Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

World Architecture News article

The references to the World Architecture News article are all used for information about statements made by Gage and the other authors of that text. It's not necessary to say "According to Gage, Gage stated...", and the source would be valid, even if the text would just appear on AE911Truth's website (as a self-published source for statements by the subject of an article). So I see no reason to tag this source as "unreliable". It is reliable for information about Gage's, and by implication, AE911Truth's views.

As NIST has confirmed the free fall of 7 WTC, it does not seem to be appropriate to characterize this description as "alleged". It's actually one point where NIST and the 9/11 Truth movement are now in agreement.  Cs32en  22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Even NIST admits free fall
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
  • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
  • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
  • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Tony0937 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree the term "alleged" should be removed from the description of the collapse since there is no dispute currently on the topic.Carolinequarrier (talk)carolinequarrier —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

The Bazant Language has always been misleading and unencylopedic

WP policies with respect to common sense and be rational have always been operative, but have long been nakedly violated in the claim that Bazant studied the scientific community, knows which members are informed, knows it has a unified view, and has any way to know what its views were. The false claims with respect to Bazant's view are patently unencyclopedic, and statements to the contrary by some editors have been repetitively lacking in common sense, violating of be rational and disruptive. I've put a POV alert at the head of the article until this can be resolved, and I suggest this issue be moved to another stage of outside arbitration. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody’s claiming that Bazant studied the scientific community? How did I miss that? Obviously, his statement about what the rest of the scientific community thinks doesn’t carry the same weight as his scientific and technical work, but don’t you think that considering the publication of his work, that he’s a reliable source? — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
How did you get this far as an editor without having thought about issues. If you agree Bazant has not studied the issues, then his view is an entirely irrelevant opinion, or relevant but only by putting them in an honest context by saying it has not been studied. Please take time to think about the issues before turning the discussion into into a mere dispute over opinions and shooting from the hip. My points above you have not addressed, and WP policies can not be reduced, as you propose, to RS. The discussion page is supposed to be a place to building consensus by thinking, not a merely blackboard of opinion-voting. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor called Priest appears to have reverted my edit without explanation. The false and unencylopedic use of Bazant was long overdue for correction. Note, despite that the fact that Bazant makes claims without substantiation, I have not proposed removing his claim, but merely stating the truth that you have not disputed, that no studies have been found that identify the views of informed scientists about controlled demolition, but that Bazant makes a certain statement that many specialists reject it. THat would be wp:BeReasonable and WP:common sense, and honest. Oh, wait, is there a new prohibition against honesty, reasonability and common sense at WP? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
My edit was explained and is consistent with wp:beBold. Conversely, Oreo's reversion was done with no explanation given. Why don't you join me in proposing that this question, which has lingered for a long long time, be brought to a higher level of POV or content arbitration.

See reasonability See common sense --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Look. If you were to take a look at the history, you'd see that there is a discussion on the talk page about that part. And the explanation I gave said that. Cool your jets. Calling those who disagree with you irrational, disruptive and lacking in common sense is certainly not being civil, and isn't lending you any credibility. Oreo Priest talk 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not the proper venue for your opinions on those matters. Your comments here do not address the merits of the question. If I seemed to accuse people of being irrational and lacking common sense, please recognize that my comment is focused an a sentence in the article that is misleading, and that needs to be improved. Please take a moment to recognize that WP really does have policies that pertain to wp:beRational and WP:common sense. It does not advance the discussion for you to ignore the merits of the case that were noted in my initial comment (if Bazant has no way to know something, then we need to be honest about that and present it as his claim or his opinion, or remove it altogether. He has used unfairly to falsify the matter. Correction of this misleading and unencylopedic information is long overdue.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody is trying to be rational and use common sense. Not everyone agrees with you. If you have something constructive to say, we've been discussing this two sections up. Oreo Priest talk 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oreo. Please be patient and recognize the topic at and instead of telling me what to write or where to write. You haven't responded to my comment on yoru talk page, and it is there too that I show how you are not addressing the substance of the issue. I still have no reason to believe you are thinking before you type into the discussion. The prior section showed that editors were not listening to each other, and did not come to a consensus. That is why I opened this new section. I am returning the pov-section-template. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. If you recognize we have not come to a consensus, stop adding material without consensus (I'd say against consensus, but that's just my opinion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you Sir Rubin. Welcome back, no need for your polite reticence. By the way, you comment attempts to ignore be bold, common sense and be rational, and although I like you, I am not going to accept that. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's remember Sir Rubin, the purpose of this section is to discuss why bazant does not give evidence for his view. Why do you suppose that is? More importantly, why was his unsupported claim allowed to INITIALLY enter the article without consensus (in addition to violating WP Common Sense and being unencylopedic). His unsupported claim is in a journal that is supposted to have higher standers than WP. Bazant's tendency to make unsupported claims probably proves his paper is not reliable, and his claim should not be included, but I appreciate that many people want to include his view (or opinion). So, instead we could do what real scholarly papers do, namely, reveal the actual truth that no study has been found which reveals what engineers think about CD, and to report bazant's view as being his personal statement, attributing it to him. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear all Sirs. This question has existed for a long time before these two sections were created. Why don't we submit it to a mediation cabal, although I don't know if that is the official term. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Orea Priest indicated that his removal of my POV-Section warning was accidental, and creditably he said he was sorry. I am surprised, now, that it has been removed a second time. Lets remember that a POV section warning specifies that a certain section is being contested. This is a signal to readers that, as everyone acknowledges, the writing of a section has not been resolved. In this case, the problem is that bazant's unsupported claim is being presented, falsely, as a finding, as a fact, when this problem can be easily remedied by reporting what seems to be simple truth, that it his his own claim (and that it is too early to know what most scientists think because no such studies exist of their view, or no such studies have been found). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, removing a POV section warning is a violation of policies and protocol. It feels very strange that, in addition to having to deal with the problem of POV, it seems we now how to deal with efforts to hide the POV question. This is the alert that was added: In addition, a warning about misinterpreted citation needs to be added. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sir OreoPriest. Despite the fact that you apologized for removing a pov section warning, the SECOND removal of the POV Section warning has your signature on it. It is almost edit warring to assume that your cryptic unexplained edit summaries will count as discussion. The POV SEction warning is not redundant to a POV Article warning, because the problems underlying each one are distinct; one may be resolved and removed even when the other one is not. I don't know who is making the claim linked with the article POV warning, and only he or she can represent the POV concern attached to it. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the double tag was unnecessary; I added the tag in the header after removing the section tag by accident. If you really think we need both, suit yourself. Oreo Priest talk 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Butt - I agree with "Neutrality" warning. I support seeking mediation (but am unfamiliar with the process). I'd also reiterate WP standards for "Verifiability" - 1. the source must "unambiguously support" the claim "as presented in article" and 2. "burden of evidence" is on editor seeking inclusion of the (Bazant) claim. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration wouldn't be a bad idea. Oreo Priest talk 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Or mediation. Oreo Priest talk 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise? (in conjunction with mediation). What if we replace:

The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings.


In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of WTC Building 7.

Granted, less concise, but infinitely more verifiable, fact-based, and neutral than the "community rejects CD" phrasing (for which we have no evidence). It seems to me a solid balance of the multiple concerns on both sides. Any objections? (if so, please cite the relevant WP guideline) Doctorhoneydew (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We should include the second part as well, but I oppose removing the first part. We don't have no evidence, it's just that some of us don't think the evidence is conclusive and some do. I do applaud that you are working towards a compromise. Oreo Priest talk 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. I added the reports to #Advocacy rather than the lead, as the amount of detail seems excessive per WP:Lead section. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Undone". 2over0, I reverted your bastardization of my proposal. I specifically wrote that language as a proposed compromise to replace Bazant language in the lead. However, I'll assume that you didn't intend bad-faith random insult removed - 2/0 (cont.) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oreo, counter my compromise with new compromise. Otherwise you're not even attempting to build consensus. Contradicts your claim of "applauding" my attempt at compromise. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oreo - "some think evidence is conclusive and some do not". False. There is zero evidence for the article as written (" generally rejects controlled demo.."). Zero evidence. What we DO have is a claim that the community supports NIST. That is different.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo Priest, I would accept the proposed compromise - but it seems you have not accepted it. If you insist on maintaining the controversial language which presents bazant's statement as a fact, its not much of a compromise its it? It merely adds new information. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, lets face the idea that readers would know more, not less, were they to know that his statement is a statement (not a finding, not a research fact). Above it was said that bazant's claim should be welcomed as an expert opinion. Why has the proponent of that view not proposed letting the readers see the reality of that very truth, the truth that bazant is giving is his professional opinion, not a finding? Oreo Priest may have supported that view, above - but does not propose including the very thing he acknowledges in the article so readers know the truth.) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sir Oreo Priest, Would you object to the insertion of three words? That is, replace this
The engineering and scientific community generally ... etc...
with this
Bazant states that the engineering and scientific community generally...etc...
That change would make the statement less misleading and more encylopedic, since bazant's paper and his data are not fundamentally about what others believe, and he hasn't given reason for his view. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition, to facilitate our esteemed dialogue, the quote seems to be this -
Quoting: As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows END. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as mentioned above, I do object to inserting those three words. Quantpole's comment on 19 August 2009 sums up why I object. Oreo Priest talk 03:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oreo, what compromise are you proposing? Or what solution to the multiple concerns? Many editors have demonstrated numerous flaws in the sentence as written. Bulk of WP guidelines support the objectors. Deletion is justified, but I prefer compromise if others, like yourself, are willing to attempt it. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? Why did you just delete well sourced information?
And no, deletion isn't justified, many editors have demonstrated the strengths in the sentence as written. And no, I don't really have any ideas for a compromise myself. I think mediation might be the way to go. Oreo Priest talk 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If you don't want to read my "edit summary", I'll reiterate here. I deleted it because I wrote it, and it was intended for a different section as possible compromise in disputed Bazant line in lead. And, yes, deletion of current Bazant line is quite clearly justified. The sentence misrepresents the Bazant quote, and by clear WP standards ("unambiguous support"), it never qualified for inclusion in the first place. But in WP communal spirit, I'm willing to attempt compromise and/or mediation. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In hopes of building consensus, I'd like to note that Oreo has rejected two proposed compromises both of which "IhaveButt" has accepted. Either: 1. Adding "According to Bazant" to show that Bazant was giving an opinion, not verifiable fact. or- 2. My proposed compromise to replace Bazant opinion with NIST conclusion (see above). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

HaveButt, while we continue our unreciprocated attempts at compromise, can we start a "mediation" discussion on talk page? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You and Ihaveabutt agreed to begin with, so of course he would accept your "compromise". Second, I read your edit summary, but you don't own that sentence or any other content on Wikipedia. I'm putting it back in because it was true, well-sourced and relevant. Oreo Priest talk 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oreo Priest, if multiple editors are in the process of discussing a compromise, involving compromise language that I drafted on this discussion page, and then you pre-emptively place that language in a different section of the article (thus obviating the very possibility of compromise), can you see how that might give the impression that you're acting in bad faith? I hope you'll respect my efforts to build a collaborative solution. Please don't do that again. . Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(1) We really should not recapitulate the entirety of Collapse of the World Trade Center here. Mentioning how this group differs from the consensus stance is necessary contextualization, but keep it simple. (2) Per Wikipedia:Lead section, we should not present any information in the lead which is not in the body. The greater detail of giving a couple major references to the consensus position belongs where we discuss A&E's dissenting opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Good points 2/0 - mention the consensus stance and be brief. That can help us shape a compromise. Well, we can definitely trim my proposed compromise, something like, (rough) "The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires." Definitely more concise than my prior version (though a tad less accurate because 7 wasn't hit by a jet. Maybe okay). And far more fact based than Bazant opinion being presented as verifiable fact. I would support that compromise. You? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, 2/0 and Oreo Priest, do me a favor and don't preemptively misplace this 2nd version I'm proposing like you did with my other proposal. It would suggest you're acting in bad faith. Thanks! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that the "engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition" but to say so is unsupported WP:OR without someone doing some type of "headcount" which has never been done. Similar reliably sourced unsupported statements by conspiracy theorists would not and have not been in the past tolerated. Despite complying with WP policy (which the current wording does not) I dislike Ihaveabutt's suggestion to add "Bazant states..." or "According to Bazant..." as it inadvertantly opens the door for the topic to become a he said she said arguement. I do like Doctorhoneydew's compromise though as it is NPOV, unambiguous, undisputed and encyclopaedic. It is not our job to decide what everyone should believe no matter what our agenda or personal beliefs are. Wayne (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne, your clarity and reasonable tone much appreciated. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I know what you're getting at Wayne, but Bazant is an expert in the subject, has presented multiple papers in peer reviewed sources (which were written with a number of other experts). Conspiracy theorists do not get their thinking published in journals and the like, which is why their opinions do not carry the same merit. I don't see how WP:OR applies - that is wikipedia editors doing original research, not the sources we quote. It is not original research to quote what a RS says. Quantpole (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, three editors agree to the my "NIST" compromise (see 8/24 discussion). Two editors object but, unless I've missed it, have made zero counter-compromise. I do not see where they've made any effort at building consensus. 2over0 has a good point about the proposed compromise being too long. If he supports a shortened version, that would be four in favor one against. I see the discussion shifting toward the compromise position, but I'll give editors more time. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had an informal relationship with the NIST which goes back many decades. For a long time, I knew them as the National Bureau of Standards, and I idolized them for their science, precision, and integrity. They helped inspire me to a lifelong interest in science. That admiration totally evaporated under the Bush Administration, when, in my eyes, an institution of science was redirected to a purpose of propaganda and disinformation. I like the idea of a compromise, but I regard a compromise involving the NIST as sinking too low to be acceptable. Surely there must be something on a higher plane of scientific acceptability. Wildbear (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you support replacing the Bazant "community rejects" language with a NPOV report. No? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. That's an interesting thought. Let me suggest a possible example. From a report written by "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" (ref), page 4: "The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers." And on the same page, "The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and subsequent buckling of internal columns." A document such as this would provide some of the desired POV balance we are seeking for this article, while at the same time showing that not everyone with professional expertise on the topic automatically agrees with the NIST's hypothesis. The authors of this report are making the same kind of unsupported assertion that Bazant makes, but at least the report has a feel to it which is a little bit closer to NPOV. Wildbear (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting info, Bear. In the context of the Lead paragraph, I sense that majority of editors are seeking to hold up what I'll call the "commonly accepted mainstream report". I'm not sure this report does that. But I agree with you that it's relevant to article that not all experts support the specifics of NIST theory. Could make a good addition lower in body of article? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, providing balance to the "commonly accepted view" is appropriate for the lead in the interest of NPOV. And I can agree as well, that it is unclear that this report I mentioned does that. As my earlier comments reflect, I just wish to see the balance in the lead done in a manner which does not obfuscate any facts or misrepresent what the sources are saying. It's possible that the document I mentioned might work in a lower part of the article. It might fit in even better in a criticism section in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. Wildbear (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For editors info, I hope my concerns are unfounded but Oreo Priest has now made two attempts to (apparently) co-opt compromise by lifting language that I drafted in the discussion page and using it pre-emtively in a different section. (see my compromise proposal, 8/24). I'm not assuming bad faith yet, though other explanations grow slim if it continues. I address him directly in bolded paragraph above.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; your proposed NIST wording belongs in the other section, and the "engineering and scientific community" wording also belongs somewhere in the article. They are not directly related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Arthur, you may be right but 1) you cite no WP guidelines to support your opinion and 2) more importantly, we're in the process of discussing the very point you find so certain. Given my repeated attempts to engage in a discussion on compromise, for you to knowingly edit in a way that directly undermines that effort strikes me as clear bad faith. Not an assumption. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editors. With apparent indifference to our attempt to find compromise, Arthur Rubin has joined Oreo's effort to preemptively misplace language which I wrote and which we are in the process of discussing as a possible compromise in the lead paragraph. Given the clear discussion notes, Arthur's insistence strikes me as an unambiguous bad faith attempt to undermine those of us who are attempting to find a compromise here. Since I am fairly new, I would appreciate any advice editors can offer on how to report cases of bad faith editing. I think the discussion thread lays it all out clearly. Thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic. For those of us interested in good faith WP editing, I will attempt yet another compromise. The only objector to my 8/24 proposal who cited an actual WP rationale was 2over0 who pointed out that my proposal may be too long for WP-Lead. Since he didn't propose a counter-compromise, I will do it for him, like this - How about a shorter NIST reference? In other words,

