, not because attempts to insert links were meeting resistance from you. The "extreme" conditions under which the guidelines allow you to accuse a split of being a "POV fork" don't seem to exist. Except in your peculiar interpretation of your "previous workings" with me. Again, I encourage anyone who wants to know about those workings to read our exchanges.[14]--Thomas Basboll 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My input on this is not up for deletion, just this nonsense article. Please… Have you ever watched a controlled demolition being organized and documented on TLC or Discovery? Did you know that the WTC had a car bomb go off in it many years ago, and it survived. Those two planes were loaded with jet fuel. But believe what you want. Have you ever noticed that if you "chip" away at the word believe, you can get the word lie? Keep on chippin'. Why should Wikipedia be a platform for this crap? Yes, Delete. Thanks for your input. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Procedural request: This AfD for some reason was *NOT* listed on the log page for the past 48 hours -- why is this? This AfD needs to officially run at least a minimum of 6.5 to 7 days before closure review is allowed, as this has been quited from wide public review. I am adding it there now. · XP · 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for obvious reasons. The day that even ONE liscensed SE will put an accreditation on the line for this garbage, it can have its own article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't discussing the validity of the theory scientifically as a criteria for inclusion, and calling delete based on that is not a valid deletion reason. We don't get to decide if the theory is valid, that's not our business here, our role, or anything else. We just present the facts as neutrally as possible. · XP · 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asking licensed SE's to put their accreditation on the line . . . no one is constructing a building, afterall, but rather, examining theories about a collapse -- SE's aren't the only ones who examine forensic evidence when things go wrong. Failures involving fires and explosions involve much more than just how a particular steel assembly behaves under a load. But sad to think what would happen if even one SE were to get out of line and actually consider the question of the issue, in such an evironment. Locewtus 01:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Torturous, just to make sure I understand, you will change your vote to "keep" if I cite for you one licensed SE saying CD is the likely explanation? --JustFacts 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afd isn't a vote. · XP · 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I would not change my vote, but I would be interested in seeing it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, XP. Torturous, since this is not a general discussion page, I don't think it would be appropriate for me here to provide links just for our private edification. If it's not an issue that would actually change the view yuou express here, it's probably not appropriate. --JustFacts 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT:

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (4)[edit]

Okay, I have about 200kbs of commentary here in detail that clearly explains my rationale for deletion beyond calling the article soapboxing. I can't see how much more detailed i can get when I make it clear in my dicussion that the article is a POV fork...I said that repeatedly.--MONGO 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That your argument is the length of a dissertation does not make it correct. Precision and brevity is far better, but that does not make it correct either. Put very simply, if the text is no longer in the original article, except a summary paragraph, and if it has been split out into this article, there can be no fork. Instead it is a clerical exercise to split a lengthy article. You need to separate your thoughts on content of the article from the clerical exercise of splitting it. Fiddle Faddle 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That reasoning is flawed. I have summarized why this is a POV fork, so I'll do it again. Half the links in this article were disallowed for not meeting WP:RS of which they failed to meet WP:V in themselves from the main article Collapse of the World Trade Center. So instead, it was put in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article is a POV fork of the main article because this is the information that was disallowed in the main article..it just resides here now. Had some editors been allowed to put these unreliable sources in the main article, it would have looked a lot more like this one. You need to to understand what is a POV fork and what isn't. If this article were to have all the unreliable sources removed it what remained could then be reinserted back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article needs massive reduction of unrelaibale sources itself...all those sources are good for is to demonstrate that the theories are notable becuase their are a lot of websites out there, but those websites are controlled by only one or a few webmaster and are not relaibale witness since they are based on fiction.