Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7 WTC

After WTC7.net was added back tonight, I removed it. There is no consensus here or on AN/I for it inclusion. The site still sells the DVD and as I stated above, if someone is profiting from a POV, it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. And WP:EL under the links to avoid section:

"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research..."

There is no consensus for inclusion and it doesn't belong in any case. Rx StrangeLove 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with the revert. No consensus here. It's linked at 9/11 conspiracy theories and that suffices. No need to add the same link here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
AN/I seemed to strongly suggest that some link representative of wtc7.net's POV should be included on the page. The contents.html page of wtc7.net seems most appropriate because it does not display any advertisements for a DVD. There is no consensus that there is anything factually inaccurate or constituting unverified original research on wtc7.net. However, it doesn't matter: WP:EL suggests excluding such a site unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. There is no consensus for exclusion, and WP:EL requires that external links exist for each notable POV on a subject. --Hyperbole 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are disregarding the poll above. Five people explicitly voted oppose and two vehemently refused to participate in the poll (Wikipedia:Voting is evil) but expressed strong opposition. At that, you don't have majority support for including the link. That said, consensus on Wikipedia = much more than a majority. Rather it requires a supermajority. For example, in requests for adminship or votes for deletion, 70-80% support is needed. In the above poll, there is absolutely no consensus for adding the link. If no consensus can be reached, then Wikipedia goes with the status quo (e.g. no link). -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You have neither consensus nor supermajority support for removing the link. In cases of no consensus, Wikipedia tends toward inclusionism, not exclusionism. A "no consensus" vote on the deletion of an article means the article is kept; why would a "no consensus" vote on information within an article work any differently? --Hyperbole 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
While we aren't voting on this, there is sizable oppositon to the link's inclusion. I won't revert again so soon after the last revert, but I will ask another editor to remove the disputed link tonight if possible. Rx StrangeLove 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no obligation to include a link if an advocate wants one. The due weight called for in the Wikipedia policy for such conspiracy theories is to provide a link to the conspiracy theories article. patsw 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The due weight called for in the Wikipedia policy is for external links representing each notable POV on a subject to be included. It's right there in WP:EL if you'd like to read it. --Hyperbole 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The key phrase here is notable POV. The one in question isn't by any means, now there's an essay meant to act as an outside resource. The standard is higher than an essay or a website profiting from a POV. It just doesn't belong until the overall theory has a little more traction. Rx StrangeLove 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The POV that 7 WTC was demolished by explosives overwhelmingly meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and thus for inclusion per WP:EL. The little polling done on the subject shows that 50% of New Yorkers believe in some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory and that 1 in 3 Germans believe the U.S. orchestrated 9/11. That's hundreds of thousands if not millions of people represented in just two polls who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory - and the idea that 7 World Trade Center was demolished is one of the prime theories. There are hundreds of websites on the subject and dozens of books written about the subject. Wikipedia has determined that figures such as Kim Kyung-Jae are notable - and you're going to try to tell me a theory of this magnitude is not?? --Hyperbole 07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If there is a belief in a conspiracy theory (and most countries who believe their government killed 3000 people to make a point don't fill in surveys, they have a revolution, so such a survey might need some further inspection before accepting it as a source) then a single article about it would make sense. User:Ombudsman's edit summaries are somewhat notable in themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman should be noted. In each case the gravamen is reversion and linkage. Midgley 09:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the guideline on external links doesn't find a statement that obligates editors to include an external link made by another editor. Also, there's a subtle but important distinction between a notable point of view and a notable proponent of a POV. The EL guideline refers to the latter and not the former. Who are the notable experts on controlled demolition who have determined that 7 World Trade Center was destroyed by a controlled demolition? The proponents of this particular POV have no expertise in controlled demolition.

My editing position is based on the policy on the neutral point of view that the due weight to be given to this article is a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories and not to promote particular conspiracy theory sites. patsw 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your editing position runs afoul of WP:EL. The policy states very plainly that for each notable POV, there should be a link to "sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." There's no ambiguity there. There's no mention of "notable proponents" of a POV (by which you appear to mean not only notable proponents, but proponents whose authority you personally accept). Controlled demolition is a notable POV and WP:EL demands that it be represented. It's that simple. --Hyperbole 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If firmly repeated assertion were an argument, you'd have me convinced. Tom Harrison Talk 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The only opposition I seem to receive to this assertion is references to irrelevant policies such as WP:RS and stuff about "notable proponents" that is apparently pulled out of thin air. No one has given me a suitable reason why they should be given license to violate WP:EL on this page. --Hyperbole 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You're assuming that because the percentages you talked about above say that some people believe there's some conspiracy, it makes the controlled demolition theory notable. It doesn't. The polls you cite don't measure that theory at all so you can't use them to support your contention that controlled demolition is a notable POV. That's the specific point you need to demonstrate and you haven't done that yet. WP:EL doesn't demand that we include every single conspiracy theory just because some people think there was some undefined conspiracy. Rx StrangeLove 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The polls do suggest that millions of people believe there is some conspiracy here. Perhaps more to the point, there are hundreds of websites and dozens of books on the theory that WTC7 was demolished - a large and substantial body of publication on the subject. So what do you think is required to make a POV notable - an absolute universal consensus that it is true? The POV that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is far, far more notable than many of the hundreds of things Wikipedians give the notability stamp to every day. --Hyperbole 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

wtc7.net link, yet again

Hyperbole, you are claiming authority to include the link to wtc7.net based on WP:EL. In opposition to that, you've been shown opposition to the link based on WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM. You have repeatedly claimed that this very talk page supports your inclusion of the link in the article. You further go on to assert in one re-insertion attempt that WP:AN/I is a basis for re-inclusion. Yet, no consensus to include the link has ever arisen, nor is it likely to. wtc7.net as a link violates a number of our policies here. It was shown to you how this is so. You were told that the site is not as important as you claimed. All of this should have sent you in the direction of attempting to find a non-spamming, non-copyright violating, authority based website to support this minority view. You've so far failed to do that. If you are so adamant about having a website included which represents this minority view, then at least find one that is authority based, doesn't violate copyright, and isn't trying to sell something. Stop focusing on wtc7.net and re-focus on what it is we're trying to do here; build an NPOV encyclopedia.

