Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 3

message: After WTC7.net was added back tonight, I removed it. There is no consensus here or on AN/I for it inclusion. The site still sells the DVD and as I stated above, if someone is profiting from a POV, it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. And WP:EL under the links to avoid section:
"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research..." 
There is no consensus for inclusion and it doesn't belong in any case. Rx StrangeLove 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with the revert.  No consensus here.  It's linked at 9/11 conspiracy theories and that suffices.  No need to add the same link here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: AN/I seemed to strongly suggest that some link representative of wtc7.net's POV should be included on the page.  The contents.html page of wtc7.net seems most appropriate because it does not display any advertisements for a DVD.  There is no consensus that there is anything factually inaccurate or constituting unverified original research on wtc7.net.  However, it doesn't matter: WP:EL suggests excluding such a site unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view.  There is no consensus for exclusion, and WP:EL requires that external links exist for each notable POV on a subject.  --Hyperbole 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are disregarding the poll above.  Five people explicitly voted oppose and two vehemently refused to participate in the poll (Wikipedia:Voting is evil) but expressed strong opposition.  At that, you don't have majority support for including the link.  That said, consensus on Wikipedia = much more than a majority.  Rather it requires a supermajority.  For example, in requests for adminship or votes for deletion, 70-80% support is needed.  In the above poll, there is absolutely no consensus for adding the link. If no consensus can be reached, then Wikipedia goes with the status quo (e.g. no link). -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have neither consensus nor supermajority support for removing the link.  In cases of no consensus, Wikipedia tends toward inclusionism, not exclusionism.  A "no consensus" vote on the deletion of an article means the article is kept; why would a "no consensus" vote on information within an article work any differently?  --Hyperbole 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While we aren't voting on this, there is sizable oppositon to the link's inclusion. I won't revert again so soon after the last revert, but I will ask another editor to remove the disputed link tonight if possible. Rx StrangeLove 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The due weight called for in the Wikipedia policy is for external links representing each notable POV on a subject to be included.  It's right there in WP:EL if you'd like to read it.  --Hyperbole 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key phrase here is notable POV. The one in question isn't by any means, now there's an essay meant to act as an outside resource. The standard is higher than an essay or a website profiting from a POV. It just doesn't belong until the overall theory has a little more traction.   Rx StrangeLove 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV that 7 WTC was demolished by explosives overwhelmingly meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and thus for inclusion per WP:EL.  The little polling done on the subject shows that 50% of New Yorkers believe in some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory and that 1 in 3 Germans believe the U.S. orchestrated 9/11.  That's hundreds of thousands if not millions of people represented in just two polls who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory - and the idea that 7 World Trade Center was demolished is one of the prime theories.  There are hundreds of websites on the subject and dozens of books written about the subject.  Wikipedia has determined that figures such as Kim Kyung-Jae are notable - and you're going to try to tell me a theory of this magnitude is not??  --Hyperbole 07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is a belief in a conspiracy theory (and most countries who believe their government killed 3000 people to make a point don't fill in surveys, they have a revolution, so such a survey might need some further inspection before accepting it as a source) then a single article about it would make sense.  User:Ombudsman's edit summaries are somewhat notable in themselves.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman should be noted.  In each case the gravamen is reversion and linkage.  Midgley 09:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your editing position runs afoul of WP:EL.  The policy states very plainly that for each notable POV, there should be a link to "sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link."  There's no ambiguity there.  There's no mention of "notable proponents" of a POV (by which you appear to mean not only notable proponents, but proponents whose authority you personally accept).  Controlled demolition is a notable POV and WP:EL demands that it be represented.  It's that simple.  --Hyperbole 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If firmly repeated assertion were an argument, you'd have me convinced. Tom Harrison Talk 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only opposition I seem to receive to this assertion is references to irrelevant policies such as WP:RS and stuff about "notable proponents" that is apparently pulled out of thin air.  No one has given me a suitable reason why they should be given license to violate WP:EL on this page.  --Hyperbole 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're assuming that because the percentages you talked about above say that some people believe there's some conspiracy, it makes the controlled demolition theory notable. It doesn't. The polls you cite don't measure that theory at all so you can't use them to support your contention that controlled demolition is a notable POV. That's the specific point you need to demonstrate and you haven't done that yet. WP:EL doesn't demand that we include every single conspiracy theory just because some people think there was some undefined conspiracy. Rx StrangeLove 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The polls do suggest that millions of people believe there is some conspiracy here.  Perhaps more to the point, there are hundreds of websites and dozens of books on the theory that WTC7 was demolished - a large and substantial body of publication on the subject.  So what do you think is required to make a POV notable - an absolute universal consensus that it is true?  The POV that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is far, far more notable than many of the hundreds of things Wikipedians give the notability stamp to every day.  --Hyperbole 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 WTC  

message: There should be an NPOV tag on the article until it can be resolved how the external links will reflect the POV that 7 WTC was demolished.  Other people are going to have to make those edits; I'm trying to avoid a ban, here.  --Hyperbole 21:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that 'until it can be resolved' may mean in practice, 'until the links are added.' I don't see a basis for that demand. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, certain users, including User:Durin have suggested (at least to my understanding) that while wtc7.net should be excluded as an external link (for reasons I strongly disagree with), it should be possible to insert links to other sites expressing the controlled demolition POV in order to bring the article into concert with WP:EL.  I believe there are very few users who are arguing that the controlled demolition POV is not notable and therefore should not have any external links dedicated to it at all.  --Hyperbole 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Hyperbole, you are correct. You asserted earlier that I bullied my way into having the POV I wanted. Here, you change course on this and accurately observe that it isn't the POV I'm concerned about, but the nature of the site. Thank you for correcting that. --Durin 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the tag, as the whole article is just a bland listing of facts that are easily verified, and the only point of contention is whether or not a link is included. (which does not actually affect the content of the article.--DCAnderson 09:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I have gone through the article formatted the references, per WP:CITE.  The Emporis links are useful as references, as is the CBS link.  As such, they are included properly as references.  The wirednewyork link provided no added information than the emporis link, plus I thought it did have excessive amount of advertising, so I removed it entirely.  There are some other bits of information (e.g. the line According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction...") that need proper references. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.--MONGO 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I tried a third link to express the POV that 7 WTC was brought down by explosives; it's been reverted by two editors with no complaint specific to the site itself.  Notable POVs are supposed to be represented in external links; I can't for the life of me see how you aren't blatantly violating Wikipedia policy by removing any and all attempts to link to that POV. --Hyperbole 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance we can follow [[WP:EL]]?