# Talk:Implosion of Radio Network House

Sources are not saying this was New Zealand's first controlled building demolition by explosives, but that this was the first demolition by "implosion", or that this was the first demolition of its type (which is vague). We would need a source to directly support the statement, or the statement needs to be reworded to match what sources are saying. Also, because it's a statement that is likely to be challenged, it is better to have it cited, per WP:CITELEAD. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Have you had a look at the section terminology of the article Building implosion? The "implosion" terminology is, strictly speaking, a misnomer, as it's an explosion (or rather a whole series of little explosions) that makes the building fall down. The failure mechanism appears to make the building implode, hence the term that is commonly used for this type of demolition. The first sentence is deliberately phrased the way it is so that both "implosion" and "explosives" are used, but I can see why it's confusing. How about we use a footnote to explain the situation? Schwede66 18:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't explained my concern clearly. The sentence says that it is the first building in New Zealand demolished by an explosion; the sources, however, don't say this, they say the demolition was by a defined method which they either say is an implosion or say demolition of its type. We are familiar with the media wishing to present any event or action as being special, so they look for something unique (the first explosion since the last one, the biggest explosion on a wet Wednesday in July, etc). When sources qualify a statement we pay particular attention to the qualification and follow it closely, otherwise we may be guilty of saying something that is not true. Is this really and truly the first building in New Zealand demolished by explosion? Or is it the first to use the particular method of "a whole series of little explosions"? I don't think this is a big issue, but I am always a little concerned when I see Wikipedia articles making "biggest" and "first ever" claims as these tend to be repeated until at some point it becomes accepted as fact. Provided we stick closely to what sources say we can't go far wrong. Unless sources say it is the first building in New Zealand that was demolished using explosives, a footnote is not going to help us, and may stray into original research territory. As regards implosion, yes, I have seen implosion demolitions, including the Trowbridge Estate in 1985. I had friends who lived there, and I didn't live far, so we strolled down to watch. The first block to come down on the Trowbridge Estate, Northaird Point, didn't come all the way down. The  demolition company said that was intentional, but nobody believed them! SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Supposing at the time if the media had said that Northaird Point was the first building in the UK to be demolished by the implosion method, and a Wikipedia editor interpreted that as the first building ever in the UK to be demolished by explosion - would you see the potential error the editor was making? SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@SilkTork: I've had a look on the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand website, as I suspected that they would have written about this in their magazine (which sits behind a paywall) but drew a blank. I guess that you've addressed your concern yourself through your copy-edit. Please say if it needs further action by me. Schwede66 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me Schwede, and thanks for attempting the extra research. Yes, after looking into it some more, I made a few additional edits which I'm satisfied with. I contacted you initially as you essentially wrote the article single-handed, and I wondered if you had some additional information which I was not aware of (otherwise I would have made the changes I have since made without troubling you). If at some point it turns out that this was the first building in New Zealand which was demolished by explosives (either a single explosion or a series of smaller charges resulting in a controlled collapse), then that can be mentioned. But I think the essence of the story is not so much the use of explosives in itself, but the implosion method, which is useful in crowded areas. A good few years ago in the UK we became fascinated by a demolition expert, Fred Dibnah, who specialised in demolishing tall industrial chimneys. He had several techniques, most of them very old fashioned. He disliked using explosives, and would either demolish by hand (in a very slow "building implosion" by climbing up the outside of the chimney, and then knocking the chimney into itself over a period of weeks), or by knocking out a section of the base, supporting the structure by wood, which he would then burn, and as the wood burned away, so the chimney would collapse in the appropriate direction, like a lumberjack chopping down a tree! SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I know this is now a 3 year-old thread, but Controlled Demolition, Inc. talk on their own website about the felling of the Raukākā Marsden Point chimneys in 1997 being the first demolition by implosion project in New Zealand. That said, the cited article in The Press claims it is “New Zealand's first building implosion” (my emphasis). — Jon (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's choice, Jon. Good spotting. Somebody should work that in the article. You or me? Schwede66 05:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, I had a wee go myself :-) — Jon (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"The...consortium...allowed...a six-year-old boy from Queenstown to trigger the event. The implosion...was carefully monitored to assess the suitability of this approach for potential future applications."  What? the approach of allowing six-year-olds to trigger explosions?! SpinningSpark 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Better now? Schwede66 19:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)