--MONGO 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that reasoning is not flawed. The rebuttal you have just made is based on an incorrect starting assumption. It is very simple in reality. Split the article. No fork. Edit the split article down. Still no fork. Reduce any uncitable POV in the article, but not the aticle's commenary about the POV in the theeories. Still no fork. If you were correct I woudl agree with you. And for the recod I have no interest in these articles per se, no emotional connection with the atrocity, and simply think it was a sad and unwelcome event. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 200 kilobytes per second? I'm impressed :) Seriously, I've missed it on the talk page. Could you please just link to it instead of saying "here"? About POV fork, I was not aware of this term but I think it is not right to believe that some articles would be subject to different guidelines than others. I think the forks are not to allow for cruft theories, unsourced, but to keep the main article readable, because elaboration of every doubt would destroy readability. To keep wikipedia consistent, however, the main article should be formulated cautiously where the Fork article would dig deeper into the specifics of the doubts. (Hey, I'll copy this.) — Xiutwel (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of see what you're driving at here, Mongo. What you're saying is that the stuff in the 9/11 CT article was a POV fork from the WTC collapse article and that was somehow acceptable until it was split out for clerical reasons. Is that right? The move from Collapse of WTC to 9/11 CT was before my time. But the article we're discussing now (as many have noted above) could also have been reasonably created from scratch, at least today. It's a popular idea with notable proponents. But, like I say, I can see how the history of this problem might blind someone to seeing that. I think we will get this article onto a footing of RS, but I don't think it will ever get down to a size such that merging it will be the right thing to do. 9/11 CTs have many components, and are so broadly recognized today that presenting these components in detail and in their own articles does not give them undue weight. It just gives them the attention they deserve. I think the backstory you bring up here, while perhaps unfortunate (if accurate), may be obscuring the real reasons that this article is necessary. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.--Thomas Basboll 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a broken record, but if you take out the unreliable sources from this article and the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, you end up with maybe a 60kb article...which is bigger than the recommended size but smaller than many featured articles of which I have edited...if things are disqualifed from one article, they can't simply be placed in another due to them being POV and unreliable without it then becoming a POV fork...that is the definition of POV fork. Not being able to examine "closely enough" or whatever in the main article, evidence which is deemed unreliable, doesn't allow the creation of an article, even under a different name, that follows different rules than those that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Content forking, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." Please understand this guideline.--MONGO 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me of my best defense: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." Since that was my not my intent when I created this article, this is not a POV fork. The intention is to produce an NPOV article on the controlled demolition hypothesis. Nothing about the split from 9/11 CTs to a separate article will avoid consensus building. On the contrary, its creator (me) is currently trying to build consensus for a focus and acceptable sources. Lastly, the CDH article will have much more information than either the 9/11 CT article or the WTC collapse article.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary to have a separate article to cover the subject in detail. This is quite normal. It is not a POV fork, because it does not advocate a biased interpretation of another article. It gives a balanced interpretation, but a fuller one, of a small part of another article. It's a subject that's known about worldwide, so wiki needs to be an authoratitive and accurate source on it (as on anything else) if it is to be a leading work. To do anything else, is against the interests of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Tyrenius 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (I do not believe the US govt is responsible for 9/11)[reply]
No, it is not necessary to have such an article, and the proponents of this theory are pushing for a separate article simply to boost its importance. Given that the only major external direct treatment is in one New Yorker piece (which, incidentally, goes into far less detail than it does here), and some allusive references in some rebuttal pieces, it is not at all clear that this subject warrants an individual article. Moreover, absent a reliable secondary source, saying "the New Yorker mentioned this guy, and Bazant alluded to another, so we should synthethize them into one theory" is a patent violation of NOR. --Mmx1 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid speculation about people's motives and ad hominem comments, unless you can prove what you allege. The theory of controlled demolition is well known about. I've certainly heard about it, and I'm not particularly interested in the subject. Haven't you heard about it, prior to reading this article? Wiki is a source of knowledge. Provide that knowledge without prejudice. Tyrenius 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (5)[edit]