what if we replace this:

The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings.

With something like this:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires.

Shorter than my prior proposal, still fact-based, NPOV, with that "official" govt imprimatur that connotes "mainstream". And, unlike Bazant opinion, the sentence is verifiable. I'd love to hear any WP-based feedback, thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why the Bazant phrase should be replaced. It is authoritative and unequivocal, and no other RS have been shown to disagree with it. I've already said that the phrase should be changed to more properly reflect the source. How about combining the two, to put the Bazant source in better context. e.g.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. This explanation has been accepted by the structural engineering community, but some outside critics disagree and believe that the buildings collapsed through controlled demolition.
I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible and if anything have toned down the Bazant language. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, although Bazant (with an accent I can't type) did refer to both engineers and scientists. As for WP policies, Bazant's paper is clearly a WP:RS, so there is no reason to remove an accurate statement of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. Even if something is RS there are ample legitimate reasons to take something down. For example if it's the wrong section. And we're currently in the process of discussing whether it's in the correct section. But effort to cite WP standard is appreciated. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad start. I would like to reword it "The scientific and engineering community agrees with this explanation, but ..." Oreo Priest talk 13:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible which talks about "communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers". Quantpole (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing compromise, Quantpole! Your phrasing (8/25, above) strikes me as an improvement in WP-verifiability and NPOV and WPLead over the current article. While your phrasing is closer to the source, I notice that Bazant uses the phrasing "generally accepted" and your proposal drops the "generally". I'd back your compromise if we stick to the source and say "generally accepted". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally is fine by me. Oreo Priest talk 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The reason I didn't use a qualifier is that the second, more recent, source uses 'universally'. I was trying to avoid the question by not including either! Quantpole (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Wayne. The use of "According to x" is commonplace in journalism, and it is better than attributing to nobody as if to presume and assume a fact. Knocking down an improvement without an alternative strikes me as a strange way of going about it. To quote bazant, and attribute it to him, would not be OR. a) To quote him, and not attribute it to him, when he is just spouting talking points of the day violates common sense and be rational. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
WildBear I appreciate what you say about NIST. However, how do you propose setting the mainstream context? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If bazant's peer reviewers had an ounce of credibility they should have rejected his paper for making claims about what scientists think without a shred of evidence. Well, that is too strong a statement because they could have trusted that readers would know that "what scientists think" was not the focus of his paper, and they could have expected most readers would not take his non empirical assumptions seriously. Scientists used to believe they could know your personality by feeling the bumps on your head. And theyused to believe they could cure personality problems by jamming a steel prod through your forehead. This is why articles need to conform to wp:commonSense and wp:BeRational. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Or, maybe Bazant's peer reviewers are not complete idiots, and actually being part of the structural engineering community and being in correspondence with lots of other structural engineers, they could plainly see that everyone thought that the official explanation made sense. No peer reviewer in their right mind would demand you formally conduct a survey of structural engineers to see what they think if it's so blindingly obvious [what they think].
If a geologist were to publish the claim that "the geological community agrees that the earth is round, although some outsiders insist that the earth is flat", would you say that that's just their opinion? Would you say they have no evidence and that the claim is baseless because they didn't do a formal survey of geologists to see what they think? Would anyone ever do a formal survey of their peers for any reason, much less to debunk a fringe theory that is already clearly rejected by the community? Oreo Priest talk 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Bazant's loaded language, though he might be partly right, further undermines his credibility. To know how many people take a certain view is not established to invoking the fuzzy-land term "the community". To know how many people take a certain view is known by measuring it, not labeling it nicely. Thus his quote needs to be *properly *described. His journal's reputation was not built by scientist making unsupported, vague statements pretending to be known. There is no scientist tribe called "outside" scientists, except when ideological scientists try to make an argument without evidence. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone said Bazant is authoritative. But that is the type of shoot from the hip argument that explains why the article is in such poor shape, and consensus has so long eluded this article. To say he is authoritive is a nice and pretty label, not an analysis. Knowledge doesn't grow on trees, nor is it cultivated by assuming someone has it. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the article is in poor shape because this organization isn't notable. So, of course, you're going to have trouble finding good reliable sources about it. BTW, your opening sentence "If bazant's peer reviewers had an ounce of credibility they should have rejected his paper for making claims about what scientists think without a shred of evidence." is a wonderful piece of WP:OR. Perhaps we should add more WP:OR to the article. Since we've decided to ignore WP:NOTE, we might as well ignore WP:OR, too. Besides, it's not like we'll find many WP:RS about this organization. A Quest For Knowledge 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Butt, while I share your concerns about presenting Bazant's opinion as verifiable fact, I don't think the phrasing that Quantpole suggests -- in total -- does that. I think it presents a reasonable "snapshot" of the debate. It connotes that there is more-or-less a mainstream opinion and that there is more-or-less a minority opinion. But his phrasing fixes the "community rejects" falsehood/bias. Also, since Bazant uses the phrasing "generally accepted" (which I hope we retain) it becomes more clear to WP-reader that it can be taken as generally true, and not necessarily verifiable fact. Since compromise can be very difficult, I back Quantpole's proposal. Which I'll reiterate here for easy reference (I've added the word "generally", in keeping with the source).
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. This explanation has been generally accepted by the structural engineering community, but some outside critics disagree and believe that the buildings collapsed through controlled demolition.
Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with using the word "outside" to qualify critics as it strongly implies no engineers or scientists reject NIST. In reply to Oreo Priest, little in science is "blindingly obvious" and the cause of the collapse certainly is not or there would be no conspiracy theories in the first place. Using the "Earth is round" is a straw man argument as you have cherry picked an example not disputed within the community itself. Was Bazant "authoritative" when he first published it was a pancake collapse or when he revised it (five times) after NIST published? If he was as authoritative as you believe, wouldn't NIST be using his data instead of the other way around? You need to keep in mind that Bazant is treated with unusual leniency in regards to peer review. His peer review was not only limited to the mathematics of his paper (which he himself described as a simplified approximate analysis) but the reviewers also exempted him from the normal rules applying to the peer review process in regards to closure. Wayne (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is no straw man argument. The only thing that keeps the arguments from being exactly analogous is that we know without any doubt that all geologists agree that the earth is round, whereas we (independent of the Bazant quote at least) haven't established (in a manner that satisfies everyone) that all structural engineers agree about what caused the collapse. And what I meant as "blindingly obvious" was a consensus within the community (which none of us are actually part of). It was meant to portray a scenario (very likely the actual one in my opinion) in which the peer reviewers would have no reason at all to disagree with his claims, much less demand he formally conduct a survey. My question remains: Would anyone ever do a formal survey of their peers for any reason, much less to debunk a fringe theory that is already clearly rejected by the community? Oreo Priest talk 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Orea, "flat earth" is straw man AND irrelevant to this thread. No evidence of scientific dissent in "flat earth" case. Whereas there IS evidence of scientific dissent in "CD" case (Jones, Harrit, AE). Also, if you read your note above, I think you'll find that you essentially wrote that the only thing that keeps them from being exactly analogous is that they are different :) Hilarious. That's definitely true! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Again you are assuming a communities position on a subject based on your own views. Let's put that straw man arguement to bed. Do a search for geologists who have supported or opposed the Earth being round and you will find supporters overwhelmingly outnumber flat Earthers with very few not disclosing their position. Ergo, we can safely say the geological community agrees that the earth is round. In contrast, a similar search in regards to 911 will find there is no clear support (in terms of numbers) for either view as the majority of engineers and scientists, unlike in the case of the aforementioned geologists, have not made their position known. This majority in all probability supports NIST but we do not know that for a fact so we can not honestly say that the community agrees with NIST with the same reliability as we can for the Earth being round. To be truly neutral you must base the article on known facts not personal beliefs. It is POV to use unsupported statements by otherwise reliable sources to support a particular viewpoint no matter how true that viewpoint is. Wayne (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not a straw man. Seriously, I bet you couldn't even come up with the sort of evidence you're demanding for something this obvious. That's the whole point. How many geologists do you think are on the record as having said the earth is round? The others therefore "have not made their positions known". Even if you could find plenty that are on the record, how would you prove it's a majority? Aside from your dismissive argument that we all already know what all geologists think, what kind of proof would you require to establish that they reject the flat earth? That is a completely serious question, and it has a tremendous bearing on this discussion. Oreo Priest talk 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Everything we are taught in school in any number of disciplines is based on the premise that the Earth is round. I doubt that geologists would be awarded a degree if their dissertations asserted geology was wrong. 911 is completely different in that there is no course subject that specifically accepts the NIST report as undisputed. Originally the multiverse was a fringe theory only found in science fiction and believed by a few "kooks" but today the concept is accepted by the scientific community. I'm not equating this with CD but it is closer than the example you used. I'm using it as an example to show you how difficult it is to use examples for this subject. Wayne (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, most serious scientists aren't going to waste their time examining fringe theories. I'm not aware of a single study that disputes Time Cube theory. Nevertheless, it is still patent nonsense. For better or for worse, CDCT have become enough of a social phenomenon that some scientific analysis has been done and they have all rejected CDCT. We should not use wording that implies doubt when there is none. Right now, the word of the article says "The engineering and scientific community generally rejects". Wrong. It is universally rejected by the scientific community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Time Cube is flawed analogy as it has only one proponent and is thus another attempt at presenting a straw man arguement. I challenge you to prove you are not pushing your own beliefs as your reply seems to indicate. Prove that it is universally rejected. Prove that all scientific analysis has rejected CDCT. Show us how Doctorhoneydew's suggestion implies doubt. Wayne (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Time Cube might have more adherents than you might think based on the number of people on the various Time Cube forums. You ask that I prove that CDCT theory is universally rejected. I believe that I already have. So now it's your turn: Please prove that Time Cube has been universally rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant to this thread. For discussion on Time Cube, please see Discussion page in article on Time Cube. Even as an "analogy" for alleged "fringe theory" it's irrelevant, as you already admitted there are no refutations of Time Cube. Whereas there are studies on both sides of "CD". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. AFAIK, there is not a single reliable source supporting CDCT and numerous rejecting CDCT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what edit are you proposing? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating, QfK, your recent post asserted about four or five supposed facts, and you fail to provide evidence for a single one of them. And the majority of assertions are demonstrably false. LoL. That's roughly a 0% verifiability rate for your comment. "Fringe theory" - QfK gives no evidence. The example using "Time Cube", "I'm aware of no studies..." - well then that example is irrelevant because there ARE studies on BOTH sides of CD issue (NIST vs Jones/Harrit off the top of my head). "All studies have rejected CD" - QfK gives no evidence, AND it's demonstrably false (Jones & Harrit). "There is no doubt" - QfK gives no evidence, AND it's demonstrably false (almost 800 architect and engineer supports at AE911). "It is universally rejected" - no evidence, and demonstrably false (see AE911). In fairness, you did give one opinion which seems valid to me - "we should not use wording that implies doubt when there is none". Kudos, good point. Unfortunately, it has no relation to this situation because, in fact, there is evidence of doubt (Jones, Harrit, AE). For future contributions, please consider WP-verifiability, because 0% verifiability is probably not helpful to WP. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, there is not a single, peer-reviewed scientific study in favor of CDCT. Which is the exact same number for Time Cube. This is a fringe theory. Stop trying to treat it as if it is legit. It's not. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for promoting nutcase conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
So sorry Quest, but I'm afraid you're wrong again. The Jones Harrit paper is, to use your wording, a "peer reviewed scientific study in favor of CD". So your claim is 0% correct. I think that's your fourth false claim in a row. And your 8th claim in a row for which you provide no evidence. Wow, and you say CD theory is unscientific. :) Doctorhoneydew (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if all 800 were A & E's (which is by no means certain), it's still a tiny number...a drop in the bucket. And the "studies" that Jones does would be laughed out of any real scientific environment. There is no scientific debate about this...none at all. Zero. The "researchers" pushing this stuff aren't doing any science, they are pushing a conspiracy theory and cherry picking, misinterpreting and lying about evidence to back up their claims. I've said this many times, but there is no academic or scientific debate about this subject. It's a cultural phenomenon and nothing more. Scientifically speaking (or academically, mainstream media, reliable sources etc) there is no "both sides" here and it would be a mistake and POV pushing to hint that there is. RxS (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
RxS, every singe sentence of your comment is an assertion without evidence. Every single one. Given that, it's just opinion and therefore is difficult to address in a discussion based on RS and verifiability. However, you assert one semi-logical point worth addressing. That 800 AE supporters are a drop in the bucket. Therefore there is zero debate. Got it, 800 equals zero. Setting aside your odd math, even though the group is relatively small, it is on record. In combination with Jones and Harrit papers, plus presentations by AE at architectural conventions, there's evidence of some debate/dissent. Hard to quantify, but I think "some" is greater and not equal to "zero". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Jones et al. were not published in a reputable journal. That journal is a pay-to-publish rag that does not actually peer review. Also, putting your name on the AE website is not the same as scientific debate. Hell, even intelligent design can find the odd biologist to support it, but that doesn't mean it's not overwhelmingly rejected. There is no debate in the scientific community over ID or 9/11. Oreo Priest talk 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, there's some dissent in the architectural and engineering community as evidenced by the existence of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (See Wikipedia: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth). It would be slightly comical to make a claim in our article that NIST is universally accepted in a WP article about a group of professionals who reject NIST. Unless you're suggesting that WP articles should be self-contradictory. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No. There is no academic debate on the subject. ~10 structural engineers (if these people really exist and actually reject the official story, not just being wooed by the "demands that the United States Congress pursue a truly independent investigation into the September 11 attacks") putting their name on a website is not academic debate. Look at the Discovery Institute; it managed to find several biologists, professors no less, that support Intelligent Design. There is nonetheless no academic debate on the subject. It probably is strictly speaking true that CD is not universally rejected, but it is certainly true that CD is overwhelmingly rejected, and there is no academic debate on the subject. Oreo Priest talk 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, "academic debate" is the standard now. So we've moved the relevant standard from "scientific community" to "structural engineers" to "academic debate". Okay, duly noted. So what edit are you proposing? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is. You can find a couple crazies to say anything, or ignorant people who got their degrees with straight Cs at a McUniversity. The important thing is what experts think, and in most cases whether or not their reasoning withstands enough scrutiny to make it into a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Oreo Priest talk 14:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rough Tally Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone, but my general sense is that the following editors support something along the lines of the Quanpole compromise language: Quantpole, Oreo Priest ("Generally is fine with me"), Arthur Rubin ("that seems reasonable"), Doctorhoneydew ("if we say 'generally' as source does"), and (I'm not positive) but possibly also WildBear and Wayne (Except for word "outside"). If I'm correct about WildBear and Wayne, that's six.

