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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People questioning the official American 9/11 account

[edit]

People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account

[edit]

Redundant with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, 9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and probably others. This should be a category (if that), not a list article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 only list researchers, there are plenty of non-researchers questioning the official version. This was a part of 9/11 Truth Movement, until it was broken out so it would not dominated the article, see Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement#List. Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a specific group and has nothing to do with this article. This is not the place to hold a "is category better than lists" arguement, consensus is that categories and lists can exist at the same time, see List of lists, lists offer things categories do not. Also, some people keep removing the polls in the article. --Striver 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Topic seems too diffuse to me. List seems to run the gamut from hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas of the 9/11 report. Salvageable material should be merged back to 9/11 Truth Movement. -- JJay 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it should be deleted for not differentiation between " hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas "? That is a editorial issue, not grounds for deletion. Further, that is alomst impossible to do, where should the line be drawn? When are you not enough "hardcore" to be listed among them? Also, this list would dominate that article.--Striver 17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Well, that was sort of my point. If we can't draw the line maybe we shouldn't have the list. As much as I try continually to seek a justification for having articles on various topics, this seems like something that needs a lot more editorial explanation to have any real value. Otherwise, to me, it looks like a blatant attempt to create a long list of personalities/activists/nutjobs who may have questioned, at one time or another, aspects of 9/11, or signed a petition, or supported someone who did. Anyway, the future participants here will decide. I don't have a particularly strong feeling and could move to neutral depending on the arguments. -- JJay 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me further state that this should never be a category. A category of this type is frankly worthless and dangerous. I'll switch to keep if that's the way this starts heading. -- JJay 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand worthless, but why dangerous? If you want, reply on the talk page so we don't side-track the discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 18:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, I'd rather see this as a list, where the absurdities are patently obvious, than as a category, which has a veneer of respectability. Since a new user has now created Category:People questioning official 9/11 story, I'm switching to keep on the list. -- JJay 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is very, very, very simple: If they have questioned or rejected a part of the 9/11 Commissions account, and still do so, then they are included, if not, then they are not. Being on a list implies notability, we have list of christians, List of humanists, List of transhumanists, List of anarchists, List of communists and List of people by belief so this should not be any propblem. Futher, allmost all the people in the list carry no ambiguity, most are staunch rejectors of the 9/11 commisions account.--Striver 17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And upon further consideration, those lists are useless. To shoehorn people into a category is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be doing, which is explain the nuances of their position. Particularly with respect to political ideas. All it will do is produce nonesense debate over "does X fit into Y category" It's a bit more clear-cut with religion, but still, what's the use of a list of Christians? It'd be uselessly large. --Mmx1 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above vote is from an editor who claims to work for the Department of Homeland Security, FWIW. Is it appropriate to count votes from governmnet agents on matters such as this? Pedant 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You dont own things in wikipedia, for your information. --Striver 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear that you've figured that out yourself. --Calton | Talk 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because? What do you base your accusation on?--Striver 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You constant attempts to create a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory walled garden, your creation of articles on marginal/non-notable/trivial topics so you can link to them, your zealous attempts at preserving your POV throughout -- other that, I guess, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None sense, the 9/11 articles are no more walled gardens than the Bahai articles are.--Striver 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. A walled garden is an isolated section of a Wiki where pages link only to each other and don't link outside. Really, Wikipedia's Star Trek content, with its legions of interlinking minor character articles, could be seen as a walled garden. The 9/11 Truth Movement articles, on the other hand, link to current events and to people notable for reasons having nothing to do with 9/11: the content is not isolated. I'll also add that, if anything, Striver has been working to make the topic *less* of a walled garden, linking it to as many outside sources, such as Erica Jong and Charlie Sheen and A.J. Hammer, as possible. --Hyperbole 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit over the top. Articles are being deleted by government agents? Mongo and other government agents are selectively deleting parts of discussions to discredit you? I don't think so. I do think hyperbolic rhetoric like that undermines your argument. Tom Harrison Talk 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only parts of the discussion that have been deleted are these. See the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of the deletions I am speaking of: [1]Pedant 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were archived, not deleted. --Mmx1 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a great example of the use of term straw man arguement. Could you please explain to me why this is those things, but List of transhumanists is not a " a great big appeal to authority, or, at worst, essentially celebrity endorsement list"?--Striver 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand the meaning of the term "straw man"? Let's find out: what, pray tell, is the "great example" of a false argument I've created that I'm knocking down? As oppsoed to, of course, your great big phony comparison, which is a list of practitioners?
I renamed the article to People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account. --Striver 10:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, stop deleting the polls! --Striver 14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This page seems like a simple listing of people's names. Looking through the policy on deletion, the only thing that comes close is 'soapboxing' but this page is not soapboxing. It boild down to a simple statement of (allegedly) fact - that these people here support this thing here. Furthermore I would say that this statement is also factually accurate - I'm sure that most of the people listed here would be happy to be listed on this page(in fact I can't see any that are out of place). The intense emotions relating to this particular subject is all the more reason to tread carefully before taking the extreme step of actual deletion. Utunga 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to characterising me as a 'user who has expressed bias', I am an editor with thousands of stable contributions on hundreds of topics and have not expressed a bias. Look at my contributions if you think I'm a biased editor. Mmx on the other hand is a user who brags of having "over 800 edits", proudly claims on his user page to be a "Wikipedia exclusionist", a "hopeless cynic" who "wants to join the United States Military", a "member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" who "strongly opposes the United Nations" and "lives in New York". Pedant 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning your bias, but the bias of vote advertising toward people with known viewpoints, which amounts to vote stacking. For the record, a majority of New Yorkers believe the USG was complicit, so that's hardly a qualification. --Mmx1 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again trying to refactor the discussion. I am not asserting that "MONGO, Mmx1 has a bias", I am stating as fact that "I am an editor with thousands of stable contributions on hundreds of topics and have not expressed a bias." MONGO, Mmx1 has characterised me both as one of a group of (2) "users with expressed bias on the issue" and as a member of a group of "people with known viewpoints". You don't know my viewpoint. What bias or 'known' viewpoint does this proposed paragraph express???:

Since the attacks, a number of people proposed alternate theories about these events, such as suggesting: that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were intentionally demolished for some reason; or that some group within the U.S. government either had foreknowlege of or were actually complicit in the events of September 11, 2001. Some have speculated that because of the absence of photographic evidence, that something other than a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon, and some suggest that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations.

All I am asking is that you MONGO, Mmx1 (or anybody else for that matter) stop making personal attacks on me in order to discredit my contributions. I'm a good editor, I just don't like to see wikipedia become a tool of government agents. If, in your role as a government agent, you wish to persecute me, do so in the real world, where I can, at least presumably, defend myself in acourt of law, and not have you nimbly refactoring discussions I am engaged in. Pedant 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I got the two of you confused, MONGO and Mmx1, no offense was intended, I guess you both look pretty much the same from my viewpoint, that is if I had a viewpoint. Pedant 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit being so self-centered. Striver has been going around to users who have been pushing the 9-11 conspiracy POV and asking them for their input on this page. That's what we were pointing out - you were just one among 4. You can defend yourself here as well. Nobody's censoring you, and conversely, there's no restraint on me to point out poor-faith actions like Striver's vote stacking, or "refactoring" as you call it. Government agent? Please, save your drama for the theater. So it's a personal attack to point out that you're biased toward the conspiracy theorists but it's not a personal attack to accuse me of being a Government agent out to persecute you?--Mmx1 22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll apologise again, as I mistook you, Mmx1 for MONGO, it's MONGO who is the government agent, and I'll happily take your word for it that you are not. I'm sorry, it was a mistake, I was confused, and maybe becoming senile. I sincerely apologise for the mistake... However, MONGO actually does appear to me to be censoring me by selective archival: [7],. I am trying to point out that if I have shown bias it is towards the conspiracy theorists... it can be amply shown that there was a conspiracy, and any explanation of that conspiracy that includes conjecture and unproven 'facts' is also a theory, so in fact the 9/11 commision's findings are a conspiracy theory. I'm not disputing facts but theories. It is a fact that WTC 1,2, and 7 collapsed to dust at freefall speeds after being struck by aircraft. Do you dispute that? It is a theory that the collapse of all 3 buildings was caused by the aircraft. You hold that to be fact, therefore you are biased toward accepting that particular conspiracy theory as a fact. I do not accept as fact anything that is not provable, and I object to the inclusion as fact of unproven theories. I am biased AGAINST conspiracy theories, at least I do not think that theories are Neutral in their point of view, or merit inclusion in an encyclopedic text, unless they are represented not as facts but as theories. I wish you could understand that. The mere fact that you assume that Striver contacted me because he thought I might weigh in 'on his side' of this issue does not make me biased.Pedant 23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Striver inexplicably directed me to this page after I had already voted on it. My presence here is not the result of lobbying. --Hyperbole 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how a list of researchers makes a list of people redundant? Maybe you imply that all peopla are researchers? --Striver 20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there's a fast and loose criteria for "researchers", what is the difference. --Mmx1 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with moving/renaming Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 to People questioning the official American 9/11 account. But, these two articles are too similar and overlapping to have both. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there's a fast and loose criteria for "researchers", what is the difference. :::--> For Mmx1, if a researcher isn't an engineer, their view cannot be considered, and if they are an actual researcher, there is just a "fast and loose criteria" for them, even though a number of them have published in science journals and teach at universities. Then, continuing this pattern, if they aren't at MIT, their university work doesn't mean as much as those at MIT. Apparently only Mmx1 knows who should and should not be considered proper enough, or the right sort - engineer or scientist - for all analyses of the many aspects of the 9/11 attacks. Bov 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority. The page Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 does have a fast and loose criteria as a housewife, a "media critic", and a few webmasters are apparently "researchers". I've never brought up the "MIT" criteria, you have (do I detect a scent of anti-intellectualism?). When you're pulling out theoretical physicists and water testers (Kevin Ryan) as your authorities based on their resumes, yes, I'm well within my right to question their qualifications. --Mmx1 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>"If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority." Like I said before, in the crash of American Airlines Flight 191 the person who figured out what actually caused the crash was not an engineer, he was a metallurgist, working in a research setting. The NTSB started off saying it was a single bolt failure and was going to leave it at that, was busy replacing all the bolts on other DC10s, and had it's engineers backing that story up. That story was wrong. It wasn't just the bolt, it was a mistaken procedure for engine maintenance that stressed the bolt beyond capacity. But it took a metallurgist examining the fractures on the pylon on a microscopic level, and then through a process of deduction, concluding that it could not possibly have been the bolts alone, to determine that.

As the History Channel describes it:
"the investigation that followed was a firestorm of a different sort: everyone involved--the FAA, American Airlines, McDonnell Douglas and the pilot's union--pointed fingers in an attempt to avoid blame; a key witness mysteriously disappeared; important documents and physical evidence was misplaced. Now, a quarter century later, some of those close to the case speak for the first time, revealing why key players chose to live with the "acceptable risk" of such an accident rather than correct a known problem." 198.207.168.65 20:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability criteria for persons do not apply to the mentions of persons on a page which are

relevant to the topic of the page. Therefore the notability of individuals is not pertinent to the AfD. It is only germane to the content of the article.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 - I can't see why to distinguish between "researchers" and "other people". But it's useful to have a list rather than a category because e.g. a category can't tell me that Amiri Baraka wrote and performed "someone blew up America" then refused to apologise, but wasn't active in the "research" movement as such. A brief description like that, though, would be excellent: informative, useful, and encyclopedic. At present, unlike what this AFD nomination claims, this article is not redundant because there is nowhere for non-researchers to be listed. TheGrappler 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who are not "researchers" but are instead "activists" or "politicians" or otherwise notable figures are included in the topic of the article. Therefore, it would be more suitable to merge the Researchers article to this one, rather that disqualifying content which is otherwise of interest by restricting the topic.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Researchers" are generally considered to be academics. A list of academics may have no room for, say, politicians, movie stars, or other notable people "questioning the official account of 9/11". -- noosphere 17:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A merge the other way around could work. Researchers fit in the broader list of "people". But, still this list needs to be really well cited and verified. It would be really unfortunate for Wikipedia, if someone was mistakenly listed here and led to another John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an emotionally charged issue. So I agree that extra care should be taken to verify that the people on this list really do belong on it. -- noosphere 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Researchers" include some academics, but "academics" do not include all researchers, according to normal English use.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 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