Let's be clear here. You are the center of this revert war. This has been going on for more than a week now, with you conducting about a dozen re-insertions of the link. A number of people have been quite patient with you. This revert war will stop, one way or another. Either you gain consensus to include wtc7.net (which is unlikely given the poll above), or stop attempting to include it. If you continue to attempt to include the site against consensus I will begin issuing vandal warnings to you which will ultimately lead to a temporary block of your editing privileges. --Durin 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely and will support Durin in this. Rx StrangeLove 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
All right, Durin, let me respond. WP:EL unambiguously states that a notable POV should be represented in the external links. By removing any attempt to do so, you are breaking Wikipedia policy. There is absolutely nothing in WP:SPAM that suggests that an external link is excluded because, in addition to its other functions, it sells a product. And WP:RS is completely irrelevant here because wtc7.net is not being used as a source.
I have been attempting, in good faith, to address your concerns. First, I have attempted to replace wtc7.net with wtc7.net/contents.html (per a suggestion at AN/I) to address the (unfounded) concern that the site runs afoul of WP:SPAM: that link contains no mention of any DVDs for sale. Second, I have attempted to substitute a BYU essay (associated with no merchandise and containing no pictures) in place of wtc7.net/contents.html (also per a suggestion at AN/I). Both of these attempts were immediately reverted.
I'll be frank: the deletionists here have not made a single good-faith effort to comply with WP:EL and come up with a suite of external links that reflect this notable POV. All you do is revert, revert, and revert. A discussion at AN/I led to constructive suggestions about how to bring the article into compliance with WP:EL: every single one of those suggestions, upon my attempts to implement them, was immediately reverted.
What the discussion at AN/I did not suggest is that I, or anyone attempting to include these links, is culpable of vandalism or editing in bad faith. So, go ahead and issue your vandal warnings, Durin. I will continue to try to bring this article in line with WP:EL. It appears no one is willing to work with me in good faith to do so. --Hyperbole 18:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If there was one shred of proof that indeed the building was imploded, I would be the first person to march on Capital Hill looking for an answer. Trust me on that. Wtc7, linked in any manner violates policy because it has a product to peddle. The BYU essay has not been published by a reliable source.--MONGO 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Which policy does wtc7 violate, MONGO? Which policy says that any site that has a product is excluded from being linked externally? Which policy isn't being followed on Homestar Runner and World Wrestling Entertainment and hundreds of other Wikipedia articles? --Hyperbole 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not editing those articles..but you're right, if there are attributions that are product webspamming, then they should go too. Feel free to link off my userpage to articles I have written and let me know if you see even one website cited that is trying to sell a product. IN the case of some of the land management articles, I have seen numerous travel related websites that are self promoting and I don't use them as a reference base, even when they have information that compliments what I find in non profit based sites.--MONGO 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, you were previously pointed to Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid #4, which states that sites that exist primarily to sell a product or sell services should be avoided. There's your answer. Is it policy? No. Neither is the basis for your assertions that the link should be included based on WP:EL, since none of that page counts as policy. --Durin 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, your assertions have and continue to miss fundamental issues at hand. Given that prior discussion has failed to gain traction with you, I rather doubt further attempts at explaining this to you will. Let me absolutely clear; revert warring is absolutely NOT a reasonable method of moving an article forward. You have clearly been edit warring and a number of editors have been undoing your efforts at including this link against consensus. If you continue to edit war, I will move forward with warning you and eventually blocking you if you persist. Do not continue to attempt to re-introduce the wtc7.net link into the article without gaining consensus first. This goes for anyone attempting to do so. The poll above clearly shows that no consensus for inclusion exists. --Durin 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Durin, do I really need to point out that you are also revert warring? I have made several attempts to address concerns on talk, including linking to the BYU article and to a advertisement-free page on wtc7.net; you have made exactly zero attempts to move the article forward, preferring instead to simply revert everything I do. Let me also point out that there is no Wikipedia policy that a consensus is required to include an external link; you are apparently inventing that policy on the fly. You are way out of line. --Hyperbole 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as true at all. Inclusion, repeatedly, of refuted information based on a multitude of reasons as we have discussed ad nauseum with you and a few others, appears to me that it does fall into the realm of vandalism when you keep trying to reinsert it. Are you affiliated with that website?--MONGO 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, if you feel that way then by all means I invite you to start an RfC against myself and every other person who has reverted your ~dozen attempts at including this link on the article. I reverted you once, and you reverted me asking for further explanation. So, I reverted again with a further explanation and posted again here on the talk page. That isn't revert warring. You will find that those are the only reverts I have done against you and one of those two was essentially at your behest. You have a very, very long road to pave to prove that I have revert warred against you. You should be especially conscious that if I have engaged in revert warring with you, then at a mininum your transgressions have been at least six times as great.
  • I stated how this link violates a number of guidelines here. I started a poll to help ascertain where consensus lies. You continue to revert war and claim authority to include the link from this talk page when there wasn't any and authority from WP:AN/I when there wasn't any. wtc7.net violates the guideline at WP:EL regarding sites that violate copyright. You dispute this by claiming that we haven't positively proven that it violates copyright and were told that we must ascertain that it clears copyright before inclusion, not after. You were told that wtc7.net violates guideline WP:RS regarding partisan sites. You were told that wtc7.net violates guideline WP:EL for sites selling products. You were told that wtc7.net violates WP:RS for false authority. You have repeatedly insisted on having wtc7.net included as a link and refuse to consider any other site that might offer up the POV you want to include here when there might very well be a site without the copyright problems, without the partisan issues, without the spam issues, without the false authority issues. I strongly encourage you to go find such a site if you want to have it included in this article. wtc7.net is simply unacceptable as it violates a significant number of guidelines for inclusion. --Durin 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, why are you so focused on wtc7.net? Why are you so reluctant to go find another site that demonstrates the minority view without all the inherent problems that wtc7.net comes with? Why the constant hammering at us that we must accept wtc7.net when you fail to make any attempt at trying to find a more acceptable site? Why? --Durin 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, I did try to find an alternative. MONGO reverted it. No one else has tried to find a single alternative site. I'll be taking some time off of Wikipedia now. I strongly feel that Durin has just used admin powers to bully his way into having an article represent his POV. --Hyperbole 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
In all honesty...I'd have to say the opposite is more likely. Again, if the proof of controlled demolition ever arises, let me know first, cause I'll do a lot more than post it here...I'll be marching on Washington.--MONGO 05:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the WTC7.net link contributes further to the Pollyanna pov of most of the 9/11 articles, which tend to shunt aside virtually all context relevant to the suspicious roles played by various US government agencies in the events surrounding the tragedy. This evidently is the same sort of gatekeeper's stovepiping mentality that spent some $50 odd million investigating a relatively quite tiny indiscretion by Bill Clinton, but only $5 m on the official 9/11 omission commission investigation. Virtually all the evidence from WTC 7 and the twin towers was conveniently destroyed, turned into salvage, or otherwise shrouded by secrecy and an intimidating code of silence, in keeping with the Bush Administration's arrogant ongoing scheme to classify virtually any and all government evidence that might implicate him and his cronies in wrongdoing. The failure of the Wiki to even list the most well known website focused on WTC 7 is about as reprehensible as the omission commission's utter failure to even begin to address what happened to a building that suffered no damage that could conceivably cause its collapse. Larry Silverstein said 'pull it', he and his business partners stood to gain substantially from its destruction, and yet that destruction, for whatever cause, only merited a footnote in the omission commission's final report. The Wiki most certainly ought to at least incorporate a link to WTC7.net, to allow readers to make up their own minds, unlike the treatment rendered by the omission commission, which already had its mind made up to obstruct a vitally important investigation. Ombudsman 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
There we go...Bush=Evil, right? That website is junk science...it asks questions and bases it's questions on misrepresentations and exaggerations. Pull it? How many times is that comment going to be used to support the conspiracy theorists beliefs in controlled demolition? I really want someone to show me that this is terminology used by those in the implosion field...in fact, I think I'll contact a few myself and ask them. The WTC7 site is linked from the approriate aricles...the ones that discuss the junk science of controlled demolition.--MONGO 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Silverstein's "pull it" quote is not needed at all, actually. Just looking at the video clips it becomes obvious that WTC7 was professionally demolished. There are no examples anywhere on the planet of a steel framed high rise collapsing with those characteristics from anything other than a controlled demolition. But on 9/11 it happened three times, all in downtown Manhattan. WTC 7 was professionally demolished, and so were the Twin Towers. The NIST report did not prove anything. NIST only looked at the evidence that would support their predetermined "fire" theory. They did not examine the structural behavior of the towers once the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. This means they did not analyse the top 30 floors of the South Tower breaking off, starting to topple, and then pulvarizing to powder in mid air. Nor did they mention that the fire dept made it up to the 78th floor of the South Tower (which was just a couple floors below the impact area). They didn't mention, that just seven minutes before the collapse, the FDNY chief radioed from the 78th floor that there were just a couple of isolated pocket fires and all he needed was a couple of lines to put it out. And people actually think the fire was so hot that it weakened structural steel? NIST made the absurd claim that collapse initiation would "inevitably" lead to global collapse. How could they possibly claim this when a building never fell from fire in this manner before? They "adjusted the input" on their computer simulation so they Towers would pancake. And now they refuse to show the simulations to leading fire and structural engineers calling for them. Molten metal (hotter than burning jet fuel), near freefall speed, straight down, puffs of smoke, FDNY reports of red and orange flashes popping around the building, FDNY Chief of Safety saying they believed terrorists planted bombs in the buildings. This all adds up to controlled demolitions.

I know this place isn't for debates, so I will quit this rant...

CB Brooklyn 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as odd. I'll pick out one factual point - the manner of collapse of the two towers looks very similar to Ronan Point. That only lost a corner, but demonstrated that once one floor goes, it overloads the one below, which collapses. (IE "no previous example..." ). With that failure model, the condition of each and every floor below the point of initial collapse is clearly entirely irrelevant ("the 78th floor, a couple of floors below..."). Steel of course softens well below melting point ("molten metal(hotter than burning jet fuel)"). To take another area of careful analysis, see the discussion of the space elevator, where a key concern in the construction of a tether is the abrupt overload on the surviving sections of a multistrand network, if a micrometeorite breaks one, when the relaxation is arrested. It appears that this is likely to produce a catastrophic propagation in several designs studied. On a more individual scale climbers have a feel for such things when they site a belay... Midgley 13:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There should be an NPOV tag on the article until it can be resolved how the external links will reflect the POV that 7 WTC was demolished. Other people are going to have to make those edits; I'm trying to avoid a ban, here. --Hyperbole 21:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that 'until it can be resolved' may mean in practice, 'until the links are added.' I don't see a basis for that demand. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, certain users, including User:Durin have suggested (at least to my understanding) that while wtc7.net should be excluded as an external link (for reasons I strongly disagree with), it should be possible to insert links to other sites expressing the controlled demolition POV in order to bring the article into concert with WP:EL. I believe there are very few users who are arguing that the controlled demolition POV is not notable and therefore should not have any external links dedicated to it at all. --Hyperbole 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, you are correct. You asserted earlier that I bullied my way into having the POV I wanted. Here, you change course on this and accurately observe that it isn't the POV I'm concerned about, but the nature of the site. Thank you for correcting that. --Durin 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the tag, as the whole article is just a bland listing of facts that are easily verified, and the only point of contention is whether or not a link is included. (which does not actually affect the content of the article.--DCAnderson 09:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we remove all these external links per WP:SPAM?

I don't want to edit the article for fear that it will appear I'm making a WP:POINT, but the Emporis pages contain links to $1,855 Emporis software ([1]) and both WiredNewYork.com and CBSNews.com contain links where you buy advertising space on their sites.

Furthermore, WiredNewYork.com contains images that are not attributed to any source - they have no copyright information. And Emporis does not cite its sources under its "Facts" heading.

Why are any of these external links acceptable?