Those that seem to reject the compromise language: IHaveButt ("Bazant is giving opinion"), and QuestForKnowledge ("CD is universally rejected"), and Rxs ("there is zero debate"). That's three.

If I have placed anyone in the wrong group, please let me know. Otherwise, we may have a majority for Quantpole's compromise. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well — I think it clear that it is universally rejected among credible experts, but we don't have a reliable source, so I support the compromize language, especially if Bazant said "generally". (I supported the first revision of Quanpole's compromise, and there were two more revisions mentioned here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
AR, apologies for any confusion. Quantpole's proposal (if you add "generally", from source) is:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. This explanation has been generally accepted by the structural engineering community, but some outside critics disagree and believe that the buildings collapsed through controlled demolition. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I consider this compromise as acceptable for Wikipedia at this time. I agree with Wayne and Ihaveabutt that the use of the word "outside" is not accurate or appropriate, and I would prefer to see that removed. In the interest of compromise, I am willing to accept the wording as stated. Wildbear (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I did reply to this above, but one quote from Bazant uses 'generally', the other uses 'universally', which is why I said neither originally. Quantpole (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Quantpole. I follow your rationale. Unfortunately, that means Bazant has been inconsistent on the matter. Since we should try to stick to RS language, WP should probably use the one which is more accurate - i.e. "generally". I say "more accurate" because the existence of AE911Truth makes "universally" obviously false and would make the WP article inherently self-contradictory. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a false dichotomy. Just because the NIST report is generally accepted by the scientific community doesn't necessarily mean that CDCT isn't universally rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sincere apologies, Quest, but I cannot understand that sentence. And I don't see any dichotomy, much less a false one. However, I can give you some readily available evidence that CD theory is NOT universally rejected. It's a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. See, since they support CD theory, then CD theory is not universally rejected. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If A is false, that doesn't mean B is true. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Quest, I follow now. Let me try to clarify the case against "universally". The reason we can't use "universally" is because it's obviously false. The existence of AE911Truth demonstrates that CD-theory is not universally rejected, and it demonstrates that NIST is not "universally" accepted. It renders "universally" self-evidently false. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
...but some outside critics disagree... No, per WP:undue. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is not a notable group nor is it a reliable source. RxS (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It is indisputable that some AE911 members are members of the "engineering and scientific community" so, regardless of the groups reliability, using the word "outside" presents the reader with the false implication that there are no "inside" critics. It is a blatant POV violation as it tells the reader there are NO engineers or scientists who dissent. I would point out that the peer reviewers of Bazants paper refused a request for permission to include mathematics in a refutation so minimal peer reviewed critism can not be assumed to be equivalent to an absence of critism. Wayne (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Wayne, I agree with you and WildBear that "outside" is no longer accurate (it may have been accurate when Bazant wrote it, several years ago). However, I'm not personally aware of any RS which would support dropping the word. (FYI, note that Quantpole/Bazant language is "structural engineers" not "scientific community"). But if you are aware of RS, that's a different matter. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We only need one example to invalidate using the word "outside". Kamal Obeid is a structural engineer with a masters from Berkeley. He is a vocal supporter of the possibility of CD. This source mentions him, his qualifications and his views. Wayne (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Wayne, I'm seeing your point. Plus I'm seeing that a number of AE signatures are structural engineers. If the group is relevant, than the support of their structural engineers is also relevant. Plus, it seems highly relevant to me that the number of AE signatures has increased by approx 10-20% over the course of this Bazant debate. They are not "outsiders" and their ranks are growing. I'm thinking that part of our problem here is that we're attempting to put a "static" assessment onto debate which may be too dynamic to permit that right now. Bottom line, it's probably not accurate for us to say "outsiders". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Wayne, Doc, cut the semantics and the drama. How about stating CD theories are rejected by an overwhelming majority of the scientific and engineering community? Does that work for you? — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If you feel it is neccessary to say CD is rejected by the community I could accept using "majority" but you cannot use "overwhelming" without evidence. I still say a statement of fact such as Doctorhoneydew's suggestion is preferable to the POV supposition you suggest. Keep in mind this article is not about conspiracy theories but a group of people so does not have the same requirement for countering their views as an article about their views would. We can afford to be more accurate with our language in this article. Wayne (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Cs32en just put up a great solution to all this, makes "outsider" language unnecessary. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Bazant says: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering", so referring to the "scientific community" is already a bit of interpretation of the sentence on our part. Bazant does not say "overwhelming", and there may in fact now be more structural engineers who have explicitly taken a position against the NIST explanation than structural engineers who have explicitly stated their agreement. We have no WP:RS sources that confirm this situation, however. So we are left with a references to NIST and to Bazant, who obviously have a stake in the outcome of such a debate, saying that structural engineers agree with their conclusions. Every reader must make up his or her mind whether such statements are very much convincing, given the interests involved. We should not re-interpret the statement by introducing vocabulary like "overwhelming", but otherwise the wording is not really important here. (That's why I haven't participated in this discussion in the past.)  Cs32en  21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the language that Cs32en just added to the article is by far the best solution for the various concerns raised. Most importantly, is far more accurate representation of Bazant. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nano-thermite analysis paper

I removed reference to this paper, as it is not really on topic and there are serious issues with presenting its conclusions as accept{{ed,able}} by the relevant community. It is treated in the linked World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, where it is relevant. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement on the archived AE911Truth internet site

Preliminary remark: I generally approve the changes made by 2/0 in his recent edits.

Is there a guideline on how to handle spelling errors in a quotation? I don't think that we need to point out a typographical error in the source that does not really compromise the readability of the text or the clarity of the content.

Is the quotation really pertinent to the description of the groups activities and advocacy? Most professions, architects as well as civil and structural engineers, do not regularly analyse collapses of buildings, as the curricula for the respective studies is on the behaviour of buildings within the limits of elastic (as opposed to plastic) deformations, and on identifying (and avoiding) reaching the extent of deformation at which plastic behaviour of the material occurs.  Cs32en  19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Text in quotation marks must correspond exactly to the cited text and not be used in such a way as to be misleading. This is the quote in the third sentence of #Advocacy, yes? I was checking the source because i.e. was not italicized (I think modern style guides are starting to go either way on that one) and there was a superfluous comma. Also, putting "collapsed" in quotation marks strikes me as odd, but I guess they are distinguishing "collapsed" from "were demolished".
That said, I would have no problem paraphrasing this statement or removing it; I am leaning towards the latter, as it is basically redundant with the first sentence in that section. The quoted source mentions evidence for government involvement, but the preceding sentence denying assignment of blame is better and more recently cited.
We also should have a statement somewhere on Gage's experience with controlled demolition. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd assume that Gage does not have any professional experience with controlled demolitions (as probably more than 99% of all architects), but I'm not sure whether any reliable source has reported this. The reason to include the quote was, if I remember correctly, that it would somehow prove that the members of the group would be dealing with issues they don't understand.
As for putting "collapsed" in quotation marks, the group actually seems to make a difference between "collapsing" and "being demolished", as they interpret "collapsing" as implying that the destruction would occur without outside interference. Making that distinction in the choice of words does not seem to matter that much in more recent statements of the group.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any statement in that section that says or implies that AE911Truth are explicitly stating that evidence would indicate government involvement.  Cs32en  21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see - that they are not Controlled Demolition Experts for 9/11 Truth needs to go somewhere, I agree.
The group does not blame any particular individuals or organizations for the September 11 attacks. One of the sources for that statement disclaims any involvement with conspiracy theories. Not blaming (elements of) the government appears to be their current stance, so we are good there. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"that they are not Controlled Demolition Experts for 9/11 Truth needs to go somewhere"... I'd say that this statement is already being made in the title of the article ;-)   Cs32en  23:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"experts" or "specialists"?

Bazant et al. use the term "community of specialists". Not being a native English speaker, I don't know whether changing this to "experts" does alter the meaning in a significant way. Is the wording used by Bazant somehow odd, or should we rather stick with his original description?

I do not think it matters either way. "Experts" is slightly more common terminology, but certainly not overwhelmingly so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"that expresses" or "who express"

A Quest For Knowledge, could you either change the lead sentence to "an organization [...] that expresses reservations", or, alternatively, to "representing architects and engineers who express reservations"? Thank you.  Cs32en  08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a second look at it, I don't think that the phrase "express reservations regarding conclusions reached in the 9/11 Commission Report" is accurate. That seems pretty watered down considering that they come right out and say they think it was a controlled demolition. From their own About page:[1]
"The World Trade Center buildings... were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives"
I checked the first 15 or so references in the article and the one cited appears to be the only way that phrases it this way. The other ones seem to be much more direct in what this organization is advocating.
For example, BBC News says:
"However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.
"The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives
" 'Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.' "[2]
I suggest the following:
"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2006, is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers which advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory."
Or if you really want the 9/11 Commission report in the lead sentence:
"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2006, is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers which rejects the conclusions reached in the 9/11 Commission Report about the September 11 attacks. Instead, it advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The exact quote from the AE911Truth website is "We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47 story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives." (emphasis added) I agree that this choice of words is stronger than "expresses factual reservations". It is, however, less strong than, for example, "We are sure that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition." To illustrate the point, they do not say: "Trust us, we know what happened," but rather "Let's investigate, based on the evidence, and then reach a conclusion." (Both interpretations are obviously original research and should not appear in the article.)
I'd suggest something like "is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers that believes sufficient evidence would exist to conclude that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory". If we want to include the information that their view differs from the 9/11 Commission's conclusions, we could add something to that effect, of course.
A question on the language: Is it fine to say "advocate [a statement of fact]", or is the common usage rather "advocate [a specific action/a change in behavior]"?
Additional remark: A Quest For Knowledge, I appreciate your current input at this article (the last edits/comments have been rather constructive), but I'm not sure whether the AE result was intended to make this article a kind of common playground for us to interact with each other. It's probably best if we wait for input from other editors before continuing the discussion.  Cs32en  16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought my edit was fairly innocuous (it was purely about grammar). I didn't think you would dispute it. Yes, let's wait for further input from other editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
My initial comment on your actual edit only expresses a concern about the current form of the verb "to express" in the first sentence.  Cs32en  17:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I know, but when you disputed it, it forced me to read the sentence 3 or 4 times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to fix the grammar in the first sentence of the article. Please let me know if I'm mistaken and the current version is correct.  Cs32en  19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Representing architects and engineers