Here's just a couple from esteemed UK paper The Guardian. [15][16] If it is covered internationally in the press, it is by definition not "cruft", which is trivial material of interest only to afficianados of a topic, so can we please have a bit of objective intellectual rigour brought to the matter. Tyrenius 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)(I do not believe the US government is responsible for 9/11)[reply]
Ditto, for the curious--I argue because I honestly believe it's notable enough and with enough coverage to merit a standalone article, and the previous arguments of delete for lack of validity can be discounted utterly: if we delete unprovable theories/ideas, then all religous articles are gone. For deletion based on NPOV/POV--this has been demonstrated as not a fork, and POV editorial issues are never a deletion reason anyway; it's a reason to edit and do the only thing we are here to do: build the encyclopedia. Questions of no interest, lack of interest, etc., are dispelled by these simple searches, proving notability. And for what it's worth, I think the towers were brought down by 15 radical terrorists that both the current and previous US administrations did not do enough to counter ahead of time, simply from organizational complacency. "They don't do things here", and so forth. I think the only valid conspiracy is that a young John F. Kennedy together with future enemy Oswald covered up the Roswell incident to further Halliburton's oil profits (I'm kidding, obviously). · XP · 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a 100% litmus test. Search for my user name, I am the #2 hit. Wow! I need groupies! Second, isn’t Google an active webcrawler? (I am not an expert on the internet or computer jargon). If this is the case, isn’t this dispute and more talk here with the combination of the "time of residence" that the article has on this respected encyclopedia have an effect on Google searches? You know, when I do Google searches, I bet 75 to 90% of the time Wiki has covered whatever it was. Are we having that type of influence??? After all It’s Google! (BTW… I would like to have groupies!) JungleCat talk/contrib 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any topic which has an "article" will have significantly higher Google search response over time for any search matching the name of that search. This is due to WP's massive Google ranking, and the fact the interconnected nature of the Wiki boosts it in turn. Any page that has few wikilinks into it will do worse; those with more into it do significantly better. It would be a violation of WP:AGF to assume or say that people want the article gone to keep general public access to the information that may or may not be in the article minimized in terms of public exposure, due to this. That unsaid, anyone even considering such reasons for Keep or Delete are both (either side) wildly abusing the principle of Wikipedia and the encyclopedia itself. No personal bias or reasoning in any or all directions can be allowed in article name space and will be stopped. · XP · 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that bias needs to be stopped and that's one big reason to delete this article. Notability of subjects like this that require reliable references from the engineering community and other experts demonstrate that aside from a few that have yet to publish a scientific treatise on the issue, it completely fails notability aside from a bunch of POV websites that have no editorial review from outside parties. These websites can produce whatever nonsense they wish. We have an encyclopedic article at Collapse of the World Trade Center...and this one has a lot of the "references" that failed notability there, so they do so here as well. When the consensus doesn't agree to having some information in one article and then it shows up in another that looks at the same issue, that is a POV fork...it's very plain.--MONGO 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm a touch flabbergasted by your non-policy based reasoning above. Let's go by WP:DELETE, which is the only thing that matters here. Hows this for RS sources? When clicking that Google News link--yes, some are not RS-qualifying, but the vast majority overwhelmingly are. And that's just recently. Also, where in policy did you determine that we need "notable" structural engineers to validate the validity of this theory to have it be an article? The topic of this article is WP:V: the theory exists. We have mounds of WP:RS qualifying sources discussing it. Newspapers. Magazines. News shows. Books. Independent films. Also, from the Deletion Policy:

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.
A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.