Anybody want to tackle this? Why does the principle that an external link cannot sell anything apply to wtc7.net but not to these external links, all of which sell something? --Hyperbole 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been following this, and it does seem you're being held to a lot of standards a lot more stricly than I've ever seen. I don't want to suggest that anyone is acting in bad faith here, but there certainly seems to be a very strict POV going on here. I've read the 9/11 report and quite a lot of other stuff about this topic, and I'm not sure the article really reflects the very real questions about the discrepancies between the official story and what actually happened. The "no commercial links" and the "no sites which use images of questionable copyright" are often not enforced: after all, the majority of authoritative news sites I look at carry advertising - does that make them commercial links? So it is really down to utility, and of course then mainly to editors' POV whether they think a link adds enough value to the article or not. Is there a less commercial link you could suggest, as it seems many of the objections against the inclusion of a balancing POV external link would be harder to sustain then? Guinnog 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that the sites you mention do not profit from advocating a specfic POV. Everyone is selling something, the difference is that wtc7.net profits from the controlled demolition theory and thus cannot be a neutral source. You're comparing apples and oranges and it doesn't work. Rx StrangeLove 23:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Every one of these sites do profit from advocating their POV: they present information they feel to be true, and they profit both from advertising and from selling either their product or advertising space. --Hyperbole 01:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've answered that several times and I don't feel like going around in circles like this. CBS and Emporis are not harping on a single POV and selling it, both work toward fact or news based NPOV. WTC7 doesn't even pretend to. The only reason for it's existence is to advocate a single theory and to profit from it. That's what makes it spam and a non-notable website as far as encyclopedic sourcing goes. Rx StrangeLove 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I mean, honestly, is there a principle here that an external link is allowed to advertise unless you disagree with its POV? --Hyperbole 01:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No. Rx StrangeLove 04:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
So what's the principle here, StrangeLove? An external link is allowed to advertise and/or sell merchandise unless it advocates a single theory?? Is there any support for that in Wikipedia policies? --Hyperbole 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I think you may misunderstand. The WTC7 website sells a POV in the form of a DVD and this DVD is not the work of a neutral party. They website seems to me to exist by the sale of this DVD...it's a profit thing. If you find other references linked from other articles that also do this, then remove them. I don't edit those and I always support the removal of spam advertising.--MONGO 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, what's the principle? "It's okay to sell advertising and/or a product as long as you're not promoting an unpopular POV?" Is there any support for that in Wikipedia policies? It seems crystal clear to me that wtc7.net exists primarily to spread the message that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. It is not a spam site, and I am utterly confounded as to how anyone could even think for a second that it is. If anything, it is a less commercial site than cbsnews.com or WiredNewYork.com or Emporis.com - while those sites are primarily commercial, wtc7.net is primarily political. --Hyperbole 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The principle which mongo seems to be referring to is point 4 of [2] but I think that mongo should try to prove that the website "primarily exist to sell products or services". Mongo says that it "seems to him" that this is so but we need something more than his "feelings" to apply the principle.--Pokipsy76 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity..the website does exist to make a profit through the sale of DVD's and preys on the weak minded and uneducated with falsehoods and exaggerations in some form of a sick joke I see. Imagine, thousands of people died that day and scumbags try and make a profit off of that.--MONGO 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What are your arguments to prove that "the website does exist to make a profit through the sale of DVD's and preys"?--Pokipsy76 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Right off their main page: "The new DVD 9/11 GUILT: THE PROOF IS IN YOUR HANDS by Don Paul, Jim Hoffman, and Celestine Star proves that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed through planned demolitions, and shows who benefited most from these crimes."...and it's linked to the page that has their DVD, which claims it has "proof"...and it's "compelling"...sure it is...I like the way they comment about who profited from the events...they are the ones that are trying to profit.--MONGO 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a proof that it "exists to" make profit. However the website http://911research.wtc7.net/ don't have commercial advertisement in the main page, is it ok?--Pokipsy76 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think one general principle is that we should not link to a web-site that exists primarily to profit from 9/11 unless we must, as for example from a Wikipedia page about attempts to profit from 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't Emporis, WiredNewYork, and CBSNews all meet that critereon? The reason they have 9/11 content on their sites is to draw in more advertising revenue and potential customers. --Hyperbole 18:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is absurd to suggest that WTC7.net exists simply to profit from the 9/11 tragedy. To counter the shroud of secrecy over what really happened that has been enforced by certain elements of the military industrial complex, the webmasters have painstakingly laid out a cogent analysis of the numerous compelling facts that increasingly suggest that 9/11 was either deliberately allowed to happen or facilitated for the purpose of profiting from the ensuing tragedy and enormous chaos. The profiteering and spin doctoring by defense contractors and the oil industry in the wake of 9/11 has absolutely stifled the media's coverage of what happened to WTC 7, much less the omission commission's feigned or studied ignorance. Yet the argument above, presumably being made with a straight face, rests on the logic of denigrating an independent DVD release that probably does little better than break even. Assuming the DVD does any better than simply break even, a logarithm table would be needed to compare the difference between the profit margins in question here. Ombudsman 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope they don't break even..in fact, I hope they lose money. I am more than willing to help them lose money by ensuring that their attempts to make a profit don't occur by advertising through Wikipedia.--MONGO 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your POV clear on this. You should consider desisting from editing this article though, as I'd like the arguments to be based on Wiki policy towards making this article encyclopedic.Guinnog 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad my "POV" is apparent...we don't permit violations of WP:SPAM for inclusion of nonsense articles that attempt to make a profit from the sale of their DVD which is not peer reviewed and violates original research. I strongly support policy...especially what Wikipedia is not, as in indiscrimate collection of links.--MONGO 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
So, MONGO, "we" permit violations of WP:SPAM for inclusion of any article you agree with, but not for any article you disagree with? Fortunatley, we don't even need to try to make sense out of that policy, because WP:SPAM never says that a website that sells a product is ineligible to be an external link - and with good reason: the vast majority of websites (including every other external link in this article) sell something. WP:OR and WP:PR are policies for Wikipedia articles - not for external links. Almost all news is "original research" - should we go banning every news site from external links? And who "peer reviews" the news? There is nothing indiscriminate about linking to a notable POV about an article's subject - in fact, as I've said a thousand times (and no one disagrees, but no one seems to take any action to meet the policy) WP:EL says that external links should exist that reflect each notable POV. --Hyperbole 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not "POV" but POV. Maybe you should review that link, which says: "Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." I would like to see the article (including the links) become more NPOV. Maybe we can use your passionate POV on this isssue, but you should be prepared to compromise. I suggest finding another link with the same POV, but without the commercial element that worries you so much. What do you think of that? Guinnog 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to substitute This BYU article but that was also immediately deleted. Something about trying to apply WP:RS to external links (which would make nearly every external link in Wikipedia delete-worthy). But the bottom line is that when it comes to discussing the controlled demolition theory for 7 WTC, wtc7.net is the most topical (as it primarily discusses 7 WTC and not the entire WTC complex), and the best laid out and most user-friendly site. There are no Wikipedia policies that exclude it, and there is one that strongly supports its inclusion. It should be in there, except that Durin has declared that if there is no consensus for a link's inclusion (that is, if anyone opposes it, for any reason), then anyone including that link will be banned from Wikipedia. I don't know where that policy came from, either. --Hyperbole 19:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, I never said someone would be banned for including the link. I did say that I would eventually block (not ban, there's a difference) you if you continued to attempt to insert the link because you had been clearly revert warring over it, and would block anyone attempting to do so against consensus as it is clearly generating a revert war. Please, be careful in your attribution of intent. You've been mistaken at least twice now. --Durin 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You threatened to block one side of a content dispute if they continued to edit war - unsurprisingly, the side of the content dispute that you've supported on this talk page. It takes two sides to revert war; I didn't see you threatening to block anyone removing the links. --Hyperbole 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You engaged in heavy revert warring. --Durin 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hang in there. There must be a solution there somewhere. Give it a day or two to see if we can sort it out ourselves without calling for help. Guinnog 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(A) Topicality, design and user interface are not reasons to include a website as an external link. (B)There are several Wikipedia policies that exclude it starting with WP:SPAM. (C) You're assumption of bad faith is starting to border on personal attacks. Please stop. Rx StrangeLove 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Who were you replying to there? I made no such assumption. I am trying to mediate here. It's 'your' btw. None of your three points seems to make any sense taken with the conversation preceding. Guinnog 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