AE911 doesn't claim, or state, that it represents architects and engineers. In fact on its website it states in large font right in the middle of the front page that "the petition is open to everyone". Given that their number of signatories is only 1107 out of hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers they can't be said to respresent those groups. Aetylus (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Representing architects and engineers" obviously does not mean "representing all architects and engineers". But as the name of the group already indicates that it is based on the support and participation of architects and engineers (though not all of them), the information that it "represents architects and engineers" is somewhat redundant.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
As if the name didn’t make it abundantly clear…
From their About Us page: “We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates.”
From their homepage: “1112 architectural and engineering professionals and 7253 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.”
It allows membership by non-experts but sets them apart. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 06:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
AE911 allows for an individual to sign the petition if he/she is not a licensed/degreed architect or engineer, however counted in a separate total. In order to sign as an architect or engineer, you must state your license number. They are very serious about maintaining a level of credibility with their petition. —Forgott3n (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this is who is counted as "architects and engineers". There are many disciplines within both professions, and there is no attempt made to distinguish between landscape engineers and structural engineers in the "separate total." And none are experts in controlled demolitions, which is what the group is advocating. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
While news sources often refer to the petition signers as "architects and engineers", the website says "architectural and engineering professionals". It does not say "structural engineers", and the article does not do so either.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The name of the group is Architects & Engineers, not "architectural and engineering professionals." This is exactly why "news sources" refer to the petition signers as "architects and engineers." The confusion is there because of the group. And what professional authority do you think a landscape engineer has in dealing with these questions? None, and the group makes no real attempt to distinguish between the authoritative word of either. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

External link to

No references from reliable sources have been given that indicate that the link would be notable. Also, per WP:EL#ADV, editors "should avoid linking to a site that [they] own, maintain, or represent".  Cs32en Talk to me  17:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I do own and maintain the .info website concerning this group, I am not the person who initially linked to my site. That was A Quest For Knowledge on 21:49, 23 May 2009, as a check of the history of this page will confirm. It was following the referrals to the site that I found this wiki page. There are many other 9/11 Truth wiki pages that allow external links to critical websites, and the page for Architects & Engineers should be no exception. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Some other 'critical' websites have been mentioned (mostly in a trivial way) by reliable sources. Can you provide such references for the site that you want to add to the article?  Cs32en Talk to me  17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not "adding" this link to the article. I'm restoring it. I have only ever restored the link to the article, as a check of the history of the site will confirm. Please stop misrepresenting what I am doing here.
You want "references"? OK - the front page of - "Important New Site ~ addresses the misleading and deceitful conspiracy industries latest attempt at creating consumers for their products. From their blatant appeal to authority to misapplied science, is a must for anyone seriously looking for truth."
From Welcome to, run by one of the finest debunkers I have encountered, Boloboffin from the Democratic Underground forums (and from the JREF forums as well).
Is that enough for you, Cs32en, to stop cutting this link out from the page it's been on for a couple of years now? Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The websites you have mentioned are not reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy. As we will probably need third-party opinions to resolve the matter, it would be helpful to have links to reliable sources, if they are available. I'll open up a Request for comment then. (If no sources can be found after some more days, this may indicate that such sources do not exist.)  Cs32en Talk to me  19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt I could produce a reliable source that you would accept, then. The link should still be allowed to stay because it "still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The sources used to dispute AE911Truth's claims are themselves knowledgeable sources. Joseph.nobles (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. The website is not a reliable source, of course, but in addition, it is not even mentioned by reliable sources, apparantly. What this part of WP:ELMAYBE says is that websites that would otherwise qualify as acceptable do not necessarily need to meet the criteria for reliable source Cs32en Talk to me  15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It very definitely qualifies as a link to be considered, based on the knowledgeable sources quoted at the link. The very first of these is the AE911Truth website itself -- its own slideshows and website. Further information used to answer their questions are from original sources (like the Danny Jowenko videos, the NIST reports, published articles like Bazant Zhou, etc.). I derive no monetary gain and solict no money at this website, unlike the website of AE911Truth. It is a simple link to a ongoing disputation of AE911Truth claims and answers to AE911Truth's questions based on knowledgeable sources. I did not add it to this website originally and do not know the identity of the person who did. The link should stay. Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Joseph, I have just examined AE911Truth.INFO, and I want to offer some constructive suggestions. First, a little about myself. I do not know what happened to the WTC buildings, and I do not know what happened in the rest of the 9/11 matter. My desire is to ensure that what is known is recorded accurately and without bias or presumption in Wikipedia. I have no objections to a site being linked if it conforms to high standards, academically and scientifically. A counterpoint view is good to maintain a balanced view in Wikipedia articles. In my judgment, AE911Truth.INFO needs a lot of improvement before it would meet the standards that I would desire when linking to an independent site. There are many things that I could point out; I will mention just a few to provide some examples. Presumptious phrases like "exposing the lies and mistakes" should be avoided, particularly in the introduction. The term "freefall speed" is used profusely on the site, but if you want to convince scientifically-minded people that you know what you're talking about, you would be saying freefall acceleration. Overall, the site seems to be on a passionate mission to prove a point, and it shouldn't be. If your arguments are laid out in a convincing, well-researched, and scientifically valid manner, that should be all that is needed to convey your message. Don't concern yourself too much with what others are doing wrong; instead, aim to do better and set a higher standard. As it stands, I give the site a thumbs-down for linking to Wikipedia. Wildbear (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Wildbear, I find some issues with the points you raise. Number one, the lies and mistakes of AE911Truth are documented on the .info site. It's not presumption when you have the evidence to back it up. Number two, the phrase "freefall speed" is taken directly from AE911Truth's own literature, as you or anyone can verify here. AE911Truth has recently corrected their front page listing of characteristics to use the much more correct term freefall acceleration, but the PowerPoint presentation still available for viewing on their site continues to use this unscientific term. In refuting AE911Truth, I must deal with the language that they use. Number three, the site seems to be on a passionate mission to prove a point? Really? And isn't? It's rather amazing to me that you fault the .info site for passionate mission and unscientific language, but cannot see that clearly demonstrated at the .org site. However, you might also be giving a thumbs-down for the AE911Truth group on Wikipedia as well, based on your criteria. If so, erase both my link and this entire article. Joseph.nobles (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a lot of articles about organizations that are generally considered as controversial. The standard for articles in Wikipedia is notability, not accuracy. Reliable sources report on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, while they do not, to my knowledge, about the website A detailed analysis of the website may be interesting and instructive, but may well constitute original research and does not address the issue of (non-)notability.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And those articles about controversial organizations have external links to material disputing them. If you succeed in removing this link, would you accept links to peer-reviewed articles like Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson's "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" and industry specialists like Brent Blanchard and his examination from an actual controlled demolition perspective? Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
A further defense of these citations and endorsements: one of the websites I quoted,, is currently an external link at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Another site linked at the Wiki article,, also links to approvingly. Yet your argument of notability would seem to exclude those links as well. If they are allowed to stand as reliable and notable links, then their endorsement of the site speaks to the notability of it as well. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Adding a link to a Zdeněk Bažant article would probably be o.k., as Bažant qualifies as a reliable source, per Wikipedia policy. Bažant is a recognized expert in a relevant scientific field. I don't know whether all other links in other articles are acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but this is not particularly relevant, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Your reasoning that if a reliable source X talks about a notable source Y, which in turn has a reference to source Z, then Z would be notable, is incorrect. We all know that we are 6 phone calls away from Barack Obama, or from Horst Köhler, in my case. That doesn't make us notable, nor does it make website that we maintain notable. (I do not own or maintain any website other than my personal website.) It is also incorrect to conclude that, because site Y is linked from Wikipedia, therefore Y would be reliable. Wikipedia has links to all kinds of websites, as long as they are somehow notable, including this North Korean website.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
How else do you propose a website or source become "notable"? It's linked to or used or recommended by other websites. Other notable websites here at Wikipedia link to and recommend as regards the subject of this article. (And Bazant gets a "probably" in your book? Wow.) Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
A Zdeněk Bažant article gets a "probably", because such articles are already contained in the references, and external links should not duplicate information that is already being referred to in the references. Websites such as and do not have articles on Wikipedia, so their notability is questionable, anyway. What is relevant is not their notability, but whether they are to be considered reliable sources, so that we could base our judgment on the website on the information they provide. As these website are probably not notable enough to have their own articles, determining their reliability in an objective way, i.e. not relying on our personal judgments, would be very difficult, if not impossible, at present. One characteristics of reliable sources is that they generally do not have an agenda, but that they are building their reputation on factually accurate reporting.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"generally do not have an agenda" -- how unusual that you would apply this standard to material that seeks to debunk AE911Truth, but you dare not use that same criteria in judging AE911Truth itself. Doesn't that organization have an agenda? "external links should not duplicate information that is already being referred to in the references" -- then both the link to AND the link to NIST should be removed, because both are duplicating information already referred to in the references. No. I think you are reaching for any argument you can to exclude this link or not, regardless of whether it would invalidate the entire rationale for having the article in the first place. Joseph.nobles (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
In an article about "9/11 Truth", we can use what an organization says about itself, even if not a reliable source, but we cannot use what it says about anything else, unless it is a reliable source. This does lead to bias in favor of fringe organizations with little mainstream coverage, but editors can choose to ignore some of what an organization says about itself if it's blatently false, even if no reliable source reports that it's false. The rules on external links are less specific, but, we still cannot use the web site of a debunking organization unless it's considered both notable and credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion appears to be No consensus for inclusion. Objections?  Cs32en Talk to me  00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And then we can start with the rationale for including this article at all. Joseph.nobles (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, I never did see the Request for comment that you said you were going to start on this. Did you actually do that? Joseph.nobles (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cs32en, you did not start a Request for comment that you said you were going to on this subject. Because of that, I assume bad faith for your removal of this link. I have further discovered your ban from editing most pages in the 9/11 conspiracy theme here at Wikipedia for playing just such legalese games as these. I repeat - the link was long a part of this page. Discussion is about removal, NOT inclusion. Do not remove this link until you fulfill your word - or consider yourself reported. Joseph.nobles (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph.nobles (talk · contribs), you have an obvious conflict of interest with regard to this issue. You are, as of this moment, the only editor that has supported the addition of the link in the discussion about it. Thus, it would be you who would have to do the extra work of filing an Request for comments. I note that you are acknowledging assuming bad faith. For your information, I am not banned from editing any page on Wikipedia, including the pages in the September 11 attacks topic area.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New reference keeps being removed without explanation

Message from 3 people carrying research here have tried to add a reference to this wiki article. No explanation for its removal has been given. Is this allowed? The reference is to some of the latest evidence cited by the organisation relating to their claims. Is there a good reason for this would no be of interst to readers of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is that it's the same person under 3 identities, but, even so, 2 editors gave specific reasons for the removal. (I didn't have anything to add to the reasons, so I didn't give any additional reasons.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The link is to a Herrit et al. article claiming that thermite particles have been found in WTC dust. It is being added to a statement that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are promoting a 9/11 conspiracy theory. The Herrit article is not a proper source for that statement. It doesn't belong there. If you want to have a discussion about controlled demolition theories of 9/11 building collapses being conspiracy theories or not, then this is not the place to do it. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for not understanding, but the reason does not appear clear to me. Both myself and a colleague have tried to add this information after being alerted to its removal yesterday. We will be creating accounts argue this point and make sure it remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is neither a reliable source nor relevant to the Wikipedia article. If A&E911T refers to that article, then specific text of that reference (including a (Wikipedia:)reference to the specific page of their web site) might be appropriate. The reference to the real article is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Arthur. As I have been saying, the reference is inappropriate where and his or her companions keep placing it. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Open Physics Journal is not a reliable source? Is that what you're saying? If that is the reason. It is up to you to prove that. Your opinion is irrelevant. LEave that to readers to decide. Do you think the London Independent is reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has said anything about the reliability or lack thereof of the Open Physics Journal. Please stick to the discussion at hand. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Open Physics Journal (or, at least, that article) has been found not to be a reliable source. Please see the WP:RSN archives. However, that would only be relevant to its appearance in [World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories]], not in this article.
If a reference to the OPJ article can be found on the 911aet web site, where it is stated that it is a major source for their conclusion that it was controlled demolition, then the OPJ article might be mentioned, but not as a reference or external link, but only in that context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote "It is neither a reliable source". That is someone (Arthur Rubin) saying something about the reliability of the Open Physics Journal - i.e. the source of the reference. (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The reference is listed on the 911aet web site here: Rather than place a reference to a long list of links that refer to different areas of evidence, it would make more sense to include only the link referring the explosive demolition evidence. (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although I had always had doubts as to the accuracy (different from reliability) of the source, there is a consensus that the source is not reliable for the purpose of Wikipedia. I have included sources which I know to be inaccurate, if they satisfy are reliability requirements and are not contradicted by more reliable sources. But my point is that there is a clear consensus that the source is not reliable, as Wikipedia defines it, regardless of accuracy.
The reference to the long list of links is what should be in this article, to the extent that it indicates what the organization's views are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated statement

The following statement is somewhat outdated (the text on the website has been changed), and is probably rather misleading for the reader. (There is broad agreement that the collapse of the WTC building were a surprising event and included aspects that have been regarded as unprecedented. So it would not be surprising that AE911Truth would say something to this effect, and someone who reads the article may thus wonder why this particular statement has been included in the article.)