Therefore, WP:OR comments are not applicable--per AfD policy, that is an editorial matter, not grounds for any deletion, period. WP:NOT is not applicable for the subject itself--all those statements can be tossed by the closing admin. Issues with internal content are addressed by editing, not deletion. I and others have established amply simple and robust notability for the theory. Ergo, it counts on that mark. Again, we have WP:RS talking about it, and we can WP:V facts about the the theory. Any comment implying, suggesting, stating, or demanding that the theory itself be validated to count for an article are irrelevant personal opinions which have no bearing on policy or how Wikipedia works. We have many, many, many articles on things which empirically cannot be scientifically confirmed, in any fashion. As mentioned above by others, anyone wish to stand by the courage of your convictions and AfD God, Love, Ghost, Lochness Monster, Illuminati, Reptilian humanoid, Montauk Project, and Elvis sightings? This is clearly now a resounding and overwhelming Keep. Also, this is likely the last gasp. Each year as this eventually even becomes a facet of folklore (if it isn't already) the yearly increase in coverage of this, each year, every year, will make this a permanent article. After all, people (especially in America) are still talking about the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate all these years later, and the JFK theories. · XP · 06:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I should add any Lexus-Nexis (or similar) search by those with access to such systems for "controlled demolition 9/11" would also beyond any shadow of any doubts establish validity to the existence of this article (in likely epic fashion, being a search of all published news articles...). · XP · 06:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we are saying is that the premise of the article is OR. There are a few self-published sources (Jones and Hoffman) making these claims, who blatanly fail WP:RS. The New Yorker article mentions such a hypothesis, but does not treat the elements of the "hypothesis" in detail. Just because these people and their beliefs are ALLUDED to in reliable sources DOES NOT open the door to using them as primary sources. There is no collective "Controlled demolition hypothesis"; there are merely a number of theories and questions foisted by members of the conspiracy theory (or truth) movement which can be discussed. If you wish to collect these theories together, great. Blogspot's got plenty of webspace.

There is no "Controlled demolition hypothesis", not as advanced by any reliable source. There are people who believe "Controlled demolition hypotheses" of one sort or another, but they do not collectively make fodder for an article.

Reliable sources state "there are people who believe the building was brought down by controlled demolition". There are self-published sources that explain the reasoning and rationale for such a belief. The synthesis clause of NOR prevents us from using the former as a gateway toward inclusion of the latter. It's that simple. The 9/11 conspiracy article is the natural place to explain the former; nobody is saying that there aren't people that believe in controlled demolition. That's as far as the reliable sources go. None of them advance the theory and there is no place on wiki for delving into self-published and other such sources to fill that gap, which this article is an invitation towards. --Mmx1 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)--Mmx1 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For you: What do you think about deleting these articles: should they go too? God, Love, Ghost, Lochness Monster, Illuminati, Reptilian humanoid, Montauk Project, and Elvis sightings? I can't prove them, either, and no RS really pushes them, but lots of people believe in them. · XP · 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... your stock examples. Do you look at the sources? Just a sampling, each has numerous reliable sources.
  • God: ""God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995."
  • Love: "Helen Fisher. Why We Love: the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love"
  • Ghost: "Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal by C. G. Jung and Roderick Main (Paperback - Oct 5, 1998)"
  • [17], [18]. Seems to me that the RS's point to the Loch Ness being a hoax or meme and the wording ofthe article should be changed; but one edit dispute at a time.
  • Illuminati: "The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, Leviathan by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson"
  • You've got me on reptilian humanoid, I fail to see any RS's (unless you consider Icke one), and I wouldn't really care if it went away. But, again, one dispute at a time.
  • I'm not of the inclination or training to judge whether the cited sources for Marx's alienation are RS or not, and it's late. But yes, if they're all his students citing him, that would fail to be notable enough for an article independent of Marx. --07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