My response was at the same indentation as Hyperbole's which generally means I'm responding to him (as you can see, this response to you is indented once), this could also have been understood by reading his post which included sentences like "the best laid out and most user-friendly site..." and "There are no Wikipedia policies that exclude it..." Hope this helps. Rx StrangeLove 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(A) Of course topicality and clarity are reasons to choose which websites should serve as the external links to represent each notable POV. (B) I've read WP:SPAM, and absolutely nothing in it excludes wtc7.net. It's a completely inapplicable policy - can you show me what passage in that policy might possibly be construed as disallowing wtc7.net? (C) It is not a personal attack to assert that Durin grossly abused his administrator powers by declaring that he would block anyone who participated in one specific side of a content dispute. There is nothing "personal" about that. --Hyperbole 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not state that I would block anyone who participated in only one POV regarding this article. You are badly misidentifying my intent. --Durin 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Despite a straw poll showing that support for those links was almost evenly divided, you stated that you would block anyone revert warring by reinstating the links - but not by removing them. Whatever your intent, you supported one POV - and it was the POV you'd expressed support for in the past. --Hyperbole 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As I've previously noted, all attempts at gaining any traction with you in this dispute have failed. Your continued posts here are proof of that. You were, by far, the primary person responsible for the revert warring. You have refuse to accept your role in that, and have refuse to accept that you could be blocked for doing so. This isn't my problem. It is yours, for revert warring. In fact, you're continuing to revert war [3]. You should have brought the issue here to this talk page regarding whatreallyhappened.com. Instead, you continued the same pattern as before and insist on revert warring.
Sure can: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." From WP:NOT. And by the way no where on this page did Durin say anything about banning anyone, that's something only Arbcom can do and the fact that you keep attributing it to him is just inflaming the debate here. Rx StrangeLove 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice you didn't quote anything from WP:SPAM. Can we agree that that's not a policy at issue, then? As for WP:NOT, including external links that express a notable POV is not turning an article into a soapbox, a vehicle for propaganda, or advertising. If following WP:EL by representing each notable POV automatically turned an article into "propaganda" for those POVs, we'd have a major problem on our hands, wouldn't we? Finally, Durin flat-out threatened to block anyone who re-introduced the link: "If you continue to edit war, I will move forward with warning you and eventually blocking you if you persist. Do not continue to attempt to re-introduce the wtc7.net link into the article without gaining consensus first. This goes for anyone attempting to do so." Using administrator powers to support your own side in an editorial dispute is a gross abuse of those powers. --Hyperbole 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:SPAM is a guideline, WP:NOT is offical policy, which is what you asked for and which is why I quoted from it. As I said above I'm done spinning my wheels on this and answering your objections over and over. Find another resource and we can talk about that...deal? Rx StrangeLove 22:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
So far, you haven't managed to cite any guideline or policy in support of excluding wtc7.net that wouldn't exclude the vast majority of external links on Wikipedia. And I have yet to hear a suitable explanation for accepting cbsnews, Emporis, and WiredNewYork's profiteering but not wtc7.net's. I don't think you've ever answered my objections - just reiterated that you don't want to see the site on the article. WP:NOT obviously does not exclude wtc7.net - it is not propaganda, soapboxing, or advertising to link to a proponent of a POV. So, with no policy reason to exclude wtc7.net, I believe it should be included. But, out of curiosity, why isn't anybody else trying to find another resource? Is no one interested in meeting WP:EL? --Hyperbole 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
At least we agree that repeated assertion is not an useful way to argue. Tom Harrison Talk 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Reasoning for excluding the link, aside from WP:SPAM (the site is primarily profiting off of 9/11), is undue weight (see WP:NPOV). We satisfy undue weight by linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which explains the controlled demolition theory in more detail and has the wtc7.net link. As well, Wikipedia:Consensus applies here. We do not have consensus for including the link (see poll above). Without consensus for including the link (70-80% support for the link), then we can't include it. Consensus is the same principle that applies to articles for deletion, requests for adminship, etc. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(A) Again, WP:SPAM has nothing in it that would exclude the site, and every one of the external links already in the article could be said to be profiting from 9/11. (B) Even if we assume the theory is given due weight in the article, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given external links - and WP:EL says it should. (C) There is no consensus to exclude the link. In articles for deletion, consensus is required to delete information - does anything suggest that consensus is required not to delete information within articles? --Hyperbole 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The site's sole purpose is to misinform and be sensationalistic in their "facts". They provide nothing but opinions based on misrepresentations of comments such as "pull it", falsehoods about what was seen and heard, and outright lies about what transpired. They offer no proof. But to make matters worse...they promote their DVD, produced by themselves, not peer reviewed by specialists or even one implosion expert. None of those credited as being involved in the production of the DVD have demostrated that they have one minute of training such as engineering or controlled demolitions in order to render a truly scientific refutation of the "official findings". The promoters of the website concentrate largely on WTC7 in a roundabout way of trying to show that if WTC7 was imploded, then there would be sufficient rationale to assume that the other buildings were as well. The website links clearly to a DVD they have to sell, which done so to make a profit, for websites themselves are cheap, requiring only a small amount of money to keep up and running. The balance of the DVD profits can go whereever they deem is best...surely it's not going to the families of those that lost loved ones on 9/11. That website isn't going in this article, and those that keep pushing for it's inclusion seem to be single purpose editors whose primary purpose in Wikipedia is to push their far out POV. This is a misuse of this forum and it is also disruptive.--MONGO 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're flat-out wrong. The site's purpose is to inform people that its authors believe our government demolished the World Trade Center - and they believe they're doing the public a service by providing that perspective. These demonic motivations are entirely in your head. And for the last time, stop dictating what is and isn't going to be in the article as though you'd never read WP:OWN. --Hyperbole 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"single purpose editors whose primary purpose in Wikipedia is to push their far out POV", eh? Well, personal remarks like this are forbidden here (WP:NPA), so I will avoid the temptation to throw the same charge at you. But you're wrong, you know. You don't own this article and do not have the right to unilaterally decide what goes in it. Guinnog 06:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"Thanks for making your POV clear on this. You should consider desisting from editing this article though, as I'd like the arguments to be based on Wiki policy towards making this article encyclopedic.Guinnog 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)" Looks like a personal attack as well...please do a read on WP:NPA and have a glance at this discussion page and you'll see that I am most certainly not acting unilaterally. I'll be blunt so as to not confuse you...that link violates policy if we include it.--MONGO 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that is your opinion, but I do not think I share it, and I have to say I think little of your means and manner of enforcing your interpretation of the rules. And you would be playing games to construe what I said as a personal attack. So as not to confuse you, I'll explain what I mean. Bringing a strong POV to a debate, as you have, can in some cases be good for the article, especially if (as in your case) you are honest enough to acknowledge your POV. But continuing to delete links on the basis of a POV is regarded as unhelpful. More debate here, or failing that asking for extra admin help from admins not tied into the current argument, would seem better ways forward. Hope that is clear; no personal attacks, just a plea not to expect that your POV can always prevail. Nor should any one editor's; that, after all, is a great strength of Wikipedia, that it is a joint enterprise. Guinnog 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a bunch of crap. I have no POV...if I do, then it is shared by every major media, every reliable source on this matter and every engineering association and trade journal...calling my stance a POV is ridiculous. I think little of those that wish to use Wikipedia to promote nonsense that is based on a POV...you are so completely incorrect about the events and my motives that it is laughable.--MONGO 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. No POV, yet you said above "I hope they don't break even..in fact, I hope they lose money. I am more than willing to help them lose money by ensuring that their attempts to make a profit don't occur by advertising through Wikipedia", thus laying out your POV for all to see (and also seemingly evading the point which was being made). Why don't you put your passion into improving the article or even into finding a compromise, rather than into edit-warring? Maybe this is rather basic and I apologise if I sound patronising, but everyone has a POV, particularly on such charged and controversial topics as this. Please try to assume good faith, even in those you disagree with. Guinnog 18:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a POV..that's a mission statement. I don't edit war on the article. As you evolve as a Wikipedian, maybe you'll understand that we don't link to self promoting websites that exist to promote nonsense and make a buck. I really cannot explain it any better than that, so bye.--MONGO 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnong. "Oh dear" is the best response. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd be curious to hear your definition of a POV! I can't imagine how your extremely vocal political views wouldn't qualify as a point of view. I'd also be curious to hear your definition of "edit warring," since you've made numerous reversions to this article. --Hyperbole 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