The group stated on January 1, 2007, that "the 3 high-rise buildings of the World Trade Center which 'collapsed' on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled [sic] demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience."[1]
  1. ^ "Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?". Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings [...]. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which collapsed on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.  Unknown parameter |accessed= ignored (help)

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not misleading for the reader. The statement is quite plain. It may not be the impression the group wants the reader to have now, which is why they changed the language without changing the date on the page. But the statement was present on the group's website for years and it is not at all misleading -- unless you mean to say that the group was misleading the reader in the first place. Is that what you meant? Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New July 30, 2010 edit to meet Wikipedia standards of WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY

The article before gave undue weight to this group. It became a soapbox for the group's claims, which are accessible here at the controlled demolition page and at the group's website. It also became a repository of links far in excess of what was needed to make points in an effort to give undue weight to this group's notability. I've edited the page down to something more neutral. Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your changes. You have a conflict of interest and your edits were pointy at best.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You are the editor primarily responsible for WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. You should stop engaging in wikilawyering and start justifying every sentence you add to this article by the criteria WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Joseph.nobles (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You both have some valid points, so I will attempt to offer some input, in a spirit of arbitration. The article may be a bit oversized in proportion to the notability of the subject. However, mass deletion of properly sourced material is not appropriate in this instance, especially by someone who has already demonstrated a conflict of interest on the topic. Take it slowly, each contested item a step at a time, and discuss the reason why you feel that it should be removed or kept. Don't proceed to another item until the status of the previous item is settled. Ask for third party opinions if an agreement can not be reached. Wildbear (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First item of discussion: Using new article as starting point for future revisions

This article in its present form is nearly half the length of the American Civil Liberties Union article, a far more notable non-profit group. It also includes around two-thirds the references in the ACLU article. Therefore, the article I wrote should be the starting point. Everything I said in it was from a neutral point of view and adequately documented. I included the group's success in gathering over 1,000 signatures from architectural and engineering professionals, as well as particular highlights in its publicity. The group's viewpoints were adequately represented in their own two-hour presentation, which I also linked to. This article should not be a minute accounting of the group's every argument, nor a reference depository for every article that ever mentioned the group or Richard Gage in an attempt to use Wikipedia to bolster the group's notability. The burden of proof is for those who wish to include, not delete, as Cs32en has shown me in our last exchange. Therefore, a drastically pared down article is the best place to start, and the proper discussion of inclusion of new material can begin on a stronger foundation. Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For external links, the burden to obtain consensus is with the editor who wants to include a link. I do not think that links to websites that have not been reported on by reliable sources belong in Wikipedia, and so I did not agree to include the website that you are maintaining. For sourced material, the burden of evidence is met if the sources are appropriate. In this case, the burden to obtain consensus is not on the editor who is adding the content, but the community of editors can of course make editorial decisions with regard to the content of the article, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't forget that Wikipedia is based on information from reliable third-party sources, so linking to the AE911Truth presentation is not a substitute for presenting the information as evidenced by reliable secondary sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
My website isn't the issue here. Stop referring to it.
Including "information as evidence by reliable secondary sources" isn't necessary to determine the positions for which Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth advocates. The only necessary link is to their own presentation. Including more information turns this article into an argument zone for the position itself. The article needs only to explain what the group is. The group itself can best explain its own peculiar take on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy.
I have requested editor assistance on this dispute. Joseph.nobles (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You have already had one "outside" opinion above. My opinion is that you should ask for a formal third opinion or failing that ask for a request for comment. Instructions at the relevant pages. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have done so. Joseph.nobles (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: First making an edit like this is wholly unacceptable. You can't just blank huge swaths of the article like that, and it's all the more compounded if you're a conflict of interest. Second, just because other articles on Wikipedia are a certain size or referenced or whatever does not mean that this article should be that way. Every article is different, so what may exist in one specific case does not necessarily carry over here. Every single line in this article is well referenced to secondary sources, and that meets the burden of proof. I'm not really sure what else I can give an opinion on here since I'm not really clear on what's going on, but I can lend a hand if needed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Every single line of this article is incredibly well documented. That's part of the problem. As it stands, this article is an attempt by someone sympathetic to the group to maximize the group's notability. It violates WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, and my rewrite was intended to serve as a neutral basis for future revisions. Since you've read my rewrite and can compare it to the article as it stands, can you honestly say that the rewrite is written from a biased viewpoint? After all, having a conflict of interest doesn't mean an editor can't write from a neutral standpoint. Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think yours was biased per se, but I think it went too far. For one, you removed every single thing about what the group believes. And yes, maybe you were trying to clean the slate and figure out what should and shouldn't be included, but it was just too heavy handed. Now having said that, I can understand what you're saying about using this page as a soapbox and having undue weight; the article certainly doesn't carry any responses to how the group is wrong. Honestly I'm not sure how editors have dealt with these sort of issues in the 9/11 sphere, but it seems to me that if there were reactions to this group in particular (that could be reliably sourced), then they should be included. This article should definitely not turn into a he-said/she-said about the group; "AE911 says X but some other guy says Y" would be inappropriate. And posting links to your site would be similarly appropriate, if nothing else than because it's just a blog and it fails the reliable source criteria. But since you have a problem with the text, maybe you could suggest an alternative version of the article that's basically a trimmed down version of what's currently there, but still gets in all the main points? For example, text like "Gage argues that this material "is not made in a cave in Afghanistan"." is arguably superfluous and could be removed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This, by the way, is almost exactly what Wildbear said above; for some reason I missed his comment before. How interesting that we both came to the same conclusion. *cough* — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have already looked for statements that criticize the group or oppose the group's positions and arguments. While reliable sources have reported on many of the positions of the group, most of the criticism directed at the group has been reported on in sources that do not meet the reliability standard for inclusion in the article. However, there are a larger number of statements reported in reliable sources that deal with the respective arguments that AE911Truth is making, without referring to the group specifically, and I have included such information (Zdeněk Bažant and other) where this appeared to be appropriate. The necessary context is also given, such as the position of the majority of experts in the relevant professions, as well as the results of the official investigations. Taken together, this content is about a fifth or a fourth of the article, so the article, in my view, is balanced overall. This is an article specifically about a controversial group, so it is appropriate to present the position of the group in more detail. (It would not be appropriate in an article such as Collapse of the World Trade Center.)  Cs32en Talk to me  23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
So you find yourself in the regretable position that all actual criticism of the group comes from "sources that do not meet the reliability standard for inclusion in the article." That's precisely how advocates for fringe science manipulate Wikipedia to promote their agenda. As two disinterested editors have now said, the article suffers from soapbox and undue weight concerns. Like it or not, we now have consensus for paring this article down, though not in the draconian fashion I proposed before. Since you and I both have conflicts of interest in this (almost anyone who cares about this subject enough will have a conflict of interest - mine is decidedly non-financial), we will have frequent mediation as we work together to whittle this article down to a more neutral, balanced text. I for one am confident I can do this in a civil and impartial manner. Joseph.nobles (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, this isn't the place to complain about Wikipedia. We have standards, and if one viewpoint is well referenced and the opposing one isn't.. well, we can't relax our standards to accommodate the latter. If what Cs32en says is true about no reliable sources being able to show criticism towards the group, then that's that. But I think that the article should be trimmed down a bit, if only to make it slightly more balanced by inherently giving more weight to the opposition. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that for almost all of the single arguments put forward by AE911Truth and contained in the article, a "generic" opposing position can be found in reliable sources. These could be added to the article, of course. (However, that may also be seen as coatracking.) It's important to document what the actual positions and arguments of this particular group are, as they are not identical to the large array of different arguments and positions put forward within the 9/11 Truth movement, which are contained, as far as the WTC is concerned, in World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Apart from this, I would agree that there is a bit of repetition here and there. Information from different sources sometimes overlaps, or is presented in a slightly different way. However, consolidating these overlaps would make it difficult to document the source of a particular piece of information in a way that the reader (or other editors) can easily understand. This can lead to a situation in which well sourced information is unnecessarily being challenged, just because it's not obvious where the information came from. In some cases, I have rather opted for a bit of overlap to avoid these negative effects.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
"they are not identical to the large array of different arguments and positions..." On the contrary, I've not seen anything Richard Gage or the AE911Truth group present that didn't come from some other source other that Gage's AIA membership. Their entire presentation is a secondary source of original research by many other people. A plurality of their slides are simply reformatted from the presentations of Kevin Ryan, Stephen Jones, and David Ray Griffin. Any reliable source addressing controlled demolition theories in 9/11 would be acceptable if they address the official AE911Truth argument. Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Science News Reference removed

This link was removed for being a subtle attack on Richard Gage. It links to an article hidden behind a subscriber-only page, but I believe the article was legally reprinted here at US News and World Report. Richard Gage is not mentioned at all in the article. Instead, it describes a study of people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus I believe it was added as a snarky comment on Gage and people who believe him. The link may have its place in an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, but not here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Your review of this reference appears to be completely correct. Wildbear (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. I haven't remove the reference, as I didn't want to upset the editor who had put it in.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of references

There are far too many links supporting most of the information in this article, which gives the impression of multiplying references to magnify notability of AE911Truth. I propose a single link for almost every sentence. The exception would be if a sentence containing information included in two different sources. However, the separate bits of information should be separately sourced. If it's stated in an reliable source, the single source is sufficient for the statement.

This will also improve the readability of the article during editing. Identifying the actual text and trying to keep various links straight along with many comments (made presumably by Cs32en) is next to impossible. This becomes a barrier to anyone actually contributing to the text except the long-time editor of this article, Cs32en.