XP, I can see you simply don't understand the policies of this website. Last time...I'll make it easy to understand: Much of this information was not allowed in the Collapse of the WTC article..so now it is here...that makes it a POV fork...hello. The policies you cite above are indeed applicable in any and all deletions, so that's bewildering that you would think they aren't. Yes, WP:NPOV...the undue weight clause...clearly applies...it is a non notable subject since no reliable references are available that support the controlled demolition issue...so it gets a passing mention in the Collapse of the WTC article...in keeping with NPOV undue weight....the number of folks out there that "believe" in CD of the WTC are meaningless...because that is just an opinion. If you take the nonsense out of this article, you get about 5 kbs left...and that's about it (of course the mainstream references in the article that are only there as refutation of the CD argument wouldn't be needed hardly at all). Mainstream engineers don't address the CD argument usually, because it is an obvious waste of their time.--MONGO 06:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I'm understanding them, and I regret that I begin to believe my Google comment above is actually playing a role here based on seen editorial histories. Anyway, shall we AfD Bigfoot as no RS can confirm the big lug exists? Lots of people believe in him, but that's not enough? · XP · 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to other articles as some sort of "precedent" is a false argument. But in case you're preparing such an AfD, Bigfoot has an abundace of reliable sources that directly address the subject matter, not just allusory comments. If all that were available were Simpsons references and CNN news snippets, yes it would be worth deleting. What would there be to say? "CNN reports alleged sightings of bigfoot; the Simpsons parodied it"? The bigfoot article itself seems to have some reliance on non-RS, but we aren't discussing Bigfoot. --Mmx1 06:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting anaology, but of course we don't delete Bigfoot or anything like that...we follow the policies and guidelines, and if that was done here, we wouldn't be dealing with a "Hypothesis that Bigfoot is real" article which would be a POV fork.--MONGO 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "Hypothesis of the Existence of Loch Ness" would be a gross violation of NPOV, and even the current article that states "Lochness is a mysterious and unidentified animal or group of animals" is unsupported by RS and should be changed. --Mmx1 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Much of this information was not allowed in the Collapse of the WTC article," says Mongo, "...so now it is here...that makes it a POV fork." While I'm not sure Bigfoot and Nessie are the best analogies, keep in mind that much of the information in the articles that cover them would not be allowed in the articles on the Rocky Mountains (or bipeds) or Loch Ness (the loch, not the monster.) Bigfoot is a legitimate article even given the existence of an article on cryptozoology (the study of "hypothetical creatures" as the article puts it; compare: 9/11 conspiracy theories). Patterson-Gimlin film article is legitimate despite the existence of the Bigfoot article and it would not be allowed in any of the articles that cover the fauna of Northern California. That said, I do appreciate the critique of the title (Bigfoot hypothesis and Loch Ness Monster hypothesis would not be great, but simply calling it "Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center" would go too far in the other direction, I think. Maybe I'm wrong about that.)--Thomas Basboll 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (6)[edit]

I don't object to having some coverage of controlled demolition on Wikipedia, and not arguing that Wikipedia should not cover 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, "controlled demolition" is a central, key aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories is the article that covers "controlled demolition" and properly puts it into context of the other various theories. --Aude (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's your opinion, as opposed to the majority, and its down to the closing admin to decide now... · XP · 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is covered in accordance with the undue weight provision of NPOV already over in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. The reason undue weight applies to this subject is that there is indeed a scientifically and correctly evauluated body of research that completely refutes the lack of scientific evidence that controlled demolition happened...it doesn't do this in a direct rebuttal format but it doesn't need to since there is no evidence to refute. It makes a passing mention, in accordance with undue weight...this article therefore, which has information that was unreliable is a POV fork. Should this article be erroneously kept, all mention of this nonsense will have to disappear from the main article aside from a link to be in accordance with policy. XP keeps talking about the majority, what majority? I see some people who want to violate policy and keep this article, but I see no majority anywhere, and if fact, the majority, definitely demonstrate either a desire to delete this article, or have weak reasons for keeping it.--MONGO 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've ignored my comment above. The truth or otherwise of this theory is not the reason for its being kept: it is the widespread knowledge of it that matters. If this article is kept, then there should be a summary in the main article, and a link to this, as is standard procedure. Please AGF and realise that those who don't agree with you also have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. Tyrenius 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Afd is not a vote", but-- Keep: 34; Delete (or clearly thus): 25; merge/middle ground: 3. Simply labeling as where my barometer of concensus was based on. That is as of 12:00pm New York time. I will add this is almost an identicle ratio of support for Keep that the last AfD enjoyed 10 days ago, and is actually more ratio-wise in favor or support on this AfD, indicating concensus has moved more still to the Keep side · XP · 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument left is a vote tally then? I see 29 delte, 33 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 weak delete...so 30 delete to 34 keep...so based on the tally, the consensus would be to keep, but that means we end up with an article that is a POV fork of several but mainly one other article...an advocacy platform for information that is not supported by any fact based information, only some websites and other material that is either out there to make a buck at the expense of a lot of murdered people, or because some people wish to believe in fairy tales.