References

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

Good job.--MONGO 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Any chance we can follow WP:EL?

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

Let's be clear about something: WP:RS is a guideline for sources, and WP:EL is a guideline for external links. The former should not be applied to external links, and the latter should not be applied to sources. --Hyperbole 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

whatreallyhappened.com

After this link was added and removed once tonight, it was added once more so I removed it. Please, you know how contentious these links and this subject are. You need to get consensus here before adding them, there is significant opposition to linking this subject. Talk about this before just adding stuff on your own, show some respect for the collaborative nature of this project. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to glance over WP:BOLD - the way to edit an article is to make changes and see how others react to them. We don't revert changes to an article on the basis that they haven't been peer reviewed on the talk page; that's just not how Wikipedia works. If you have a problem with whatreallyhappened.com, let us know - but don't delete material on the grounds that someone might have a problem with it! --Hyperbole 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that you already know other editors will have problems with this, for example it's already been removed once before this. For another example editors including myself have expressed opinions that this subject doesn't belong at all. WP:BOLD does not mean editing against consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
How can you accuse me of editing against consensus when no consensus exists? And how do you support this argument that the subject doesn't belong at all? WP:EL says to link to each notable POV; this is a clearly notable POV. --Hyperbole 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Strangelove and Mongo, there is going to have to be a link there with a POV you don't like. That's wikipedia though. Guinnog 06:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Not if it violates policy.--MONGO 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
...and you think whatreallyhappened.com does, why? --Hyperbole 07:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For virtually the same reasons wtc7.net does. Start off with the title on the page you linked to [4], "The history the government hopes you DON'T learn". Partisan. First link after "home"? "WRH Store" where they are hawking their wares. Potentially violates copyright with photo after photo unattributed and not even a passing claim of fair use as wtc7.net does (which itself violates copyright). --Durin 11:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Being a "Partisan" website is not a reason to be deleted from external links otherwise the page conspiracy theories could have no external links. It is clearly nonsense. However, what about http://911research.wtc7.net/? Is it ok? (Mongo I'm still waiting your rebly about it).--Pokipsy76 13:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content of any article on Wikipedia is not justification for similar content in other articles. Please see WP:RS#Partisan_websites regarding partisan websites. 911research.wtc7.net suffers from the same problems as wtc7.net. --Durin 13:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For the fiftieth time, WP:RS is a policy on sources, not external links. A source gives information that becomes internal to Wikipedia; an external link is information that is understood to be external to Wikipedia. What WP:RS wants to ensure is that we don't write something like "The U.S. government demolished 7 WTC (link)." in the article. What WP:EL flatly says is that that link, or a link of its POV, should be represented in the external links. It's a shame that people here continue to confuse the policies. --Hyperbole 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find in WP:RS#Partisan_websites anything that applies to http://911research.wtc7.net/, can you be more specific? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokipsy76 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 May 2006.
  • Please see earlier discussion above regarding wtc7.net. It's the same people. --Durin 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, combing through all these websites that promote the misinformation they do, it really is obvious that the vast majority of them do indeed have something that want to sell you.--MONGO 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As does 911research.wtc7.net. See [5]. --Durin 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As do 99% of all websites. Wikipedia does not prohibit external links or sources from advertising, selling ad space, or selling merchandise - because then we wouldn't have any external links or sources. This very project couldn't exist except on a superficial level if we were Puritans about commercialism. --Hyperbole 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In the articles I have started, there are no links to websites that exist to advertise a product they are selling. I can look through them again and if I find any I'll delete them.--MONGO 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The articles you've started are besides the point. If you went through Wikipedia deleting every external link that sells a product, you'd be banned for vandalism inside of a week. It's not a valid reason to remove external links. --Hyperbole 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So why is 911research.wtc7.net in the page conspiracy theories if it doesn't respect wikipedia's standards for external links? Why aren't you trying to delete all external links from that page?--Pokipsy76 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (A) "Partisan" is the wrong word, because it doesn't support the views of a political party. Official Wikipedia policy is to link to notable POVs - not to exclude sites because they present a POV. (B) An external link is not a source. WP:RS is a totally inapplicable policy. (C) There is no Wikipedia policy that external links must comply with Wikipedia standards for the attribution of images. Whether or not an image on another site constitutes fair use is not Wikipedia's problem. --Hyperbole 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, you obviously feel exceptionally strongly about this POV. Every argument that has been raised against the inclusion of the sites you want to link to has been rebuffed by several people here to apparently no avail in showing you any other possible avenue of advancement. This discussion isn't going anywhere. There really isn't anything more to discuss. I stand by my original statement that continued revert warring on your part will eventually lead to a temporary block fo your editing privileges. I'm sorry we're at this impasse. At this point, we're just rehashing this debate over and over again. Good day. --Durin 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand by my original statement that continued revert warring on your part will eventually lead to a temporary block fo your editing privileges.
  • Why is it edit warring on Hyperbole's part but not on yours? — goethean ॐ 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I wondered that too. Also see WP:BLOCK, especially: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith." Guinnog 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hyperbole had been reverted by a number of different editors over a long stretch of about a week and in most of his edits, he continued to add the mindless POV pushing website. If the community feels that an editor is being disruptive, is pushing a point and violating WP:POINT by continue to add in links that are always reverted by numerous parties, than that can also be considered disruption on his/her part. It's not like he is adding a sound, scientific website link...it's a bunch of junk science.--MONGO 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Who appointed you the judger what what is an what is not junk science in regards to external links on wikipedia? Or what is an what is not POV? We are all, including Hyperbole, just as qualified as you to judge good science from bad. And your guff about WP:POINT is just that. There is no consensus on this page. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's really quite simple you see...if a website promotes items that have not been published by a reputable scientific journal, are not endorsed by even one college or university anywhere, have not been embraced by any reputable media source, are not sanctioned by any trade journels, and in this case, have not been endorsed by even one engineering organization anywhere on the planet...then it sure is not me that has a POV if I too am aligned on the side of the experts. When websites then also make false claims, add innuendo instead of facts and promote a product that they sell at a profit...then, well....exactly who is pushing a POV here? I'm like a firewall...I work to keep viruses out of this forum...if I could do so in every article wikipedia has, I would...but for the sake of the thousands that died that day, I'm concentrate my efforts here to ensure that junk science being POV pushed doesn't tarnish the memory of these innocent people...especially when their deaths are being "used" to make a fast buck. Before you do anymore major editing, please go and read the policy pages.--MONGO 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you stop talking down to your fellow editors. — goethean ॐ 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you not have little notes about editors you disagree with.[6]--MONGO 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want your personal information shared, don't share it. Simple. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The whole page is an attack page. Shame on you.--MONGO 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. You are a fine one to be offering ethical advice. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't make up attack pages on other editors. LOL...if I was a paid webspammer, would I advertise my occupation? At least one of us was there and saw the end result.--MONGO 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are apparently a paid government employee, spending large amounts of time deleting material that the government wouldn't want people to read. You must be aware of how that looks. --Hyperbole 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean reverting...I haven't deleted anything. Asking me to not edit here is like asking a biologist to not edit articles about biology. You spend large amounts of time trying to ensure you don't lose any money if we cut out your website. I see you contribute nowhere else on Wikipedia aside from this article and a few related to it...and you keep pushing the same website...that is a POV push if I ever saw one.--MONGO 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was certainly not the only editor trying to comply with WP:EL by offering a link supporting the controlled demolition POV. Not by a long shot; a glance over the history will show that. There is no consensus on this page whether such a link should be included, even though Wikipedia policies clearly state that one should. Yet I was singled out to be threatened with a block. I feel that Durin has grossly abused his admin powers here. --Hyperbole 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Then take it to the admin noticeboard incidents or file an Rfc. I see no evidence that others were edit warring as you did.--MONGO 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Then start an RfC. I have nothing to fear. I was not POV pushing, I was not attempting to use admin powers to push what I thought was appropriate for the article. Quite the contrary in fact. I specifically asked you to find a site for the POV you want in the article that didn't have the problems wtc7.net has. I also, despite your claims that my one revert and then additional revert at your behest was revert warring, have not been revert warring. You have done a wonderful job of painting anyone who disagrees with you here as acting outside the bounds of policy and, in my case, abusing administrator powers. Perhaps some circumspection on your part is in order. --Durin 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll probably take some kind of action once I'm done with finals. Wikipedia policy is crystal clear about representing each notable POV on a subject, and the only thing preventing that from happening are inappropriate threats from an admin. --Hyperbole 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good. I look forward to it. Please be sure that you are fair in your presentation and make note that you were never prevented from presenting the POV, but prevented by a lack of consensus to present a specific website that lacks authority, violates copyright, and exists at least partially to sell stuff by the authors of the website. THAT is why I wanted you to gain consensus before including wtc7.net. A site so problematic needs to have significant consensus to override those concerns.
  • For my part, I saw an edit war largely caused by you (12 reverts over the same content) and attempted to stop it (though NOT stop the POV...stopping wtc7.net is NOT stopping the POV). I gave a detailed response why wtc7.net is unacceptable, started a poll to ascertain consensus to override multiple points in guidelines that stop us from using such sites. When the war continued despite my significant efforts to keep you focused on discussion and gaining discussion, only then did I warn you about continued revert warring (or anyone else for that matter). For that I was accused by you of grossly abusing my administrative powers.
  • Question for you; what would you accuse yourself of if you observed that you reverted people at least 12 times over a handful of days to push content back into an article? --Durin 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I admit that I participated in an edit war. But it was an edit war in which there were two roughly even sides, and seven or eight participants. You moved to stop that edit war by declaring that anyone inserting links that your own POV did not support would be blocked. Those removing links, including you yourself, were editing against consensus as well, but you made no such threats to them. You took a side, Durin, and you used your admin powers to make the article read the way you want it to read. --Hyperbole 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I did not take a POV stance. In fact, as I've mentioned several times now, I asked you to provide a site that had material on the POV without the problems that wtc7.net had. I was specifically opposed (and remain so) to wtc7.net for reasons I have previously noted. I reverted the inclusion of the link to wtc7.net for the multiple problems it has and asked you to provide another site with the POV but without the problems. I'm not sure how many times I can re-state this and have any reasonable expectation for myself to make this any clearer. I've taken no stance with regards to the POV. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy to clarify the issue for you. --Durin 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you really think the fact that you used your administrator powers to resolve a content dispute in your favor is excused by the fact that you didn't go so vastly overboard as to seize the entire article and pre-emptively "resolve" all future content disputes in your favor? There was no consensus on whether wtc7.net was a valid link; you chose to enforce your POV on that issue using threats of a block. That's an abuse, Durin, and the only real excuse you've given is that it isn't the grossest abuse imaginable. --Hyperbole 02:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment Tom Harrison Talk 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, this latest disagreement between you and I is just further evidence of the incapability of any point to gain traction. I have stated several times now that I did not prevent the POV you are adamant about putting into the article, yet above you yet again state that that is what I was trying to do. You yourself said at 22:12, 4 May 2006 that I was amenable to having this POV in the article. So, you are disagreeing with yourself. Yet you continue to insist that I abused admin powers by preventing this POV from being in the article. Frankly, I'm flumoxed at your position. I'll repeat it yet again; I was NOT threatening you with a block for putting a particular POV into the article. I was threatening you for continued revert warring which you by far were the most serious contributor to in this dispute. I'm not going to repeat myself on this again. Further discussion on this point is unlikely to yield any progress. --Durin 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nearly everything Durin said above. But I also think that you haven't shown the POV to be notable in the first place. For starters, notable POV's have lot's of solid and reliable online resources to choose from when picking out links to include in an article. The links presnted so far are weak and not serious, they exist exclusively to push conspiracy and do not show any independent verification. They misrepresent factual data to support a theory that receives little or no serious media/expert attention. Rx StrangeLove 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, as the article rightly says, according to FEMA “Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
If there was an accepted explanation for why WTC7 fell down the way it did, I might have slightly more inclination to agree with you. Given that the best the agency charged with investigating the collapse can do four and a half years on, is say what (to me) translates as "We don't know. Maybe it was the fires.", having a link to a site that provides alternate views on why it fell down, if clearly labelled as such, doesn't seem so heinous to me. As the article currently says, "While FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse is widely accepted, some individuals and groups have presented alternate viewpoints and theories, usually as part of a larger belief in a 9/11 conspiracy." I would actually quibble about that last clause, although I will leave it as it is likely true. I am not a conspiracy theorist at heart (see my edits on Chinook Helicopter Crash (1994) and Concorde for example, where I've tried to bring in the 'proper' explanation over conspiracy buffs - but not by deleting or removing, by addition).
Another interesting comparison is Apollo moon landing hoax accusations which I think is an exemplar of how to handle a difficult area like this. I've made one or two minor contributions there. I assure you that none of them involved repeatedly deleting links I didn't like - and yet the article is, to me, quite fair and balanced. Maybe we need a 7 World Trade Center collapse theories page?!
Your assertion that the wtc7.net site is "weak and not serious, they exist exclusively to push conspiracy and do not show any independent verification. They misrepresent factual data to support a theory..." is just that, an assertion. Based on your POV, which is entirely proper. But other POVs exist, and you need to appreciate that.
As there isn't any real consensus about why WTC7 fell down, I (and I think opinion polls confirm most people) feel there are certainly awkward questions still to be answered or avoided about just how and why this building fell down. Let's recognise there is a difference of opinion on this one and try to get a consensus (not a vote) we can all live with. It will be hard but I am always up for a challenge. What do you say? Guinnog 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We did try to gain consensus above, in part, using a poll. It was inconclusive and there has been weeks of debate about this with no headway achieved. From my chair, both sides of this are adamantly in favor of their view and no yielding is taking place. --Durin 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted has very little POV in it...let's break it down:

"weak and not serious, they exist exclusively to push conspiracy and do not show any independent verification. They misrepresent factual data to support a theory..."

  • weak and not serious-Logical conclusion from following breakdown
  • they exist exclusively to push conspiracy-This is hardly POV, anyone can look and see for themselves. Take a look at either of the sites that editors attempted to add as links. Is there any material not related to some conspiracy or other? I think if you're honest you'll agree that the answer is no and my statement hardly qualifies as POV because it's independently verifiable.
  • ...and do not show any independent verification- Again, not POV because anyone can look and see for themselves that there are no independent citations or sources that backup conclusions the authors have made.
  • They misrepresent factual data to support a theory-Easily shown NPOV. For example the authors came to this conclusion:
"that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001"
From this quote:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."
By stating:
"There can be little doubt as to how the word pull is being used in this context" and "One thing is for sure, the decision to pull WTC 7 would have delighted many people"
The authors are taking a quote and clearly misrepresenting it. The source of the quote denied the meaning assigned to it so you end up having some "authors" thinking they have a better idea of the quotes meaning then the source. That's twisting a fact beyond all recognition. And before you say "but people lie", understand that the authors have zero supporting factual evidence to backup their version of what Larry Silverstien meant.
Mmmm. Trouble is, in this case unlike the moon hoax issue, the 'official' version of events (inasmuch as there is one) doesn't really have much proper backing either. Guinnog 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Apollo Moon hoax is a great example of a notable conspiracy theory. It's got loads of attention, films, TV shows, refutations and serious expert attention. The Demolition theory doesn't have anything like the notability the Moon landing hoax has and you can't compare them. We don't just throw in every single POV because a small group of people are pushing it. And deleting POV edits is a perfectly acceptable way of improving an article.

