User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/002

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Message by Robofish

Thanks - actually, I'd already noticed the nomination, and am going to comment on it shortly. But thanks for the message anyway. :) Robofish (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NOR Noticeboard

I saw your post on the No Original Research Notice Board. [1] I don't want to post this there because I would like to get the opinions of outside editors. So can you edit your post to mention that this is a section named "History" or something about this is a section about the topic's history? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll set the link to the History section.  Cs32en  19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not really what I asked for. I'm not sure what Tom is getting at, but I think it has do with the fact that we're essentially writing a history of this topic and these sources are not actually about its history. That's OR. For example, if you wanted to write about the history of the US, you would find a history book. You wouldn't go through newspaper and magazine articles published way back in 1776, synthesize them together and create a history. That's OR. I could be wrong, but I think that's what Tom is getting at. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we both know that the authors have been cited by WP:RS sources. So the assumption that their publications are relevant for the history section directly follows from the notability policy of Wikipedia, if other authors have not been cited, or have been cited far less often. Because it follows from the notability policy, there should be no need to find a WP:RS source that explicitly states that they are more important than others. It's not the sources as such that make the publications notable, but the fact that their authors have been cited and referred to in WP:RS sources. So it's different from a history of the U.S., where you have thousands of sources, including sources on sources, sources that discuss how sources have presented other sources etc. Regards.  Cs32en  20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think their point is about WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they say (or imply) that it would not be WP:OR if a WP:RS source would be attached. Maybe they just don't want that people know that there are books about the controlled demolition theory. Or they think that other editors would fall into the 3RR trap. I actually don't know.  Cs32en  20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the same noticeboard, I onced asked a question about synthesis. I gave a hypothetical example and asked if it was synthesis. At the time I asked the question, I was leaning towards no, it's not synthesis. It took a couple days for someone to answer and by that time I was fairly certain it wasn't synthesis. So I was a bit shocked to find out that yes, it was synthesis. However, I didn't explore the issue further. [2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your assistance with Johninwiki; I don't want him to feel like I'm picking on him, but disagreement does not equal complicity in a conspiracy, and I'm trying to keep him out of trouble, whether he thinks so or not. There are, in fact, some Orwellian corners of Wikipedia, but they're not places I frequent. Acroterion _(talk) 03:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia are probably primarily interested in one, or a couple of, quite specific topics. So it's likely that they have an opinion on these issues, and sometimes see articles as some kind of blog, where you are supposed to find all the information, if you just search long enough. Most readers, however, want the material well organized, and won't read long and confusing texts. Whether a specific source is in a text or not is often much less important than the overall presentation of the topic. That's of course not openly discussed by the editors, so it in many cases, this must be a rather confusing situation for everyone who drops in here.  Cs32en  04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics

The source was a NYT article that quoted the person I inserted. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

err, not exactly. Please read the paragraph in the source again.  Cs32en  19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, my apologies, I need to stop doing drive-by editing...Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You may consider moving the opening sentence around, the wording's a bit akward (I hate the passive voice). Something like: David Ray Griffin (however?) pointed to the eywitness testimonies...2005 as support for his claim that explosives or...WTC towers. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! Well, I'm en-3, so I'll leave this stuff to native English speakers, I guess.  Cs32en  19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh they're both correct, it's just my personal opinion that the other flows better (I can relate, I write for my spanish class and my teacher groans at the structure lol). Soxwon (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminology: theory vs hypothesis

Hi Cs32en. Would you mind using "Controlled demolition hypothesis" instead of "Controlled demolition (conspiracy) theory" whenever possible, except when quoting someone who is using the latter phrase? "Theory" in this context is unscientific and (in my view) unencyclopedic, and should be avoided whenever possible. Thanks, Wildbear (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Controlled demolition conspiracy theory" is a nice wording, and "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories" is even better, as it's longer and harder to read. I think that it's probably best to let the reader come to his or her own conclusions with regard to the use of this choice of words in the text.  Cs32en  20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad URL

The link you cited in this edit [3] seems to be broken. Perhaps you could fix it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me about this! Seems strange. I tried to access the URL three times. Result: Fail - Success - Success. I'll keep an eye on this. Regards.  Cs32en  18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

appropriate name?