--MONGO 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you cite that falls under policy is reason to edit the article into a shape you feel falls under policy. And "out there to make a buck at the expense of a lot of murdered people, or because some people wish to believe in fairy tales" is not relevant (I'm sorry to say). Our opinions on any subject matter do not matter, mine, nor yours. · XP · 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already did that at the Collapse of the WTC article...that's why this one is a POV fork. WP:NOT is clear on this issue as well, since Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, not a soapbox and not a publisher of original thought.--MONGO 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of the interpretation of policy, and again, neither your nor my final decision now. It is strictly for a neutral admin now. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: I can't think of anything else for any of us to cover at this point, barring new, original comments or thought by new people being added for the rest of the day. Everything else is just going to be a circular rehash of all already debated points. · XP · 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is "not a soapbox and not a publisher of original thought", so people should not express their personal opinions, including the opinion that these theories are nonsense. That is what the article should examine from a NPOV. Tyrenius 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney...any opinion can be expressed in comments, and if they are in article space, they only need a reference...where did you hear that people couldn't express themselves? This article is a POV fork, whether you wish to believe so or not and gross mischaracterizations of policies is not something I am impressed with when done by an admin.--MONGO 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My quote is from your comment earlier. We don't delete articles on the basis of personal opinions, I hope. Please steer clear of the ad hominem. Thanks. Tyrenius 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions if sourced/compliant with policy can be entered if the source reported them. Your take/opinion, nor mine, is acceptable. · XP · 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong...so very wrong you are. The purpose of Afd more so than anything else is the points made so points stated as to the worth of an article can and will be made as that is the purpose of discussion. Trying to silence your opposition when you have no valid arguments is not an effective way to achieve your objective here. The fact that no one can demostrate that this article isn't a POV fork and keep harping that it is some great value to Wikipedia fail to see the fact that the issues are covered already in accordance wioth the undue weight clause of NPOV...read the policy and educate yourselves.--MONGO 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While a demonstration (of a negative) may indeed be impossible, I think it's pretty easy to see, if you look at the split and the justifications offered for it on the talk pages, along with the recent edit histories that pertain to the WTC section (of the 9/11 conspiracy article at the time), that it was not carried out in reaction to any POV conflicts. It didn't try to avoid such conflicts; it was simply an attempt to clean up. So I think the burden of proof is on you Mongo. You've tried to identify possible motives by going back to something that happened on the WTC collapse article long ago. But you have not successfully shown that those were my motives, or that those motives will guide the development of the newly split article. In fact, everything since "controlled demolition" was introduced in the WTC collapse article in its present form indicates that you're dealing with reasonable people doing their best to present controversial material in an NPOV manner. IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 20:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, you essentially rewrote the Collapse of the WTC article, unfettered for the most part, and evn endorsed by myself and others. It was made clear then that most of the questionable references I have listed previously here, we're disallowed in that article, yet now they are here, a repository of links that were unacceptable there. The controlled demolition "hypothesis" is a fabrication that is only supported by these questionable links and the basis of the information was originally on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, yet was moved here, re-termed as a hypothesis (which is isn't) and then the article goes on to use, multiple times, the work of a gentleman who is currently under adminstrative leave pending a review of his work, which, as evidence supports, has not been adequately peer reviewed or published by a reliable and neutral third party organization...it was published by an unreliable and biased organization as it helps them to promote their conspiracy theory. This article is a POV fork of the main one which you rewrote. Once the unreliable info is taken out of this article, you end up with a stub. About all you can say on the matter and be reliable is: Controlled demolition issues regarding the collapse of the WTC were examined by NIST and the conclusion was that no evidence exists to support the hypothesis. There have abeen several engineers and one phycists that have stated that the collapse of the WTC could have or looks as though it was due to controlled demolition, yet this has not been sanctinoned by the engineering community as a whole and no relaibale published material has been produced regarding the issue....that ;s the whole ballgame, and trying to stretch it out into something is isn't by using unreliable sources is not in keeping with policy. It deserves a passing mention, at best, and that is what it gets in the article you yourself rewrote.--MONGO 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(shifting left)