This is not a discussion of whether the sentences should be included or not. We can and will deal with those questions later. (Although it should be noted that most of the articles are being used to reliably source the actual positions of the group. Certainly if we need to know the actual positions of the group, the group's own website is authoritative enough for that.) But right now, the discussion is on one reliable source per statement. I will not make the choices of which reliable source should be retained until consensus is reached through the dispute resolution process. If Cs32en wishes to make the choices on his or her own, that's a different matter. Joseph.nobles (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of this. Except in only really controversial places, one source should be sufficient to verify a statement. However, we should still be using secondary sources to verify the positions of the group. Even if the group itself lists its views, WP:PSTS trumps all and says that we should use secondary sources over primary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I find that odd. Most of these articles are simply repeating what they've been told by members of the group. For example, the three links used to verify the statement of the first sentence that the group is a tax-exempt, non-profit organization are a local paper, the Washington Times, and the website of the group. The group website article alone is the basis for the tax-exempt claim, and I rather doubt the reporters of the other two papers bothered to verify the non-profit status of the group beyond copying a press release.
However, after reading WP:PSTS, I accept the premise that articles here draw their material ideally from secondary sources. For this example, then, I would actually get rid of all three of the links, substituting in their place this article from a wire service on Not only does it state that AE911Truth is a "501(c)(3) non-profit corporation," it also repeats the group's own mission statement, which can be used later on in this paragraph and/or sentence: "to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice." However, since this article is simply a verbatim repeat of the group's press release rather than the more digested form of the Washington Times or local article, would one of those still be preferable? Joseph.nobles (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Avoid press releases if at all possible. Like you said, it's just a repeat of the group, so it's just silly. The first sentence has two things that need to be referenced - tax-exempt and nonprofit. One does not necessarily imply the other here; I think it's technically possible to be a nonprofit and not be tax exempt (but I'm not positive). Both the local story and Washington Times articles prove non-profit, but neither show tax exemption; only the primary source does. And this link, but I don't think we can use that. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about proving things, I don't know. But based on what I wrote here, it seems like you could either remove both secondary sources and just use the primary, or use one secondary and one primary. I think I prefer the latter. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what I'll do - the latter. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In many cases, more than one source is necessary, because there are some aspects of the content are not present in a single one of the references. In other cases, new, more appropriate sources, have been found later on. In these case, I have often just added the new source, without deleting the old source. Having all the sources close to the content that is based on them helps to work on the article — condensing information from various sources in a way that does not alter the meaning can be rather hard word. I did not see any problems with having multiple sources for the same content, but I would agree to remove footnote where they are actually not necessary. I think it's tedious and ultimately unnecessary work, but if anyone has a specific suggestion, I'll also have a look at the issue. (The first decision would probably be whether to remove the Washington Times or the FOX reference from the first sentence, and I would be fine with this either way.)  Cs32en Talk to me  14:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not go through this article and remove all "old" sources where you've added a new source? That would be a start. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Because I don't know in which case the new source contains all the information that has been taken from the old source.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Then if you will not do the due diligence to discover which links are which, I will and I will gain consensus for eliminating the old sources -- which by your admission you have made obsolete with newer sources -- and eliminate them. Tedious work it may be, but it is what lies ahead. Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of the old sources may have become obsolete as newer sources emerged. If you find such references, please let us know. If the references actually are redundant, then eliminating them will probably improve the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
First you said, "In other cases, new, more appropriate sources, have been found later on. In these case, I have often just added the new source, without deleting the old source." Now you say, "Some of the old sources may have become obsolete as newer sources emerged. If you find such references, please let us know." These seem contradictory to me. However, I am in the process of letting you know about the redundant links you have built into a repository here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In some cases, the newer sources contains information that complements the information taken from old sources, in other case the new source contains all the necessary information, thus making the old source redundant. WP:NOTREPOSITORY is not about references to reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
And I'm not talking about the reliability of any of the links, but the sheer accumulation of them in this article, which amounts to WP:REPOSITORY. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Next are the two links at the end of the first sentence. One confirms "official investigations" being disputed by the group, and the second, a link to an audio page for a long interview of Richard Gage, mentions the 9/11 Commission report. Forestalling the question of whether the 9/11 Commission Report needs to be mentioned at this point at all, I propose dropping both links in favor of the Financial Times link found down further in the page. It mentions both facts (although David Ray Griffin is the one mentioned disputing the 9/11 Commission Report, he is a member of AE911Truth and frequently appears with Gage for joint presentations). Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin is not a representative of AE911Truth, thus we cannot use his views to describe the views taken by AE911Truth.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin is a member of AE911Truth. His name is the first of "Supporters" on their petition. Richard Gage cites Griffin as the inspiration for the group. Griffin is cited as a key source for the group's presentation and he often appears with Gage on stage at AE911Truth appearances. If David Ray Griffin cannot be seen as a representative of AE911Truth, what criteria would exclude him so and yet not exclude the thousands of other names on AE911Truth's petition? Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the statements of any of the other thousands of people (except for Gage, of course) have been used to characterize AE911Truth's position.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That seems odd, since large portions of the AE911Truth presentation present Griffin's original research. I've not seen anything the group has presented that didn't come from somewhere else first. But be that as it may, if it's absolutely essential that the 9/11 Commission Report be mentioned in the opening paragraph of this article, perhaps we can find one that isn't a link to a long radio interview of Richard Gage. That way the article reads more like a treatment of the group and its position rather than a tool to promote Gage's media appearences. Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to look for more references to support information that is already in the article, please go ahead. With regard to Wikipedia, similarities of the arguments of Griffin and of AE911Truth are mere speculation, as no reliable sources have reported on them, as far as I know. I think that there are also some differences, but again, no reliable sources are probably available on this. We can only attribute to AE911Truth what the organization has said, or what reliable sources have said about it. Whether that is identical to Griffin's position, or mutually exclusive, or something in between, is wholly irrelevant with regard to this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time keeping up with you guys on this article, but from what I can find, Griffin isn't definitely a member of the group. He's a sympathizer, sure, and his ideals are inline with the group, but being the first to sign a petition and doing events with the lead of the group are not the same as being an actual member. And even if he is a member, he's not really a spokesperson for the group. That'd be like saying some person in the Tea Party movement is a member and quoting them in an article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to, though, HelloAnnyong. It can't be easy being the lone disinterested party between two partisans, but I appreciate your efforts. Cs32en, I don't understand the need to have a reference to the 9/11 Commission Report specifically in the opening paragraph. The group is far more focused on the official NIST reports, which is natural since they are the ones that deal with the collapses of the buildings in any scientific detail. Almost every article you have found or I can find focus on this disagreement with NIST. And the 9/11 Commission Report would be naturally included in the phrase "official investigations". Since I can't find another third-party article already in the article, I'm willing to let this double citation stand for the time being. Perhaps in the future a single source can be found. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I had changed the wording with this edit. The old source referred specifically to the 9/11 commission. If you find a source that mentions NIST in this context, we may change this, or add NIST. I don't think it's very important point, however. Note that with regard to the overall interpretation of the September 11 attacks, the conclusions of the 9/11 commission are more relevant than NIST's investigation, so for a reader who is new to this topic, it is relevant to mentions the 9/11 commission.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You neglected to say that you had also added the KGO link yourself in this edit. The article as it stands is full of references to the group's dispute with the NIST reports. If you don't think it's an important point, then you won't mind my changing the wording and the link. This article isn't about the "overall interpretation of the September 11 attacks." It's about AE911Truth, and their more natural focus is on the NIST reports. 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If you find a source from which the information can be taken without sythesizing, then I wouldn't mind if you change the wording appropriately.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The next double citation is of Richard Gage's membership in the AIA. Two sources are completely unnecessary here. I would eliminate the article in French, since this is the English Wiki. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The English source may be seen as an opinion piece, although taking purely factual information with no or little leverage for biased presentation is usually ok. To avoid possible controversies (you may have a look at the archives, especially the last sections in archive 2, for some the disputes that took place here), I have left both sources in the text. (I actually did so as a general rule in my usage of references.)  Cs32en Talk to me  17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You've done nothing but shift the problem of double citation for a simple fact like Gage's AIA membership further down the list for discussion. WP:REPOSITORY is a consensus problem with this article, and one of those references will have to go. My choice has been outlined. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The edit was not intended to adress this dispute.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Then we shall wait on this question for a more neutral editor's opinion. If one doesn't present itself, I'll file the necessary dispute resolution. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
OK.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. We're talking about this: Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects," right? One is the Washington Times article, the other is from Let me know if I'm in the right place, and then I'll give my thoughts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I'm fine with any outcome, so long as the remaining source isn't being challenged by anyone.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a strong dislike for the use of opinion pieces as reference in 9/11 articles, and I would actually like to go through the articles and get rid of all opinion material. In this instance, it's not clear to me how the Washington Times article would be categorized as opinion. The URL puts it under "news"; the tabbed heading is under "News"; and the subtitle of the article is "Explosive News". If I'm overlooking something and this article really should be characterized as an opinion piece, then perhaps this article could be used as an English language reference for Gage's AIA membership (although it is using the Washington Times article as its own reference). If no suitable English-language reference can be found, I would not be averse to using a reliably-sourced foreign language article as the sole reference. While generally not preferred, I would make this exception for 9/11 articles, because the English-language news media is mostly under a self-imposed blackout on anything which contests the official story of 9/11. Whichever choice is made for the reference (I would choose the Washington Times article), it looks to me like a single reference should be adequate in this instance. Wildbear (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any editorializing in the Washington Times piece myself. Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Cs32en has removed the reference. It may still be utilized in a possible paragraph on the international impact of AE911Truth. Joseph.nobles (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The next double citation is the founding of AE911 by Gage in 2006. Both articles are very good RS. The one of these that has it all is the Rudin BBC article. However, the Financial Times article is a RS worth keeping, and probably can be used later in the description of the group's beliefs. Another choice would be eliminating both (the Rudin article is used elsewhere), and using the Explosive Story article (currently reference 51) which also has the full info for this section. Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Rudin article has it all, then use that. I'd say move the FT article down somewhere else to where it can be used, perhaps to replace another multiple reference. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two references, because only the Financial Times article specifically says that Gage has founded the group.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The BBC article says that he started the group. Are you really going to be that hairsplitting about this? Then I'd recommend that we change the single word "founded" to "started" and figure out if and where we'd use the FT link later. Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've begun a new excessive references section below, as this one is getting long. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest creating a subsection for every item that we are discussing. (This article will not be nominated for FAC anytime soon, so I really don't see the need for all that work. But well, as long as it help to improve the text, I'm OK with it.)  Cs32en Talk to me  16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I can do that. Please stop referring to "the need for all that work." If you don't see the need for all that work, don't do it. I'll edit the article as I see fit under the watchful eye of disinterested editors. Also, though I've started a new section, the "founding" sentence still needs your latest response, unless your last stands and the issue calls for a third opinion. Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure which is the "founding sentence" that you are referring to.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The sentence you're not quite sure of is the one we are still discussing right above, the one where you made the incredible claim that two references are necessary because only one says "founded" when the second one makes it quite clear that Gage started the group. If that's your final word on the subject, I'll begin the dispute resolution process. Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of links, first paragraph, "Activities"

The next double citation is at the end of the first paragraph of the Activities section. The Rudin BBC link has all the information, and the CBC television program is used elsewhere. I'd recommend just dropping the CBC link here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the CBC link. It was probably left over from shuffling content around in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Section "Activities" - Second paragraph, first sentence - Number of links

The sentence as it stands is not supported by any of the available links. The quoted statement lacking support is particularly egregious. Therefore, I recommend dropping all of those links in favor of this Google Books link to the Censored 2008 story on 9/11 Truth. It quotes the AE911Truth petition in all the relevant points but one, although the quote will have to be altered from "might have been" to "may have been". The group is not specifically named, but the nature of the organization as well as a direct citation of the AE911Truth website makes this an moot point. The only thing still needing a citation would be "collecting signatures," but any of the three we're dropping that support that could be moved to that point in the sentence. Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the FOX KMPH 26 reference (only says pledges of support). Also changed the URL of the AE911Truth reference. The Washington Times ref provides third-party confirmation that the group is collecting signatures.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What you did is now provide a direct link to the page where you can sign the AE911Truth petition, which REALLY smacks of advocacy. The Google Books link gives most of the necessary information without soliciting the reader to join AE911Truth and I am going to insist that the sole link here be the Google Books link. The Washington Times link can be moved to the "collecting signatures" part of the sentence. Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Joseph.nobles that directly linking to the petition page is too much like advocacy. I have replaced that link with the Google Books reference, and revised the other cites in the article which used the same reference to point to the ae911truth home page instead of the petition. Both the Washington Times and the Google Books references are a bit weak in describing the petition; but perhaps together they are enough to get the point across. Wildbear (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I had not linked to the petition page initially precisely for the reason that you both are giving. I think we could use the Google books link instead.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Documentation for number of petition signers, number of links

There are four references here, far too many. The link has the 1187 figure, and a link to the front page of the AE911Truth website is appropriate. The rest should be dropped. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the two references (i.e. footnote signs) which are no longer needed. (A bot will take care of the missing reference which is still needed elsewhere in the article.)  Cs32en Talk to me  18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph.nobles' bold edits, and Cs32en's three reverts

Ordinarily I would report User:Cs32en for the three reverts he or she just performed. However, I'm going to give a discussion a chance with the editors we have watching the process already.

Cs32en, you have made changes unannounced and sometimes undocumented on this page several times so far. You have also lost several opportunities to move the discussion about the "founded" sentence forward. You claim that this issue is relatively unimportant, but you just committed a 3 revert to maintain your side of the discussion. I remind you that consensus has been reached about the number of links in this article (as well as its overall balance re: WP:SOAPBOX), and your actions thus far begin to demonstrate the level of ownership you feel over this article. Please stop being disruptive and start cooperating with all editors here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

First, one of the reverts was the revert of a single space character that you have added to the article. Then, you have stated that you would go to dispute resolution if I wouldn't agree with your position. Now, as I did not agree to your position, you, instead of proposing an edit on the talk page and building consensus for it, have unilaterally made edits to the article. That is not really what is recommended in a case where it is obvious that a particular edit will likely be controversial, but it can of course be handled by the WP:BRD procedure. Therefore, I have reverted your edits to indicate that there is an active controversy about the proposed changes. Please, if you see that an edit is controversial, try to build consensus for it.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'll agree with this. Cs32en may have pushed 3RR here, but it was because it was a response to the bold editing. Unless the changes you're going to make to this article are entirely uncontroversial (typos, e.g.) discuss them here first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to discuss the issue with Cs32en, but after several edits that he or she performed here while letting the opportunity to continue the discussion pass him or her by, I continued the dispute resolution process. This controversy is literally over a single word, HelloAnnyong. One word change, and another link can be dropped from this article. And the word is "founded" over "started." If this is an example of the biased POV I have infiltrated Wikipedia to insert into this article, I believe my conflict on this subject needs to be reevaluated by all. Cs32en makes the extraordinary claim that "founded" is "more encyclopedic", whatever that means. The single reference that could be used says Gage started the group. I don't see the problem with dropping the link that says "founded" and keeping the word "founded", but if that's what it takes to eliminate a second reference for exactly the same information, then that's what I recommend. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I would furthermore submit that both Cs32en and I both refrain from editing this article without the go-ahead from a disinterested editor until the process of weeding the excessive links out is over. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
We just should refrain from making edits that obviously or very likely are controversial. But if new information emerges, then I think both of us should be able to freely edit the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You have WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article, Cs32en. Both of us refraining to edit until consensus is clearly reached would be the best course forward. ETA: This might also encourage you to respond to the discussions a bit quicker. Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"Responding to discussions"? What you are referring to are actually comments by you on this talk page. Let me try to explain this to you: The building of consensus on this talk page does not depend on me taking part in discussions. I will not be online 24/7, and I don't see a need to respond to every issue you, or anyone else, for that matter, is bringing up on this talk page. Also, I may not see the need to restate my viewpoint over and over again. If you don't like my opinion, or just don't agree to it, why don't you just leave it at that? Editors are under no obligation to agree or to endlessly discuss things if there is no agreement.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"founded" vs. "started"

I do not really see the need to discuss this, but as there have been discussions about much more minor issues on this article, I'm prepared to provide my opinion on this issue. I also find it strange that the possibility of eliminating a reference to a reliable source from this article appears to be the main motivation for this debate. But be that as it may, here is my take of the difference between "founded" and "started":

Founding an organization is a formal act, and the people involved are giving a commitment to act together. That's why this word is generally being used for the initial actions that bring an organization into being. On the other hand, anyone can start just about anything that the person wishes to start, and discontinue it without being expected to provide a legitimate reason to do so.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a strong opinion about the difference between "founding" and "starting" for someone who doesn't see the need to discuss this. I don't think the word is necessary either way, but I don't see a problem with a link that refers to Gage "starting" the organization and saying that Gage "founded" the organization. The consensus of WP:NOTREPOSITORY has already been met. Eliminating links, whether reliable or not, would be the only way to retify this. This would be a suitable place to drop a link. Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how and why consensus on WP:NOTREPOSITORY would have been met, in your view. We agreed to look for redundant references in the article, but I'd say this is a style issue. As far as I can see, you are the only editor who has stated the opinion that possibly redundant links to reliable sources would be a WP:NOTREPOSITORY problem. If you don't see a problem with having a reference that says "started" and writing "founded", that's OK. However, based on previous discussion on the article, other editors may well have a different opinion on this question. And by the way, as you are forcing the continuation of this discussion, it appears that you would have a strong opinion on the issue just as well.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
My issue with your strong opinion is not that it is strong, but that you claim it to be otherwise. It's all "don't really see the need to discuss this" until an edit happens, and then you're pushing the 3R rule to change it back. Looking back, I see that editors have agreed to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE (see HelloAnnyong's reply to me under the Third Opinion above), but not to WP:NOTREPOSITORY specifically, and perhaps the omission was intentional. But stacking up redundant links is one of the ways the article fails the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE standards, in my opinion. It's a good starting point to work our way through the issues. After that, we can begin the process of rewriting and balancing the article so that a due weight is placed on this organization and its fringe theories. Until that point, it would be best for both you and I, the ones with strong opinions on this topic, to refraining from editing or otherwise acting as if we own this article. Joseph.nobles (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't claimed that my opinion would not be strong. I just said that I saw no need to restate my position. Please respect that, if two editors disagree on an issue, there is no consensus on the issue. This does not depend on whether one of the editors has posted more messages to the talk page relative to the other, or reacted more rapidly to the comments of the other editor.
With regard to your other claims, I think it's best if we both would wait for other, uninvolved editors to state their views.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, guys - seriously? Fighting over a single word? I think "founded" works here. And I fail to see how the not repository criteria is relevant to this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm just as astounded as you. Are you good with the link saying "started" being the only one necessary to document the sentence? Joseph.nobles (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it's fine. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Does that imply that you would not be fine with the alternative, i.e. retaining both sources in the article?  Cs32en Talk to me  02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but what does the BBC article have in it that the FT article doesn't? I may be missing something, but I think the FT article has everything we need for that sentence. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's the other way around. The BBC article has everything we need. The FT article only adds Cs32en's preferred word "founded." Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Fine then, go with the BBC article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I accept the change. "Founded" has been retained in the text of the article, and if any editor would challenge the wording in the future, this talk page discussion may be helpful.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Question to Joseph.nobles

Joseph.nobles, are you still of the opinion that, ultimately, a discussion about the deletion of this article should take place, or have you reconsidered your views on this issue?  Cs32en Talk to me  13:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Novelty is not necessarily notability. If it was solely up to me, I would merge the article into two others. The group's arguments are derived completely from the original research of others. Stephen Jones has his own PowerPoint presentation that has simply been reformatted for the AE911Truth presentation. Kevin Ryan is the same. Multiple clips of various 9/11 conspiracy theory movies are shown through. David Ray Griffin, as the inspiration for the group, has his work quoted as well. In fact, David Chandler is the only member of AE911Truth who I have seen operate completely under the auspices of the organization. But Richard Gage is an effective organizer and public relations man, and has become an very effective presenter of the information AE911Truth reproduces. He has used the relative novelty of his group's stance to produce a sizable number of human interest stories in reliable sources around the globe. Therefore, there should be some mention of the group here at Wikipedia. But since what the group advocates is not truly peculiar to them -- only their minority report of architectural and engineering profession is that -- their arguments are best put forward (with appropriate balance) at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and the remaining material folded into their section at 9/11 Truth Movement. I don't know the likelihood of that occurring, though, and have decided to work with the article as is. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your views on this!  Cs32en Talk to me  17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Description of presentation in "Activities", number of links

The next double citation is this sentence in the third "Activities" paragraph: "His presentations focus on the sequence of events leading to the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings and include videos of their collapses and footage of other high-rise building fires." The first link resolves to a 404 page. Further searching at the Hartford Advocate website produced no article with that title and no Jennifer Abel at all working for the paper at any point. However, the article in question appears to be available at the AE911Truth website, and does generally confirm the information in the sentence. The second link has a brief mention of the presentation, but only the number of slides in the presentation, something not stated in the sentence.