See this argument on the name of WTC CD CT:

name change --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot

There's a bot that automatically recovers broken references from the article history. Give it a few minutes to catch up. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See, we are making good progress! I am removing bad references, and you are replacing them with good ones. This will be a good article soon. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that these references exist!  Cs32en  16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The New Pearl Harbor

In one of your recent edits, you added the following line to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article: "The title of Griffin's bestselling book The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004, makes a reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II." Actually, nowhere in Griffin's book is any reference made to "the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II." This is a complete fabrication made by The Daily Mail, whos article is used as the reference for this Wikipedia citation. Griffin's book does make numerous references to "Pearl Harbor", but none citing a conspiracy theory with respect to President Roosevelt's actions (or inactions) in connection with Pearl Harbor. The most prominent and relevant reference to "the new Pearl Harbor" might be within the following passages from the book:

An example is provided by Rahul Mahajan, a brilliant and outspoken critic of US imperialism. He analyzes the themes of US imperialism since 9/11 in the light of the document alluded to earlier that mentioned the need for a "new Pearl Harbor," this being Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was prepared by the Project for the New American Century.  [...]  Mahajan also notes that this document said that the desired transformation of the military would probably be politically impossible "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

If a third-party reference is needed to introduce Griffin's book, hopefully we could find one which could give a more honest and unbiased introduction. Wildbear (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildbear — Sorry that I didn't give an answer to your comment earlier. I think that the description of the book can be improved. Most important is, however, to get some agreement on the structure and general content of the article. We can - and should - get to the details later on.  Cs32en  20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cs32en - Thanks for the reply. I agree, it's not a matter of urgency that it be corrected immediately. We just need to be sure that it gets corrected eventually, as it's significantly misleading as it stands. Until it is corrected, those of us in the know can point to it as an excellent example of how information in the mainstream media can be deceptive or misleading (possibly deliberately, in this instance.)

It's interesting to note that Wikipedia's article on Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor", has it correct: "The title is taken from the 2000 paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" produced by the Project for the New American Century, which noted that only a "new Pearl Harbor" would enable the military and defense policy transformations the group desired to rapidly take place." For this, the article refers to the primary source, PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document. Presumably we can't refer to a primary source in that manner for the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article, although that is the accurate and verifiable reference for the title of the book. Wildbear (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again.

 Note: My reply to your comment at User talk:AGK#WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again requires your attention. Regards, AGK 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You'll probably note, over the next half hour or so, that I will be online, but I won't be handling this until tomorrow; it's late where I am, and I'm just doing some therapeutic light editing—rather than any heavy administrator work—until I sign off tonight. Your understanding here would be appreciated; I'm sure we'd both rather an alert AGK dealt with this tomorrow, rather than a sleepy one! Regards, AGK 23:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's not an urgent matter in the sense that any immediate action would be necessary.  Cs32en  23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[Copying over my response for serviceability.]

As no A/E thread has been opened, I would advise you open one and succinctly present your complaint there.