Mongo, you seem to be conflating two different editing conflicts. The rewriting I participated in on the WTC article did not involve this "repository of quetionable links". Look back at the discussion that introduced my edits, and later led to the foregrounding of NIST's collapse mechanism. They all involved solid sources.--Thomas Basboll 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. To say that my work on that article was "unfettered" and "endorsed" by you demands that we ignore the part that took the most time: the rewriting of the "conspiracy theory" section into the "controlled demolition" section.--Thomas Basboll 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely...we argued there about these references and the consensus was that they not be in that article since they failed to meet policy and guidelines...now, here we are again, arguing about the same thing, but this time it's in the POV fork version...deja vue?--MONGO 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mongo: those references were not at issue. If you thought they were you were not reading my proposed edits. I suggested using the mainstream news source that was already in there when I started, the NIST report, the New Civil Engineer, and an engineering paper [that came later].--Thomas Basboll 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I heard that before? :) · XP · 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that Thomas wanted to use links to variuos websites that had previously (before he started editing) not been considered to be within policy for inclusion, on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I am probably wrong in that assessment. The effort that Thomas made to bring the Collapse of the World Trade Center article up to standards is indication that he probably has the ability to produce featured quality articles if he so chooses.--MONGO 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (7)[edit]

My count was simply to explain my current concensus position. EDIT: Also, I like your idea of closing admin detailing at length the reasoning, so no one comes away with hurt feelings on either side. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps don't have a review process such as Deletion review.--MONGO 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So they don't. Silly me. But those who wish to delete do have the option of further nominations for deletion, which, in some ways, amounts to the same thing. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provided ample time has elapsed from one AfD to another (any repeat of this one should it be a keep sooner than 6+ months would likely be inappropriate--two keeps in two weeks is ample proof of worth, if this is a keep). Repeated AfDing quickly can be seen as a disruption/POINT violation. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've seen a number of "Keep" results taken to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer to close it. Grandmasterka 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support having this admin close this dispute. I feel he will be impartial and will act in an unbiased manner.--Shortfuse 03:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If shortfuse thinks Grandmasterka is the best candidate to close this Afd, then I would prefer to have someone else. Thanks.--MONGO 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you questioning Grandmasterka's neutrality in evaluating this AfD? If not, what's the issue? Sparkhead 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am now in the process of closing it. I think I can be unbiased. If you wish to make additional points, do it in the next few minutes, I will check the history. Grandmasterka 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your volunteerin to close this and th support to do so by two folks that voted keep makes you a bad candidate to do so and may lead to a sitaution. I don';t like to make threats, but being over eager in this fashion, I doubt you understand that this article is a POV fork. Afd is not a vote.--MONGO 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I do that this article is a content fork from 9/11 conspiracy theories as a result of that article becoming too long. Such content forks are indispensible tools for organizing large amounts of information, and in no way violate policy. --Hyperbole 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is realy simple. We have an admin who has not been involved in the discussion and who has volunteered to close this discussion. Since no-one would take on this task lightly it follows that the result is likely to be based on sound assessment of the Wikipedia policies together with the content of the article itself, the various arguments put forward here, a judgement about content fork vs POV fork (valid and desirable vs deprecated and deletable). Since the closure of this nomination is subject to scrutiny at so many levels the closing statement is likely to be more than a single "keep" or "Delete". And it is most unlikely to be based upon a "vote". I think complaining about our volunteer because one person has said "Seems impartial to me" is probably human nature, but is not wholly helpful. After all, we have so many systems in place for scrutiny that it would not matter, except transiently, if this person were biased as biased could be, though I have every expectation that is not the case. Let's just wish them luck and give them space to work, and not expect results for a reasonable period of time Fiddle Faddle 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I am aware of the person who has stated that they support this admin for the closing, otherwise I would agree. Whatever is decided by the closing admin will get no response one way or the other from me. Their decision will be accepted as final.