Let's move on, we won't agree and the next step is either dispute resolution or a conversation about where else in Wikipedia this belongs, if anywhere. Rx StrangeLove 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that dispute resolution is necessary. All we need is a link that expresses the very common point of view that there was something unusual about the collapse, that also meets our standards. Shouldn't be that hard. Guinnog 14:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Including that link on this page would be giving Undue weight to conspiracy theorists. Links to conspiracy theories belong on 9/11 conspiracy theories.--DCAnderson 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure? This is something that, polls say, half of New Yorkers believe. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poll your are citing was not about whether WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, but whether people think the government knew something was going to happen or not, yes? These are entirely different topics. --Durin 18:51, 10 May
  • Yes you are probably right about that. But given that the government doesn't know why WTC7 collapsed (see Guinnog's comment above), to me its a safe bet that those who believe that the govt was complicit in 911 also believe that WTC7 fell due to foul play. I fully realize that these very simple ideas will receive no such sympathetic treatment from you. — goethean ॐ 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the we can conclude people believe WTC 7 was intentionally demolished simply because they state the government knew something about 9/11 before it happened. That's a very large stretch. Knowing something might happen and actually causing it to happen through direct action are entirely different beasts. --Durin 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt you are right. Are you changing your argument from being about a specific link or links, to suggesting this is not a notable POV? Guinnog 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm noting what others have. A main focus of my attention here is the problematic nature of the links that have been put forth. That doesn't prevent me from having any opinion about the supporting statements that this is a notable POV. --Durin 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp is maybe an interesting point of comparison too, where the USG opinion, being a minority one, is (rightly) given in passing, but only as a marginal view that very few people worldwide would support. Remember this encyclopedia is a world one, not a USG one. Would be interesting to see if worldwide more than a tiny minority accepts the "official" story about WTC7, inasmuch as there actually is one. HTH Guinnog 06:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that people complain about a lack of thoroughness of the government's investigation efforts, and also complain that the government hasn't produced a final report on WTC 7 yet because the investigation is ongoing. Seems a contradiction to me. --Durin 12:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Was the poll accurate? Who conducted the poll? What was the sample collected? Were the questions loaded?--DCAnderson 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)2006 (UTC)
As I said before, when the government commission cannot come up with a definite cause after four and a bit years, the inclusion of a POV link to support the mention of other POVs in the text seems reasonable. Guinnog 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"SPONSOR: 911truth.org" [7] -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The poll in question did not suggest controlled demolition or WTC7. The questions focused on 'discrepencies' and on the 9/11 dust issue. It was carried out by Zogby, and the details are here: [8] Seabhcán 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Links suggestion

I suggest:

  1. Keep Silverstein Properties - official site of 7 WTC.
  2. Restore Popular Mechanics: little hard evidence but an authoritative source and some good arguments tending towards the 'official' version of events.
  3. Add 911 Research as it raises some valid concerns about the building's collapse and the lacklustre investigation thereof, is not a commercial site, and has been suggested several times already above.

Unless we have valid reasons to exclude these, they should be in. Guinnog 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding the 911research.wtc7.net site; you claim it is not a commercial site. It is a commercial site. On that very first page, they note their upcoming book and link to wtc.net (the same people) which as previously noted is commercial as well. 911research.wtc7.net also suffers from copyright violation issues, partisan issues, and false authority issues. This is not surprising given that it's part of wtc7.net which suffers from the same problems. What would be nice is a site by one or more (preferably more) engineers in specifically related fields (say, structural engineers) who have independently analyzed all the information from that day, aren't trying to sell something, aren't in business to launch partisan attacks against the U.S. government, and observe copyright laws. The sites put forward so far fail on all of these points. Any one of them by itself might not be enough for exclusion, but combined it paints an unacceptable resource to illustrate this POV. --Durin 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one has addressed this point, so I have to continue to repeat it: the vast majority of all external links on Wikipedia are commercial in that they offer some kind of product or service, or at the very least, contain advertising. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that excludes sites on the basis that visiting them could theoretically cause their owners to make money. We are operating under an imaginary guideline when we exclude sites for this reason - one that would necessitate the removal of most external links on Wikipedia - and we shouldn't be. --Hyperbole 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing you linked to supports the argument that sites should be excluded because they are commercial in nature. Wikipedia:External_links#Links to normally avoid #4 says nothing about commercialism. And your earlier list of asserted reasons to exclude one link also links to no policies relating to commercialism. The bottom line is that there are absolutely no Wikipedia policies that exclude external links for having a "store" on the site or for advertising; that is not a valid critereon for excluding a link.
  • "Links to normally avoid: ... Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." That's what I linked to. I'm not sure how that could be clearer. --Durin 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody has been able to provide anything which buttresses the idea that the *primary* aim of 911research.net is to sell product.--Pokipsy76 14:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the policy you did cite, as Goethan explains below, it actually says to include links to notable POVs, even if they contain unverifiable OR or are considered factually inaccurate by some editors. It is an argument for inclusion of a controlled demolition link, not against. --Hyperbole 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody has been able to provide anything which buttresses the idea that this is a notable POV. It is notable that people believe the government was somehow involved in 9/11. Is the theory that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished notable? So far nothing has been put forth that supports that, just a poll regarding 9/11 in general. Nothing specific about wtc 7 demolition in particular. My argument on this point should NOT be construed as opposition to the POV. It ISN'T. It's support of guidelines here, and that is all. --Durin 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Durin each time you give a different reason to exclude this or that website: now the reason seems to be that the POV is not enought "notable", 1 minute later the reason was they sell something, yesterday the reason was the website was partisan... I think you are looking just a little bit biased.--Pokipsy76 14:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, Guinnog's proposed link is too commercial. On the other hand, Durin's proposed test for the appropriateness is excessively severe, far more so than typical Wikipedia guidelines for deciding on the appropriateness of external links. — goethean ॐ 18:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I cited multiple references in existing guidelines. Your issue, I think, is with the guidelines...not with me. --Durin 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This goes beyond the issue of spam, which is a valid concern also. In WP:EL at the very top, it says "Wikipedia always prefers internal links over external links." This article is not the main article for the demolition theory. We provide the internal link to that main article, which is where the external links belong and not here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes and — incredibly — I had to argue with MONGO and Tom Harrison for a week just to get that link in. It's interesting how Durin can argue that the 911 conspiracy theories and WTC7 are "totally different topics" and yet the conspiracy theories cannot be discussed at this article because they belong at the article on the larger conspiracy theory. The common denominator: minimizing discussion of alternative theories. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't argued that conspiracy theories shouldn't be mentioned on this article. Please be careful with your attributions of intent. I've made no attempt to minimize discussion of alternative theories. I keep stating this and restating it and restating it and restating it. I am NOT opposed to the POV. I am opposed to the sites that have so far been put forth as linkable references supporting that POV. I think what is appropriate for this article is to have a section that summarizes the general set of alternative theories regarding WTC 7 with a link to an article that goes into considerably more depth on the subject. While this article does link to the follow on, more in-depth article, it does not yet do a good job of summarizing the various alternative theories about WTC 7. --Durin 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well...which is it? Is the 911 conpiracy theories and the collapse of the WTC7 "totally different topics"? Or the same topic? Or totally different topics when that is convenient, and totally seperate topics when that is convenient? — goethean ॐ 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we're past the point of discussion on this now. Thanks for your input. --Durin 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Likewise. It is clear to me that there is no real correspondence between the opposition on this page to the external links so far presented and Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I recommend adding the index page of Guinnog's suggestion to the external links section of this article, as well as the popular mechanics link.
From Wikipedia:External Links:
Links to normally avoid:
Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original
research, unless it is the official site of the article's
subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article 
with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this 
guideline.)
Emphasis mine. wtc7.net is a notable proponent (it is linked to from the 911 conspiracy theories article). — goethean ॐ 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of a link on another article does not immediately grant it the status of an acceptable link. An error in one place should not be compounded by repeating the error elsewhere. I've previously [10] noted a number of problems with wtc7.net, one of them being the lack of it being a notable proponent of this POV. 911research.wtc7.net suffers from essentially the same problems as wtc7.net; and no surprise. It's the same people, essentially the same site. At the diff noted a few sentences back, I cited a number of points in Wikipedia guidelines that raise problems with wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net. Find a site for this POV that doesn't suffer these problems, and then we can move forward with including that site. --Durin 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • From that lengthy response of yours, I'd like to state that your two references to WP:RS are invalid - that policy is not applicable to external links. Your observation that the site sells a product does not exclude it from inclusion - there is no policy that would so exclude it. As for your allusions to WP:EL, the site does not exist primarily to sell products or services - it exists primarily to promote its POV. And the site does not violate copyright - use of news images to make a political point is obvious fair use, and the site notes that. The only reason left not to include wtc7.net is that it is not the most notable proponent of the POV - but what policy would suggest that only the most notable proponent should be included? Frankly, every single one of your reasons for exclusion is invalid. --Hyperbole 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll restate what I've said before. Why are you so apparently against finding a site that lays out the demolition POV that does not have the problems that wtc7.net, whatreallyhappened.com and 911research.wtc7.net have? We keep spinning around about guidelines and policy, over and over and over again. You must recognize that we're not reaching any common ground here, and you must recognize that the inclusion of such problematic links is going to create very significant controversy. So why not find a site that doesn't have these problems? I don't understand your reluctance to do this. --Durin 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a thought, Durin. Since all my attempts to find a site that expresses the controlled demolition POV, including wtc7.net, 911research.wtc7.net, whatreallyhappened.com, and the BYU article, have met with immediate reversion, why don't you try to find a site that you feel satisfies WP:EL? It's not as though I'm the only editor on this article. --Hyperbole 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
At the very top of WP:EL, it explicitly states that Wikipedia prefers internal links over external links. The link to 9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center is the internal link; no external "controlled demolition theory" links are needed here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It also explicitly states that "adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers." 9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center does not contain exactly the same information as wtc7.net or whatreallyhappened.com; further, it's a valuable research tool to be pointed to those sites arguing controlled demolition so that readers can make an independent evaluation of them. --Hyperbole 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is mainly about the two buildings that have existed at the particular location. It uses summary style to summarize the Collapse of the World Trade Center. If people want to read more about that, they can go there. We also give mention of the "conspiracy theories" and link to 9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center. If after reading that, readers want yet more information, then the links are available on 9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center. That more than suffices and satisfies WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:EL. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, virtually all the links to the conspiracy theory pages are trying to sell something or are asking for a donation. Therefore, every one of them that is out to make a buck are simply slickly packaged advertisments. Sure, some wnat to "spread the word" of the "truth"...the same truth that isn't published anywhere by a single respectable media source, by a single reputable engineering trade journal or by a single international government that doesn't have an axe to grind with the U.S. The point is, no one in their right mind believes the U.S. blew up the buildings, or was behind the attacks. These private websites have nothing to offer but opinion and anyone that gives them one cent has wasted their money.--MONGO 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review of your POV. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for yours. I don't see you trying to add science to this article, only nonsense.--MONGO 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What you personally consider science and what you personally consider nonsense is not the least bit relevant to our attempts to write a NPOV article based on Wikipedia policies. WP:EL says that links supporting notable POVs should be included - not "links supporting notable POVs that MONGO approves of." --Hyperbole 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Asking for a donation does not have any relevance to a site's use as a source. For great justice. 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A way out of this mess?

