Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 8

message: Is the purpose of this article to capture all aspects of this event?  If so, then information provided from the official channel is no different than information provided by alternative channels.  Albeit, the practical size of the article limits how much information can be contained herein and the potential number of alternative theories.
If the purpose is the capture this information, then the inclusion of alternative theories is signficant.  They can be called conspiracy theories if the POV is one following the official statments or alternative if one choses a more centrist POV.  In the long term, it does not matter what emotion comes from the use of a term today.  There are many articles in WikiPedia which describe events where having the wrong POV resulted in someone's death.  This is probably not one of those articles.  Nevertheless, we have moved on and   can write and read those articles without emotion.  Unfortunately, in this instance, there are many emotional triggers--it is current history.  Sometimes, history is a dish best served cold, to paraphrase an old quote.
It appears to me that a way of handling this is to include the majority opinions in this article, without rancor and without battling over terminology, political correctness, right-wingedness or left-wingedness. If that cannot be the case, possibly an alternative article can be created which co-links to this one so that holders of neither POV feels the need to unilaterally revise history.
Lmcelhiney 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of the article? 

message: The amazing number of reverts on this article needs to stop. There's a zillion opinions here, and it's leading to an insane number of reverts. Over and over and over again things are being reverted, slightly changed, reverted, modified, reverted, reworded, reverted, retitled, reverted, retitled with a modified title, reverted...ad nauseum. 
This needs to stop. 
Let's remain focused on the goals of this project; we are an encyclopedia. We use reliable sources, far preferably secondary sources. We maintain a neutral point of view, we are not a soapbox and we cite our facts as much as we can. Anything that goes against those goals is not in support of the project. 
If you're even thinking about reverting, bring it to this talk page. The group of people who regularly come to this page are obviously in significant disagreement. This does not preclude attempting to work together in an amicable manner to achieve consensus. 
I've thought it might be a good direction to go to discuss particular points of disagreement and reach some consensus, then log the results of these discussions at the top of this talk page. Not that consensus can not change (it can) but provide a reference point where we can point and say "We already discussed this and decided X. If you have something new to bring to the table, then we can re-open the consensus making process for that point. Else, we need to default to the prior consensus".
Thoughts? --Durin 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree This is obviously a very heated issue, with strong opinions on both sides.  A neutral POV can truly set the stage to achieve consensus.  This article is not a unmoderated blog and does require self-control on the part of all of us as editors.  It is possible that there will be a set of facts which emerge in the future which will provide a clear vision of the truth for all.  Let's all work toward that goal.
Lmcelhiney 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would add that neutrality and due weight are not determined by what a majority of us think, but by what the reliable sources say. Tom Harrison Talk 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When in doubt (or not even if in doubt) start a revert war 

message: If this keeps up, I'll request a page protection. I could enact one myself, but I'm sure some of you would claim abuse of admin privs. Of course, I'm accused of that even if I didn't use them :) --Durin 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And the revert warring continues

message: Here's a list of the reverts that have been done over conspiracy theory/controlled demolition hypothesis section:
* (by User:89.27.5.114)
* (by User:Durin)
* (by User:DerwinUMD)
* (by User:Mongo)
* (by User:Thomas Basboll)
* (by User:Mongo
* (by User:Thomas Basboll)
* (by User:DerwinUMD)
* (by User:Durin)
* (by User:DerwinUMD)
* (by User:Golbez)
* (by User:Thomas Basboll)
* (by User:Morton devonshire)
* (by User:Thomas Basboll)
* (by User:Tom harrison)
* (by User:Thomas Basboll)
* (by User:Morton devonshire)
* (by User:Ombudsman)
* (by User:BMG2)
* (by User:Durin
* (by User:Umeboshi)
* (by User:Durin
* (by User:Umeboshi)
* (by User:Durin)
* (by User:DerwinUMD)
* {by User:JoshuaZ)
* (by  User:DerwinUMD)
* (by User:AudeVivere)
* (by   User:DerwinUMD)
* {by User:JoshuaZ)
* (by   User:DerwinUMD)
* (by User:Tom harrison)
* (by   User:DerwinUMD)
* (by User:VigoDeutschendorf)
* (by User:MONGO)
* (by  User:VigoDeutschendorf)
* (by User:AudeVivere)
* (by User:Umeboshi)
38 changes to the section title in 5 days. I doubt there is any among us that feel this is the right way to go about improving this article. I've placed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have this article protected until calmer heads prevail. --Durin 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of recent reverting over the title of a section

message: This is a good suggestion. This named page can then be remade as a disambiguation page to guide readers to either the NIST version or the other version of the events, as each appear to be based on inconclusive evidence. VigoDeutschendorf 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good idea, rename article, make disambig between two versions of events

message: Is it possible that we should step back from this, clearly divided, issue for a moment and look at the goal of "style" or consistency throughout WikiPedia?  
Can anyone argue against the fact that there are  alternate theories associated with the John F. Kennedy assassination and   the article Kennedy_assassination_theories?
At the time of that event, had it existed, [WikiPedia]] would have been rife with edits and reverts just as it is now with this article.  In the colder, clearer light that time provides, those articles have a solid clarity of statement.
Is this JFK model a good template for not just this current article, but all future "conspiracy theory" articles?
Lmcelhiney 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of WikiPedia. 