There is also the question of why this description of the video is in "Activities." It seems to me to be more appropriate in the "Advocacy" section later. However, even there the entire sentence would be redundant. I'd first recommend just dropping this entire sentence. If that doesn't gain a consensus, then dropping the second reference and noting the location of the article's text at AE911Truth somehow would be the next preferable thing. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:The Original Wildbear has replaced the Hartford Advocate link with a web archive that isn't the AE911Truth link. That's perfect. Now I'd recommend the second link be dropped since it doesn't actually support anything in the sentence. Joseph.nobles (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; second link removed. I don't see a problem with the placement of the text under Activities; since it's fairly brief I don't perceive it as advocacy. Other editors are welcome to offer their views on that aspect; I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. Wildbear (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

AIA Booth, number of links

The sentence here is " In 2009, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a booth at the annual convention of the American Institute of Architects." The first link is to a reliable source, the AIA blog talking about the novelty of the AE911Truth booth. The second link is a link to the vendor page at the 2009 AIA convention webpage. It's unnecessary since the AIA blog establishes the existence of the booth sufficiently, and for the type of information this is (not a controversial statement), the official blog of the AIA is fine. I'd remove the second link. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, since anything titled "blog" could potentially come under challenge, I have commented out the unnecessary link rather than removing it entirely. Wildbear (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the change as well as with Wildbear's assessment.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC-ZDF Co-production, number of links and other issues

This concerns the sentence in the Activities section: "Gage was also interviewed for an episode of the television programme The Conspiracy Files that the BBC produced in co-operation with the German television channel ZDF,[22][23]"

The first link is to a BBC blog post from Mike Rudin, the producer of the episode, confirming the Gage interview for the BBC production. It doesn't mention the ZDF co-production, though. The second is to the ZDF page on the ZDF program, which no longer produces the desired page. Searching for the title produces no clear match, but this program page has the title as part of the series. The program is no longer available, the page doesn't mention Gage, but it does mention Mike Rudin as one of the producers for the show. The Wikipedia sentence, therefore, seems to be a mass of synthesis. I'd recommend dropping the reference to ZDF totally, and thus the ZDF non-link. (A side note -- is Wikipedia English meant to be American English or British English or does it just not matter?) Joseph.nobles (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could refrain from characterizations such as "a mass of synthesis", Joseph.nobles. I've replaced the link to the ZDF with a link to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung Cs32en Talk to me  01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Would simply calling the sentence "synthesis" be more acceptable? Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to insist that you stop altering the titles of these sections. You've boldly edited, I've reverted. If you want to discuss this, start a new section. Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
On examining the new link, the problem of synthesis remains. The new link establishes that the ZDF and BBC co-produced a program called "Das Geheimnis des dritten Turms", but there is no evidence that this is the same show as seen on BBC Television. There is also no indication that Gage or any representative of AE911Truth appeared in the German show. Therefore, it's synthesis to claim this program is the same as the BBC show and that Gage appears in this German show, which would make it noteworthy of inclusion in the article. Again, I recommend dropping the second link and any reference to the German production. Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Joseph.nobles, please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages Cs32en Talk to me  02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This section is about the synthesis and excessive links in the sentence I've set out. Please handle your dispute with me in the appropriate venue and stop distracting this discussion. Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You may agree that the problem with the link is not that it would be excessive, but that the URL has expired. Furthermore, we are not discussing about synthesis, but about your opinion that there would be synthesis in the article. Again, please read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages. They include the following guidance:
  • "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."
  • "Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them."
I hope that you will reconsider your recent actions in which you have reverted the talk page section titles to your preferred version, in violation of these guidelines. If you will not undo your changes yourself, I will report this at the appropiate noticeboard.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You continue to disrupt this discussion with an inappropriate one. Please stick to the topic at hand. Joseph.nobles (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You are conducting this discussion in an inappropriate way, which is not conducive to building consensus. This issue needs to be addressed first, so that the discussion can then proceed in an orderly fashion. Please familiarize yourself with the talk page guidelines, instead of adding and restoring non-neutral section titles.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly from the beginning of your disruption of this section, start another section if you want to discuss this issue. Instead of doing that, you have continued to disrupt this section off-topic. I would suggest waiting for one of the neutral editors already working on this section to weigh in before you disrupt or escalate this further. Joseph.nobles (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Cs32en, if you feel that Joseph.nobles is using inappropriate titles or text layout, just point it out, so that neutral editors can take it into consideration when weighing the issues here. We're sensitive to POV pushing, both subtle and overt; so use of inappropriate titles or layout would not help an editor advance their position. Getting into arguments over secondary matters also doesn't look good and doesn't help an editor advance their position. Overall, this careful review of the article is resulting in improvement, in my view. As for the BBC-ZDF Co-production issue, the BBC is referring to the title of the program as "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower", while the German sources seem to be referring to a title "The secret of the third tower". If a reference can't be found which clearly shows that the program is a single co-production of the BBC and ZDF, then I recommend dropping the ZDF reference. If it can be shown with a single reference that it's a co-production, then I don't see a problem with including that statement in the article. As I am seeing it, the article doesn't appear to do the job. Wildbear (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the arguement of a now dead link negating an edit came up in an arbitration dispute some time ago when I tried to delete several expired links that had no other sources confirming their content and the consensus such as it was (only a few admins commented) was that the edit and the dead link stays ie:I lost. If the edit had not been disputed when it was first made (it was accepted that the source supported it) then maybe it should stay. Wayne (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Joseph.nobles says that the sentence would be synthesis. However, the problem is not synthesis, but that a source URL has expired. Synthesis implies that something has been synthesized, which is not what has happened here. While I agree that it would be worthwhile looking for a better source, the verifiability policy does allow sources that are not readily available, e.g. offline sources. As this article has been under rather intense scrutiny from the beginning, I find notion that I would have synthesized content, and that no-one would have objected to that at the time of writing, a bit off, and Joseph.nobles, unfortunately, consistently chooses words that seem to imply this. Joseph.nobles also has a habit of describing deficiencies of the article in a way that seems to imply that I would have intentionally caused these deficiencies, and I object to such characterizations. Actually, we are discussing about expired links, references that other editors have added to the article, and - for what it's worth - some instances in which I found it appropriate to have two references while Joseph.nobles prefers to have only a single reference in the article.
In the section title, Joseph.nobles is constantly using non-neutral wording. I have changed these titles, and Joseph.nobles has reverted them. I have already pointed out that these title are in violation of the talk page guidelines, and I will open a separate section to discuss these titles specifically.
As for the content that we are discussing here, we have the following verifiable information: (1) that Gage was interviewed for an episode of "The Conspiracy Files" (2) that there is a ZDF documentary "The secret of the Third Tower" which is a co-production of the ZDF and the BBC, and produced by Mike Rudin and Christoph Röckerath. What we don't have verbatim right now is that the ZDF documentary is the German variant of the ZDF/BBC co-production, while the "Conspiracy Files" episode is the English version of that co-production.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
In your last sentence, you show exactly why the sentence as written is synthesis: You are synthesizing the conclusion that the ZDF documentary is a German variant of a ZDF/BBC co-production. The only thing you have evidence for from a reliable source is that the ZDF documentary is a BBC/ZDF co-production. There is no indication that the English documentary is a co-production, but that's what the synthesis of the current statement claims. What appears to have happened in my mind is that the BBC produced their documentary, and then co-produced a version of that for German television with ZDF. But I don't have any reliable source that says that, anymore that you, Cs32en, have a reliable source that ZDF co-produced the English documentary. Since the interview with Gage is very likely the same one in both documentaries, it gains sufficient documentation with the link to the BBC blog, and the ZDF addition and controversy becomes one more way that this article moves from the strictly neutral into advocacy and building up of notability (by stacking up redundant links). If ZDF had conducted their own interview with Gage, that would be another argument (but even then, this article doesn't need to be a link to every single reliable source that has ever mentioned Gage whatsoever). I think the ZDF reference within the sentence and the link supporting it should be dropped. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
First, in response to Wayne: the response to your concern regarding dead links may have been in conformance with the letter of Wikipedia policy, but in this instance, I think it was inappropriate. Much nonsense, POV pushing, and deception has been spewed out about 9/11 over the years, including within the articles of Wikipedia. We should be carefully re-examining everything to ensure that it is well-sourced and stands up to scrutiny. Dead links should not be acceptable for this topic. I agree with Joseph.nobles that there is insufficient evidence from the references provided that the BBC and the ZDF programs are the same production. Trying to force such a conclusion does appear to be synthesis, or something akin to synthesis. The ZDF reference should be dropped, unless better sourcing is provided. Wildbear (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not synthesis, it is simply unsourced, because the link has expired. Really, I don't think it's terribly important whether the documentary in which Gage was interviewed was produced by the BBC, or co-produced by the BBC and the ZDF. What I object to is that Joseph.nobles consistently chooses words that make it appear as if deficiencies in the article would have been introduced on purpose. As any solution that relies on the (rather straightforward) assumption that the sources were fine at the time of writing is likely to generate more controversy in the future, let's drop the reference to the ZDF and the information that the documentary is a co-production of the BBC and the ZDF.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've explained why the statement is synthesis, and neutral editors have agreed with the overall appearance of the sentence. In your reference to the ZDF article, you quote for support the statement that ZDF went over hundreds of facts, but that could refer only to their co-production of the German episode. I'm glad you're willing to let the reference drop. Take your issues with me to the appropriate place. Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As you may well know, the statement that I have quoted mentions the BBC as well. I have included the information that the ZDF went over hundreds of facts because I preferred to quote the complete sentence. Joseph.nobles, do you really need to refer to this quote in such a misleading way, in order to make your point? You can still watch the German version here. (Gage appears at 0:48 in the clip, and probably also later on.)  Cs32en Talk to me  03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing misleading about how I have referred to the quote, Cs32en. One so sensitive to negative language should be a little more attuned to his or her own. I did say "co-production of the German episode", did I not? Who else has entered into this discussion as a co-producer but the BBC? As I said, the statement very likely refers only to the German documentary and not the English documentary, unlike the implication given in the article text as it stands. Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you have written that I would have quoted "for support the statement that ZDF went over hundreds of facts", highlighting the part of the sentence from the source that actually has nothing to do with the question we are discussing, and omitting the rest of the sentence.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
@Joseph.nobles: Of course, "this article doesn't need to be a link to every single reliable source that has ever mentioned Gage whatsoever", as you say. It doesn't have a link to every such article. It also does not enumerate all the interviews that Gage has given, although it of course uses information that reliable sources have taken from such interviews.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Wildbear agrees with me that the ZDF reference should be dropped, and Cs32en is willing to let it be dropped, I'm changing the text. Joseph.nobles (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As the ZDF's video, including the text confirming that it's a co-production of the ZDF and the BBC, are now online again, I have re-inserted the content, with minor adjustment and the updated URLs.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Section titles

Many of the section titles on this talk page do not follow our talk page guidelines. These guidelines include the following guidance:

  • "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."
  • "Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them."