Can I make a suggestion here? As I noted on Hyperbole's talk page, we're not getting anywhere. We're simply going over and over and over again the same points that have been repeatedly raised. There's no progress here, no work towards a common ground that we can all be satisfied with. From what I can tell, one camp refuses to consider the possibility that the article not have one of wtc.net, 911research.wtc7.net, or whatreallyhappened.com as a link. The other side of this debate refuses to consider the possibility that the article would have one of those links. It's an impasse situation, and neither party is working towards a compromise. I recommend an RfC be filed on the general topic under WP:RFC#Article_content_disputes, and allow for the greater community to comment. Further, the people who are party to this dispute should allow the majority opinion from that RfC to be the guiding decision in the matter. Are we agreed? If you agree or disagree, please note below this as Agree or Disagree and sign. If you want to comment further on this notion, please start a sub-section of this section. We've rapidly become disarrayed in above discussions. Thanks, --Durin 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree --Durin 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree See rationale below. patsw 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree, per my remark below. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. See comments below. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, with reservation See below. User:Hyperbole 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'd like to suggest too that adding some more substantive info to the article might be more important than adding or deleting a particular link. Guinnog 06:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree as I discuss below.--MONGO 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • RFC is necessary, but it will not shut me up. — goethean ॐ 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree --Pokipsy76 14:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree as per comments below.--DCAnderson 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the feeling but I think we'd just end up recycling the same issues over and over in a much larger venue with the same result. We'd just see a proportional increase in incivility which we can do without. Both patsw and MONGO also bring up good points. Rx StrangeLove 05:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the suggested way out of this mess

  • I reject the framing of the question this way. I don't see a need for progress or compromise -- I'm just fine with an impasse. The obligation of the editors is to provide due weight to minority views. The consensus here has been to provide a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories where those conspiracy theory sites have external links. As people review the talk page who have not been involved in the discussions, I believe they will see that there's an unrelenting agenda to use the visibility and credibility of the Wikipedia to leverage the credibility and merchandise sales of their web sites -- without evidence, and without explanation of how and for what motive hundreds of official investigators are maintaining that fire caused the collapse of 7 World Trade Center which they call a lie. patsw 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with patsw, above. Of course, anyone can file a request for comment. If in the future a community consensus emerges to include a such a link, I will not oppose that consensus. But voting is evil, and I do not regard a majority vote on an RfC as infallible proof of consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the link should go it, it is definately an important, and unresolved controversy. For great justice. 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Patsw. As a comparision, look at the World Trade Center article. It focuses mainly on the buildings, with a very brief section on the 9/11 attacks (with link to that main article), and no discussion of the Collapse of the World Trade Center (just a link to that article), yet alone any discussion of conspiracy theories (though a link is provided to 9/11 conspiracy theories). This article also needs to use Wikipedia:Summary style; part of that relates to external links - they should only go on the most relevant article. The WTC article (as is, has way too many links), but the links are not duplicating those in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, the Collapse of the World Trade Center, or any other tangentially related article. In the case of WTC7 controlled demolition theories, the most relevant article is 9/11 conspiracy theories and not this one. This article satisfies WP:NPOV#Undue weight by merely providing the internal link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. (see the very first line of WP:EL, where it explicitly states a preference for internal links) Absolutely no need to duplicate these conspiracy theory links here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeking outside input seems like the only way to break this deadlock, but I don't think we should be bound by a simple majority vote - I do believe that "voting is evil." Hopefully, the RfC will build a consensus or supermajority. I'd hate to consider the issue "resolved" if, say, 46 people showed up to vote one way and 34 voted another.User:Hyperbole 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see no reason to compromise on article integrity and encyclopedic merit by providing any room for inclusion of website links that are not in full compliance with policies. In reviewing numerous links regarding the conspiracy theories about 9/11...virtually all of them are either asking for a donation or they are asking you to buy a DVD or some other product. Now this in itself might be a tad more tolerable if their information had anything other than opinions, misrepresentations and utter nonsense. I will be more than happy to assume that my position is the most inflexible on this point...but I give big kudos to Durin for once again demonstrating his well known level of good faith.--MONGO 10:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A vote will not change my conviction that Wikipedia should document controversies rather than taking a side on them and that opposition to this documentation is based on two things: a poor understanding of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and a confusion or between strongly-held opinions and facts. Furthermore, because (frankly) many proponents of conspiracy theories are vandals, they are presumably unpopular on Wikipedia. I have no faith that the larger Wikipedia population will not make the same errors as the population of this talk page in regards to NPOV and confusing opinions and facts. Furthermore, this vote is being framed by an editor who has rejected all suggestions for external links because the sites support themselves commercially (which leads one to wonder if any site linked to from any Wikipedia article would qualify for inclusion under his zealously severe interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines). This editor has lost all standing as a neutral party in my eyes. The most eye-opening part of this conversation remains when two Wikipedia administrators, one (incredibly) employed by the Bush Administration, claimed that not a single word could be mentioned about alternative theories of the collapse of the building. The talk about policy and "junk science" is wallpaper for politics. Under these circumstances, a binding majority vote will not result in neutrality. An RFC is clearly necessary to shine a bright light on this article, but a vote will not shut me up. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    See...WP:NPA. Believe whatever you want, but we don't link to websites that do nothing but misrepresent, lie and then attempt to sell you their junk. To do so violates policy, period.--MONGO 08:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    We actually do link to controversial websites that attempt to sell things. We do it all the time. We do it because there's no policy against it. --Hyperbole 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    See WP:EL...which states:
  • 1 Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)
The site I suggested does not contain material that can be verified as inaccurate, as there is no conclusive evidence about what caused the collapse. On the other hand, it is certainly a notable point of view.
  • 2 In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
Definitely passes this criterion.
I don't think this is the case here, as it is relevant to the article.
  • 4 Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
  • 5 Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
  • 6 Sites that require payment to view the relevant content
Clearly, none of these apply here.