message: Having thought about it some more, I would like to suggest the following solution to this editing dispute. Under the heading "conspiracy theories", we add this text:
:There is today a widespread belief among the public that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, not by the effects of the airplanes alone. This hypothesis has been rejected by both NIST and the engineering community, and is pursued mainly as part of larger conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11.
We source this to the Scripps-Howard poll, NIST, and Bazant and Verdure. And provide links to the CD article and the CT article.
But a few other things need to be done as well in order to ensure that this article is not simply written from the POV of the engineering establishment, which, arguably, has its reputation at stake, no matter how you slice it. I propose the following:
#A section must be added about the structural response after collapse initiation. While engineers shy away from this (or aren't interested), inquiring minds do want to know.
#The question of whether or not the buildings had been designed for this kind of event must be dealt with a bit more cantankerously. Here, it seems to me, the profession may easily have something very ordinary to hide, and there is no reason simply to take its word for it. NCSTAR1-1, p. 70-1 is very sketchy on this, but it does manage to contradict Leslie Robertson's public comments about the speed of the imagined aircraft (which are nonetheless uncritcally included here, despite his obvious conflict of interest).
#We need to be more forthcoming about how controversial the original ASCE investigation was (cf. Bill Manning's "half-baked farce") and what it took to get the NIST investigation off the ground.  
#We need to rework the first two sections about the building design to present the basis of the widely reported surprise that was felt in the engineering community, i.e., that buildings like this were not supposed to behave that way, even under these circumstances. That is, this angle needs to be moved up from the "unprecedented" section and elaborated. What is it about steel-frame buildings in general, and the WTC in particular, that made collapse so "unthinkable"?
I am aware that these four points are among those raised by proponents of CD. But I think they are of much more general interest. Doing it this way will allow the CD POV to make a useful contribution to the article simply by imposing a bit of skepticism. With that, I will take a much needed wikibreak and see you all next year. Happy editing and Happy New Year's.--Thomas Basboll 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it "widespread" is the culprit. The poll I mention says 16% of Americans. In other parts of the world the idea has even more currency. As far as I can tell, it's not confined to any particular part of the social or political spectrum. Seems widespread to me. But I suppose a simple "Many people believe that..." would do.--Thomas Basboll 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to resolve current dispute 

message: I agree with Thomas here as well.  This article would do well to read back and forth between what almost seems like a book review of the NIST report and some discenting opinion.  The four changes he proposed seem to do a good job.  I hope that under this section people may submit more proposals of oposition view points (with at least reference to the source). DerwinUMD 21:19 December 12, 2006
:We can only report on what the facts tell us...it is not our position to review the work of scientists.--MONGO 15:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts are generated by the work of scientists. Reporting the facts is reporting the work of scientists. Discussing those facts is reviewing that work. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep...that is what the talkpages are for.--MONGO 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal regarding the rest of the article 

message: I think there should be a section about the World Trade Center parodies and the controversy they cause. While they are highly offensive, they are in some ways, important to the topic, since such a section in the article would give an unbiased look at these cartoons.
:Do you have reliable sources on them? Must have verifiable mainstream media coverage. Weregerbil 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC parodies 

message: There is a typo in the section "Controlled Demolition Theory"
Third paragraph, first sentence:
"In spite of their failure to account for the existing data, a number of conspiracy theories are common among people unfamiliar with the technical egnineering details."
Should be "engineering".
Zoneless 04:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: I noticed that the WTC collapse is in the list of [Category:Engineering_failures] (such as Titanic, Hindenburg, Tay Bridge), when the page itself says that this was not an engineering failure but was due to "extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders".  Both FEMA and NIST do not consider this an Engineering Failure. I figure those of you that are more expert at this can figure out how to leave it in the [Category:Collapsed buildings] section (valid), but out of the [Category:Engineering failures] section. Perhaps within the collapsed buildings section, a comment could be made that not all of these building collapses were due to Engineering Failures. CodeCarpenter 16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering Failure? 

message: What is the deal with this article? I can't edit it at all. I want to take the stupid conspiracy theory stuff out but I can't edit it.--Beguiled 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me take conspiracy theory stuff out of this article