The section titles should be changed so that the present the content of the respective discussion in a neutral way.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If using section titles like "discussion of links and other issues around X sentence" will allow us all to start discussing the actual issues in this article instead of these meta-discussions, I'm willing to start using section titles like that. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you also willing to change the section titles that you have already added to the talk page?  Cs32en Talk to me  20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I will do that as I have time. Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, we don't need any lengthy section titles such as the one you have suggested, if we simply make a section "Discussion on links/references" with subsection on the respective sentences.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. These discussions are getting long on each point, and a single section will get hard to deal with. Other issues are inevitable as well, as the BBC/ZDF discussion above shows in relation to synthesis. Giving each its own section will help prevent discussions from being lost in a forest of responses, as seen in the founding/started discussion above. I plan on continuing to give each discussion its own section, using the title format I've suggested. Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for changing the section titles! As for the section/subsection choice, in my view, subsections do structure the text just as well as sections. In addition, a more general overall section title, whether "Number of links in the article" or anything similar, would not need to be repeated in the subsection title. The only drawback would be that the archive bot would not archive single subsections. However, using subsections was just a suggestion on my part, I'm fine with using section, too.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fifth Estate, number of links

There are three links supporting the statement that Richard Gage was interviewed for a Fifth Estate program. The first is directly to video of the program, and text beneath the video window says that Gage is in the program. That makes the first sufficient for this support, and the other two links can be dropped. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity why are links being dropped from the article? Wikipedia is not finished, such links can serve as references for future research. Culling existing links could lead to WP:LINKROT as seems to have happened with the ZDF source above. Please refer to alternate techniques for minimizing WP:CLUTTER. A more worthwhile use of time might be to ensure that the links are mirrored for future reference. Best, Unomi (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If you'd like to discuss why links are being discussed, please use the discussion section above where we talked about it for quite a while. This section is about two redundant links to support the innocuous statement that Gage was interviewed for a Fifth Estate program. Joseph.nobles (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are concerned about the amount of visible ref links you can use the techniques outlined in WP:CLUTTER, if you wish to add other supporting or summarizing sources you are free to do that in the same go. Sources represent a considerable investment of time and effort of a number of editors to find, discuss and ultimately find consensus to include, doubly so so for an article like this. If there are other concerns than visible links then it is not apparent to me from the section above. Unomi (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Unomi on this. We shouldn't be removing links just because they are redundant; although it is appropriate to remove them if they do not support the associated text. Links help to establish notability, and extra links provide a backup if an existing link goes dead. Where notability exists, we should record and document it (without going into every minor detail), so that it can be weighed when considering mention of the topic in other articles. Retaining links helps serve this purpose. Wildbear (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Does the fact of Richard Gage being interviewed for the Fifth Estate program need to be verified by three links? Is there anyone so argumentative in denying this simple fact as to require three links to verify this as a fact? Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. There are indeed editors who would argue for multiple sources to indicate that an event or interview deserves mention. Furthermore, I would venture that a large number of improvements to wikipedia are made by editors who read through existing sources and add more information from them, considering that I would find it unfortunate to remove relevant sources. I propose that the sources that were previously considered relevant to the article but removed for purely aesthetic reasons are reinstated and massaged per WP:CLUTTER or alternatively, a Talk:Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth/Sources page is created as a repository. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, stop saying WP:CLUTTER to me. I've read it. What I'm doing here is right along the lines of that page. Here's a quote from that page: "A rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is enough, two begins to look untidy, and more than three is definitely clutter." That's been my rule of thumb from the beginning. If we need a Sources page, I'll be happy to build it and contribute to it. But most of these articles are repetitive - read them and you'll see what I'm talking about. Sources reporting on novelty usually are. They rely on press releases from the group. The really good ones are being retained. For you to come in after we'd talked about this up above and established consensus for reworking this article is all well and good, but I think you really need to review everything we've been doing before coming down hard on me. I've removed a link attacking Richard Gage. I've found alternate links with the same information for dead links. Judge me on the totality of what I've done here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
And there already is an archive of sources in the archives. I thought I had seen that there. Nothing is being lost here. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I truly apologize for coming across as coming down hard on you, it was not my intention though on rereading my comments I can sympathize with that perception. Editors come and go, different perspectives are brought to bear and changes based on varying interpretations of policy are proposed, that is the nature of wikipedia and a source of its dynamism. My only concern is with the removal of research material, especially from sources where we can point to previous consensus for inclusion. I did not intend to imply that you were setting the article up for gutting or otherwise undermining the article intentionally, merely commenting on the wider value of sources. I agree completely that the number of reflinks are distracting, but I find grouping them together to be a superior and more forward looking solution. As an example, while the first link for the line you mention does indeed fulfill the task of sourcing this line, the 2 other sources have a plethora of additional information that might be useful later, sourced to an RS or at least a notable commentator. Apologies for not noticing the archive of sources, mea culpa, in the light of that my major objections are rendered moot, apart from the lack of visibility of those sources to the casual editor. Unomi (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, as you can see from that discussion page, the number of sources played a critical role in the discussion for including various elements of the article. I will also note that this particular source list is incomplete and deals with only one small issue. Unomi (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've started the Source page that you suggested. I took the incomplete list of sources I had linked and added all links (but the one we all agreed was an attack) to the chart. The list still doesn't have all sources in the article, and I didn't know enough about all of the articles to fill the charts out completely. However, I'm sure my work will get checked and we can complete the Source page over time. Joseph.nobles (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That, my friend, was beautiful, thank you! unmi 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FBI letter - WP:UNDUE?

Are we not giving the FBI letter undue weight by mentioning it? Here's the letter. It's an acknowledgement. It's also had just about no mainstream news coverage. Does it really match the spin put on it by the Santa Barbara Independent article? The article is written by Jay Levin, who appears to be a supporter of AE (here's another of his articles). Even he admits that no one outside the truth movement is paying attention to the letter. I suggest its removal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot engage in original research when assessing the report about this letter. There is no indication that the factual information carried in the source would be wrong, and we do not mention any commentary that the news magazine may have included in the article. Furthermore, any conclusion that the content would be WP:UNDUE would need to be based on an assessment that the information would be undue in relation to other content of the article. However, a number of other pieces of information are not widely reported either. Certainly, the article is not too long by our agreed standards. The notability criteria demand that there must be multiple sources on a given subject so that the subject may be covered in its own article. There are no such conditions with regard to the content of existing articles. As the content is not relevant with regard to WP:BLP or other such criteria, and there does not seem to exist a policy-based reason for its removal, I am going to restore it to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Original research applies to actually published article content, not to conversations on the talkpage. (Discussions of due-ness and source reliability would be impossible on your interpretation - there is no RS list of what is RS, or what topics are notable, for example). At the most here, you have to attribute this interpretation of the letter to Jay Leven. It's a remarkable claim, and requires rather better sourcing than a couple of obscure media outlets quoting the same non-specialist journalist. He's the founder of an alternative entertainment magazine, not an FBI expert. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The writer of the article reports about the letter sent by Michael Heimbach, and we have a primary source that indicates that the report is accurate. The article contains a quote from Heimbach's letter; I can't see how this quote would amount to an opinion that needs to be attributed to the author. If you think that we need to attribute the content to the source in-line, I'd be open to adjusting the article accordingly. There are no clear-cut policy guidelines for in-line attribution of sources of factual statements, but it's ok as long as we don't clutter articles with in-line attributions.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Using the term "original research", I did not mean to refer to your assessment of the source, but to your interpretation of what Michael Heimbach would have expressed in his letter.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Jay Levin's report clearly gives a spin and a weight to the letter from the FBI that is his own. He is treating it as evidence that the FBI genuinely intend to investigate, and as evidence that the FBI genuinely give credence to the material they received, and that, therefore, it has at least some merit. In his words "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This is his interpretation of the letter. You call my "intepretation" original research, but this is a misunderstanding of the principles of OR on wikipedia. There is pointing out the bleeding obvious (it's an acknowledgement of receipt letter, which surely you're not disputing) which is not OR, and then there is showing how a secondary source interprets a primary source to provide a meaning that quite plausibly would be rejected by others. It's about keeping undue and extreme minority view material out, not putting OR in. Here's a simple question: where does the letter actually say it will look at Gage's material specifically?
"As with all cases, the FBI will continue to examine the 9/11 investigation from every angle, utilizing all leads available"
"The case agents in charge of the investigation will undoubtedly review all relevant material before reaching an unbiased decision".
Neither of these two phrases says the FBI consider Gage's work relevant, or that it in particular merits scrutiny. There's a sentence in between which says
"Mr Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis."
"Interesting" might just as well mean "bollocks" ("interesting" is a very common codeword in academia, at least), and "backed up by thorough research and analysis" is also true of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Which (pace Dan Brown fans) is a work considered by experts to be bollocks. Note how the first and third cited sentences painfully fail to make a direct inclusive connection with the second. To treat the importance that Levin gives to this letter (and it's only Levin, an entertainment journalist, and his friend McKenzie, a journalist of apparently no note at all) as a simple statement of fact is not plausible (Which on wikipedia does matter. Editors do have to pass judgement on what counts as RS, and what is opinion and what is verified fact). But more than that, there appears to be no other source remotely reliable that treats such an interpretation of the letter (or indeed mentions the letter) as meaning what Levin thinks it means. Given that his spin is that "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny", this is not what we would expect. We should expect there to be multiple sources independent of the truth movement. It's a bit like finding an obscure science article where someone claims to have disproved relativity. If they had, there should be more noise than that. I'm for keeping the whole thing out, which is not original research; it's preserving the value of the encyclopaedia. Why should we give any weight at all to what this non-expert Levin says, and says in a couple of really obscure places (one of which is a free newspaper specialising in entertainment)? If it were the FBI themselves, or NYT, or more than a few journalists, that would be another matter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the letter shouldn't really be used here. The letter exists on its own; it's not really connected to anything. Further, the letter says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research". The theory is what he's saying is backed, not "the group's analysis" - and I think saying that theory == group's analysis is a bit misleading. I find using this letter in this capacity is misleading in general, as it seems to be saying that someone at the FBI also validates the claims. Anyway, a third editor (aside from myself and VsevolodKrolikov) seems to be against the use of the letter. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that the source reports on the letter in a way that is based on an interpretation that may be more favorable towards AE911Truth's theory or analysis than other possible interpretations. However, I do not share your view that the letter is a "receipt letter" and that, therefore, any interpretation should consistently follows the least favorable variant. Of course, the letter is a receipt letter. However, including a phrase such as "backed by thorough research and analysis" is not, in my view, what one would expect in a formal letter of receipt. In addition, while "interesting theory" may be used as irony, that form of usage would be odd in an FBI letter. All news sources present factual content in a way that also incorporates some interpretation. The Wall Street Journal and Le Monde will present things in different ways. So what we would need to check is (a) is there evidence that the source would have a bad track record with regard to the accuracy of its factual statements, (b) is the interpretation that may be associated with the content outside of what we can see as a plausible interpretation of the information, (c) if there is doubt, is there a way to present the information in a way that it based on the factual information as much as possible. I do not see evidence of (a) being true, I do not find the interpretation to be implausible, and I have adjusted the content of the article, so that it reflects the factual information contained in the source (as well as in the primary source).  Cs32en Talk to me  18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Cs32en, I'm not putting a spin on anything, because I'm not saying my alternative reading is correct, merely that it is more than reasonable. Instead, I'm showing that Levin puts a distinct POV spin on the letter - which you now agree, when you say he interprets it in a favourable light. Your points (a) and (b) need work. A reliable source is not a reliable source in its essence. RS exists in context. People who are experts in one area are not experts in all. I see Levin has no established track record at all in covering the FBI or security issues. Furthermore, the outlets are so minor that they are far from ideal in providing us with RS on national political and security events, and by no stretch can their articles be presumed to represent considered opinion in the way that major outlets sometimes can. Is the Santa Barbara Independent of the same stature as Le Monde? No. Local papers are often the best RS for local news, but this topic is not local. So there are big question marks over point a. Point b appears to conflate two issues - is the interpretation the single plausible one (ie a statement of fact) and is the interpretation actually implausible. The first one we answer by comparing the primary and secondary sources, and we all agree that Levin's interpretation is not the only plausible one. The second one we can answer by seeing if anyone else repeats the claim that the FBI think Gage's theory is substantiated enough to merit investigation. After all, it's a hell of a claim, and we'd expect some other coverage, and in more serious RS. But there appears to be nothing. Nada. No one else gives this extraordinary claim credence. So why should we give it any weight at all by including it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The claim that the letter written by Michael Heimbach says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed up by thorough research and analysis" is not extraordinary; in fact, the primary source confirms that claim. Thus, the claim is not extraordinary, and we do not need multiple sources to corroborate the information. There are many pieces of information on Wikipedia that are reported by a single source. To invalidate the interpretation given by a source, it would not suffice to show that an alternative interpretation would be more reasonable, but it would instead be necessary to demonstrate that the interpretation given by the source would be implausible. Many news items are not written by experts, nor by journalists who specialize in a specific topic. While such assessments may carry some weight when deciding how much weight to give to different views in those cases in which multiple reliable sources present events differently, I don't think that we can invalidate a source just because the writer is a journalist, and not an expert in the relevant field at the same time.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you don't think that implying the FBI thinks AE9/11's case has merit is implying something extraordinary, then I'll respectfully, but also categorically, disagree. There is no reliable evidence that the FBI takes Gage at all seriously. Gage is a conspiracy theorist. Even your own source admits mainstream journalism won't credit Gage with anything. It's true that Levin faithfully quotes from the letter, but that is not enough. It's why he quotes from it that matters - why he thinks the letter is significant (and thus why we should include it in the article). He only gives the letter any significance because he believes it means "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This reflects a seriously fringe point of view, expressed by someone with no apparent expertise in FBI operations, and it is not expressed by anyone else remotely qualifying for RS. It's very important not to go cherry picking within a source to prove a case. You can't cite Levin's giving the letter weight but pretend the reason he gives it weight isn't also there. It's not how to handle sources. It's important we reflect the balance of RS faithfully (including what is due and undue for inclusion), and not go rummaging around to see what we can find to put forward a certain point of view. If you can find RS evidence that the FBI actually spent or plans to spend notable resources (manpower etc.) investigating Gage's claim, I'd be all for inclusion. These two Levin articles are not enough for what you're trying to imply.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has gone back and forth for a while, so perhaps it needs another opinion to help reach resolution. Levin has written much good material in this area; but the first time I read his interpretation of the FBI letter, it caught my attention as an eyebrow-raiser. I saw it as likely stretching the FBI's meaning a bit farther than they intended. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov and HelloAnnyong in that including this item in this article may be giving it more weight than it deserves. And I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's stated conditions for appropriate inclusion (RS documentation of FBI spending or planning to spend resources investigating the issues brought to their attention.) I prefer to see Wikipedia stick to less dubious interpretations when selecting reliably sourced material for inclusion. Wildbear (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
As the item is now removed from the article, the discussion is already closed for practical purposes, in my view. There is no reason not to discuss the views further, however, as it may clarify the interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. (For the purpose of formally closing a discussion, however, an uninvolved administrator would be needed to review the arguments and close the section.)  Cs32en Talk to me  20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)