Regards, AGK 17:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As it would not be a request with regard to the conduct of any single editor, but rather a request to amend the existing ARB911 ruling with some more specific guidance on how policies should be interpreted and applied in this area (meaning a clarification of the policies, not any kind of re-interpretation), would that be an A/E request, or a Request to amend the ruling? Also, if the situation around the article stabilizes, a formal request does not seem really necessary and would probable just produce additional drama.  Cs32en  19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one of your points was a direct complaint about the editing habits of another editor. With that in mind, at thread on at least those aspects would have to be filed at A/E or ANI. AGK 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned about policy interpretations, you can ask for a clarification at WP:RFAR.Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits are the result of a certain understanding of how the established policies should be applied to that article. (If I had posted my message at your talk page three days earlier, I would have probably mentioned two or three edits from other editors.) A complaint about editing habits would not change that situation, as content-related policy matters are, as far as I can see, not being discussed in such A/E request. So I don't see the merit in such a formal complaint. Also, looking at how some discussions are going on here, it's by no means certain that uninvolved editors would even understand what the differences between the interpretations actually are about. I also don't want bring up stuff that may have already been discussed at length somewhere here, before I joined the English WP, or any issues that are really unlikely to gain consensus. (I may file a RFAR amendment request when it becomes more clear what the salient points of the diffences really are.) Personal conversation might help to clarify such matters, before - if necessary - starting some formal process. That personal conversation is quickly being regarded as canvassing is maybe one of the reasons for the large volume of formalized disputes about petty things that are going on in this place, with - in my view - an enormous amount of time that is being wasted in that process. The situation is unstable, so there is of course the possibility that some future event would lead to an A/E case.  Cs32en  23:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just focus on improving the article? You could request peer review and see what some uninvolved editors think about how the article could be immproved. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying how policies should be applied is, in my view, an important step to any lasting improvement of the article. The structure of the article is still undeveloped and partly unsound (much of the theory pertains to both 7 WTC and the towers, but there is no appropriate place to put these things). Then, we haven't really looked at Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources yet. It would be unwise, in my view, to invite peer reviewers and then bother them with our disputes in the way that they are being discussed right now. Maybe each editor should write a short essay on how the article could be improved, and we should submit the article for review after these texts are completed and put on the talk page.  Cs32en  00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article should be organized into different sections, please make a suggestions. Organization is good. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably make a suggestion on the structure once there is more agreement on the content. Any substantial reorganization (e.g. meaning that paragraphs from different sections would move to a new section or subsection) would either lead to a lot of loose ends and poor language, or would result in further edit conflict, as each rewording is potentially WP:SYN, of course.  Cs32en  00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice Jehochman reverted your edit re: Bachman and Schneider for not being notable engineers. A big problem I have with editors is when they consider notability only on their own narrow personal knowledge. Schneider is notable as the author of the standard University textbook on structural engineering safety analysis and also was the engineer who introduced Concrete shell construction to the U.S. Bachman is a well known expert in his field specialising in earthquake engineering and collapse mechanisms of concrete structures. As structural engineers they are speaking in their area of expertise which makes them notable under WP guidelines. Another notable engineer who is often ignored because he is not a member of any of the 911 organisations is Jack Keller (BS, MS, PhD Professor Emeritus Utah State University Civil Engineering) who is listed by Scientific American magazine as one of the world’s 50 leading contributors to science and technology. Another is Marx Ayres (Member or former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission, National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council, Building Code Advisory committees for the City of Los Angeles, the California Building Standards Committee, and the International Conference of Building Officials) who accepted the official theory of the collapse but after reading Jones 2006 paper stated: Jones paper "is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct." There's plenty of interesting stuff if you do the research. Keep up the good work, it's good to see someone who is not an extremist nor easily scared away from trying to get the article to a NPOV. Wayne (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth could have been here for almost a year now, looking at the sources, so there is clearly some room for improvement of this area of Wikipedia. Most important is of course that we treat all topics in a serious and encyclopedic way. This is what most readers expect, and it helps to give Wikipedia more credibility. We should also be able to establish the notability of the engineers that you have mentioned, maybe not so much by news reports, but by citations in the academic literature. "Two among thousands" is of course not a valid argument, as we do not know about the opinion of 99 per cent of the engineers (that doesn't mean that there would be some silent majority of CD proponents, but probably a lot more than two). Also, an appropriate redirect can indicate notability, and maybe some initial work on related articles is a good way to make progress. Please feel free to add to the article or change the content any time.  Cs32en  19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Template 911ct supporters / BLP concerns

Hi. I only replied today, so I'm here just calling your attention to it (at User talk:Nabla#Template 911ct supporters / BLP concerns) - Nabla (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability - Meaning of "self-published"

It appears that your comment was posted in the wrong section, conflict of interest causing content removal? (and please comment on that section if you wish). —Richard Taytor (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I posted an answer to the previous comment, which was probably already in the wrong section. I'm moving both comments to the other section.  Cs32en  01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. Unprotection request: 9/11 Truth Movement

Hello Cs32en. Article unprotected now. Regards, Húsönd 15:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I assume that you are going to re-protect the page after it has been moved. I don't know whether the move would lead to any discussions or disputes, and whether it would be better to wait a while to see whether any such debates emerge. I'll leave it to you how to handle this from an admin perspective. Regards.  Cs32en  15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So called ..

Major Italian network http://www.911blogger.com/node/8267

Is there no transcript? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to that later. There are some other TV/audio sources out there, also some spikes in the view count histories that are probably due to TV coverage. Some very reliable sources are contradicting each other on minor issues, so there is still quite a lot that needs to be sorted out.  Cs32en  22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Truth movement

Hello, regarding the possible move of this article, I haven't been involved in its editing at all, but I would guess that there's been some controversy involved at some point, especially considering the tag at the top. I would recommend putting a request up on WP:RM in the "Other proposals" section. That way, anyone involved could voice his/her opinion. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keilana — Thank you for your response on this issue! I had also contacted the user that had protected the page before you. He has unprotected the page, and I have already moved it, including the major redirects. I'm not aware of any previous dispute with regard to the substance of this move, i.e. from "Movement" to "movement". I will of course discuss the reasons and rationale for the move if someone asks or objects to it. — Regards.  Cs32en  23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Users staying incognito

Category:Users staying incognito, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)