--MONGO 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article has links that were not permitted by policy in the Collapse of the WTC article, and the split of this article from 9/11 conspiracy theories was not supported by consensus to do so. If you remove the same unrelaibale links from this article that weren't permitted in the other one, you end up with a stub, nicely rolled back into the 9/11 CT article, where it belongs. --MONGO 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are inpermissible links in the article, that's an issue for the editorial process. It solves nothing to delete the article - the debate over whether the links should exist would simply spill back to the main, now more bloated, 9/11 CT article. --Hyperbole 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already did that, over at the Collapse of the WTC article...why do it again? If we eliminate the sources that fail WP:RS due to problems with them meeting WP:V, then we have no need even for the factual rebuttal of th eremaining links from NIST, FEMA and the rest of the sources that meet policy...you then have a stub...that's all.--MONGO 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The body of this article originated on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page. Thus, saying it's a fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center is completely without merit - the fact that a parallel argument exists on this article that existed on that article does not create a "fork." Why have the argument in both places? Well, because it exists in both places. That's pretty common when you have a topic big enough to encompass many articles. --Hyperbole 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is outrageous is those that fail to see a POV fork when it is staring them right in the face. I removed the comment myself so what's your point? Afd is not a vote and not one person who has voiced keep has understood that this article is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center.--MONGO 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's not, MONGO. It's a content fork from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. A great deal of the text is simply cut-and-pasted from that article because it was too long. Thus, if you're arguing that this article is a POV fork and must be deleted, you're necessarily arguing that 9/11 Conspiracy Theories itself is a POV fork and must be deleted. --Hyperbole 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not suggesting that the CD issue should not be covered, I am stating that it doesn't need it's own article...the 9/11 CT article needs a lot of trimming too as a matter of fact...--MONGO 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sounds like an argument that it's an unnecessary content fork - something that may be subject to deletion if there's a consensus that it's unnecessary, but is certainly not a violation of policy. I'd urge you to respect the result of this AfD: it's clearly not showing any consensus on that issue. --Hyperbole 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a man of science, it is sad that so many wish to misuse Wikipedia to push their far out POV and create POV forks like this one. Shame on those that do so. Afd is not a vote, but a discussion and the discussion that this isn't a POV fork is weak and without a basis in fact.--MONGO 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"POV fork" is perhaps the most misused term on Wikipedia, and I'm certain that you're misusing it here. We both know that this article came into being because 9/11 conspiracy theories was too long - which makes this a content, not a POV, fork. Look, it's inevitable that 9/11 conspiracy theories, and anything forked from that page, is going to have a different POV from other articles about 9/11, and anything forked from those pages. But the existence of articles that present different POVs about the same material does not imply the existence of a POV fork - because if that were true, no mention whatsoever of alternate viewpoints about anything would be allowed on Wikipedia. You couldn't have Judaism's view of Jesus or Shi'a view of Abu Bakr or Kennedy assassination theories. Is that how you really want to interpret the term "POV fork"? --Hyperbole 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous...how many articles does this seies of conspiracy theories deserve? I feel that one is enough and that one si the one we have at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Collapse of the world trade center had a redirect to the 9/11 CT article section on this article. Basboll did a fine job rewriting the Collapse article, but consensus was to not have all these links (link farm) in that article, so now they are here...that's a POV fork.--MONGO 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous is the idea that a group of editors carrying a content dispute from one article to another pre-existing article would retroactively make the latter article a "POV fork." If those editors started adding those links to, for example, 7 World Trade Center, should we then delete that page as a "POV fork"? Simply, content disputes are solved through the editorial process, not AfD. Yes, we're aware that you think there should be only one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories; it also seems plain that the community does not agree with you. --Hyperbole 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the recent deletions of 9/11 cruft articles indicates that this isn't the case at all. I'm glad to see it happening as for too long we have been dealing with this shameful effort to misuse Wikipedia for advcacy of nonsense. Simply put, the bar of notablity is simply too low.--MONGO 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More