Reliability Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

This is not relevant as we are talking about a link, not a source.
Your edit summaries like "need to read policies" seem to continually violate WP:CIVIL. As I have repeatedly said, please let's try to keep this civil.
  • Nothing about the websites you continue to try and have included is in keeping with these policies and guidelines. The websites violate each of these points and guidelines, so, sorry, we are not going to include them.--MONGO 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is not entirely up to you! Guinnog 12:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, MONGO, what do you hope to accomplish by phrasing your comments as though you're personally in charge of Wikipedia? You've been asked to stop perhaps half a dozen times now; all it does is make it seem like you're unwilling to edit collaboratively and like you have problems with WP:OWN. --Hyperbole 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Guess what...you violate policy, you get blocked...simple as that. Go find some blogs to peddle your nonsense...there is zero room for collaboration with POV pushers of nonsense and things that cannot be correctly attributied to reliable references.--MONGO 05:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone uninterested in collaborative editing really shouldn't be on Wikipedia. For any given subject, there will always be points of view that some consider "nonsense." That's inevitable. Whether those POVs are notable is the measure of whether we include them here. MONGO, are you really stating an intent to use administrative powers to ensure that your POV on this issue prevails? --Hyperbole 06:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that if you violate policy by adding links to articles that violate policies for inclusion, after numerous editors have told you that they are not in keeping with policy, then, yes, you will be blocked...not banned...that would come later, if you continued to breach policy.--MONGO 06:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)ą
Actually, MONGO, if you hadn't noticed, there's an ongoing dispute over whether these sites violate Wikipedia policy. It's the conclusion of many of us that they do not. There is no policy against a site selling merchandise, there is no policy against a site presenting a controversial POV, and none of the sites appear to contain any copyrighted media that isn't clearly fair use. I don't think the broader Wikipedia community would look favorably upon you issuing blocks based on your own interpretation of policy - an interpretation that happens to match the POV you so unapologetically favor. --Hyperbole 07:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You'd be encouraged to file an Rfc if you felt the block was unjust.--MONGO 08:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't *you* file an Rfc if you feel that the website violates the policy?--Pokipsy76 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So long as the website isn't in the article, I don't have to. There is no way to eliminate the website from existence, but we can keep it out of article space if we follow the policies.--MONGO 09:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has to threaten to block other editors to suppress a POV they don't like, is abusing their powers. This is not only against the spirit of the project, but shows real lack of confidence in the truth of their position; otherwise why not answer my points above, and in general argue in the normal way? It would clearly be irregular to block an editor for a disagreement on an article you have been editing, so why threaten it? Once again, if you have nothing useful to add to this debate other than rehearsing your POV that this link violates policy (even though it has been explained to you a few times now that it does not), and threatening to block editors whose POV you don't like, why don't you find another page to edit? It's a big place, Wikipedia. I have tried to be patient with your continual incivility and failure to assume good faith in others, but I don't think there is anything much you can add now. Of course, I'd be delighted if you could prove me wrong, and could come back with a contructive edit here. Lay off the threats, please, and we can get on with improving this article, because at the moment it looks poor to my eyes. Guinnog 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You and others have failed to understand policy, and have failed miserably to demonstrate how the majority of the websites you wish to link in are within policy. Continued POV pushing of nonsense is disruption and is a blockable offense. I have yet to see you add anything scientific to this article or any related to this subject matter. Why don't you find another page to edit? I support the facts and you have provided none that I can see. My POV is the one that is in keeping with the best available scentific evidence, not based on perceptions and the opinions of those that operate some website who also want to sell their opinions to the public at a profit.--MONGO 09:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
1) If they have failed you not only failed but also were not able to provide any argument. Or do you think to have proved anything of what you say?
2) Discussion doesn't mean that I say "A" and you say "not-A and you will be blocked if you insist" as you keep doing. Discussion requires arguments, counterarguments, proofs, rebuttals. If you are not able to do this what are you doing here?--Pokipsy76 09:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What is it that I need to prove? Have you bothered to read this discussion page over the past weeks? I am not the one promoting fringe beliefs that have no basis in fact. If you are here to push a nonsense POV, then you should instead go find a blog...Wikipedia is not interested, based on written policy, of promoting misinformation that is supported by inclusion of websites that are not anything other than misinformation and designed at least partially to make a buck. I've started over 170 articles and two have become featured and not one link I provide in any of them is to a website that violates policy.--MONGO 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is in favour of breaching any wiki policy here. What we are debating is whether a particular link can be shown to violate policy. In my view you have failed to demonstrate this. It is your contention that a particular POV is "nonsense" or "misinformation", but I don't think there is a consensus on this, or that you have shown evidence for this. Your repeated assertion that this is so does not in itself constitute evidence.
Well done for your good editing record; I've looked at some of the National Parks articles you have done and it is good work. On a contentious issue like this, we must all try to avoid being distracted by our various POVs and try to edit the article in good faith, while listening to the views of others. I'll echo too your praise of Durin above; that way lies resolution. We can still find a way out of this mess without arbitration I think, but only if we can adopt a compromise. It is in the nature of compromises that they leave everyone slightly dis-satisfied, but I think it may lead to a better and more balanced article. This is why I voted to accept Durin's compromise above, although I am not entirely happy with it. I think it is the least bad way forward. Please reconsider your opposition to the principle that a link of some kind reflecting this highly notable POV should be included in an article about a mystery that FEMA still admits has not been satisfactorally solved, if that is indeed your position. Guinnog 11:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This proposal is dead. Too many people are in opposition to it for it to succeed. My intent was some low level form of arbitration via an RfC. If we can not even agree to that, there's little hope for a mutually agreeable solution to this. Both sides are unwilling to compromise on any point. The next step here is to take it to WP:RFAR since the various parties refuse to budge. So, the situation is; accept the status quo or move to an official RFAR. Unending discussion on this page has led to no significant changes in anyone's stance. --Durin 12:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's clear we need outside help with this issue. If no one can agree to abide by an informal RfC, then by all means let's take it to RFAR. --Hyperbole 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the link is silly, as the link pertains to a theory about how the building was destroyed, while the article is about the building itself with only a brief mention of the nature of it's destruction. The same link appears in other other-more pertinent articles.

I also find that the push for the inclusion of the link is by a very vocal minority that is trying to make sure that an agenda is included, and that this really should not be a debate in the first place.--DCAnderson 15:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article makes such a brief mention of the nature of its destruction only because that section has been truncated repeatedly by those who feel that theories about its destruction do not merit more than a passing mention and a link. Regardless, the fact that controlled demolition is a minority POV has no bearing on whether such a link should be included; policy (WP:EL) dictates that notable minority POVs be linked to, regardless of how much weight they are or aren't given in the article. --Hyperbole 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole, you've stated that last sentence a rather large number of times on this talk page. Some people disagree with you on these points. This is emblematic of the larger problem; everybody keeps restating the same thing, over and over and over again, without any motion towards compromise. No doubt, someone will respond again to you on these points addressing their shortcomings, yet again. Lather, rinse, repeat. No progress. I think this CD has a skip in it...someone kick the box ;) --Durin 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just can't see what there is to disagree with. With respect to the specific links proposed, there are arguments about whether they fall within Wikipedia policy, but there have been no credible arguments against linking to notable POVs, and no credible arguments that this POV is not notable. I think arguments based on WP:EL are being ignored, not refuted or even addressed, which is why I feel compelled to keep bringing them up, in the apparently futile hope that someone will, you know, look at them. --Hyperbole 20:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I know you don't feel there is anything in your stance to disagree with. That's part of the problem (not that others don't have the same problem). No room for compromise. So, lather, rinse, repeat. --Durin 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think it is possible to compromise on this. There is no halfway point for us to settle on: either the link is included or it isn't. It's not like we could decide to only include half the link.--DCAnderson 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A compromise position was offered by me; find another site without the problems that wtc7.net has. So, whatreallyhappened.com and 911research.wtc7.net were proposed as alternates. But, they suffer the same problems. The disagreement has collapsed since then, and no alternate sites have been suggested. --Durin 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the real problem is the subject. Except maybe for advertising, any link to a site like it will have the same problems.--DCAnderson 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it would help to have a site that didn't blatantly violate copyright for starters. I hope you're not suggesting that all such sites blatantly violate copyright :) --Durin 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is the compromise I suggested; summarise the info from a few of these sites and include it in the main text of the article, if you accept it is a notable POV. Of course then I suppose you'd need to credit it as a ref; would that be any better for you? There must be a way we can do this. Guinnog 00:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think one of the main obstacles is the notable POV part. I'm not sure how to get around that except to accept that it belongs on the 911 conspiracy theory page, which I think is as far as it's going to get. Rx StrangeLove 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--DCAnderson 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Saying that a 7 WTC theory is a notable POV about 9/11 conspiracies is selling it short. It is clearly a notable POV about 7 WTC itself. When you Google "7 World Trade Center", the third or fourth link (depending on whether you search for the term as a phrase or not) is a site holding the controlled demolition POV. There are dozens if not hundreds of websites holding the controlled demolition POV. There are books on the subject. I just can't make sense of any claims that controlled demolition is not a notable POV about 7 WTC. --Hyperbole 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Gag...it's a POV with not one shread of proof to back it up...how many people must be mislead before they come here and can see, finally, a web based account that isn't full of nonsense...hallelujah. It's not our fault if these websites exist, polluting the web with nonsense and twisting the minds of their readers...it is our fault if they get that nonsense from Wikipedia. Thanks for contributing.--MONGO 07:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not up to you to judge wheter a website says "nonsense" or not and any opinion of this kind is irrelevant with respect to wikipedia policy.--Pokipsy76 10:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's advance the cause of ridiculousness. We can yap about what your opinion on Wikipedia's policies are forever. So long as the links to spam advertising are not in the article we will be in full compliance with policy.--MONGO 11:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is absolutely no policy against an external link having a store. You are threatening to block people based on a "policy" you made up. --Hyperbole 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lather, rinse, repeat. Please note that Mongo didn't threaten to block you. --Durin 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you have to scroll up a few inches to see one of his threats. These threats constitute abuse of administrator privileges. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I see it now. Well, I've been accused of this too. So, file an RfC. --Durin 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled on this page while looking up information regarding 9/11. I just wanted to weigh in on the topic as I understand it of those links. I am a fan of conspiracy theories however after looking at the wtc7.net page I just found it to be not credible. I guess the debate comes down to verified sources and factual information, not really what its content is about. While much of the information on the page is interesting there really is no way to support their claims with facts. Oddly enough there does not even seem to be many studies done that one would qualify as appropriate for such a massive project. My personal opinion has always been that the building were demolished on purpose, I watched it from a highway coming home from Philly and told others it must have been demolished on purpose, it fell too perfectly. However my view on the matter is the website just doesnt provide enough factual information to be included or even enough studies on such a large scale. I would say to leave the websites out wtc7.net and its subdomains and instead look for more reliable links to support the information. --Zer0faults 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We must had a link to at least one of the video showing the building collapse.

Wikipedia's goal is to report facts, and that's one we there are video proofs, so how come there's no way to see the building collapse on this page? What's wrong about it?

I added a link last night and it was later deleted. Please explain me why. I don't see any reason that would justify hiding facts about that building.

collapse video

We must had a link to at least one of the video showing the building collapse.

Wikipedia's goal is to report facts, and that's one we there are video proofs, so how come there's no way to see the building collapse on this page? What's wrong about it?

I added a link last night and it was later deleted. Please explain me why. I don't see any reason that would justify hiding facts about that building.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.184.33 (talk • contribs) .

Where does the video come from? Tom Harrison Talk 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I see it's back. I have a question: Where did the transcript of his comments come from? I'm not at all sure he said pull it or just pull in the first instance. Since there's a lot of meaning hung on it I think we need an official transcript in order to even think about adding that material. Rx StrangeLove 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page with Kernow's permission: Rx StrangeLove 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who made the transcript, it was on this acrticle when I first looked at it. After watching the video I believe a more accurate one would be “I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. Er, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." I think the video is from a PBS documentary called America Rebuilds. Thanks. Kernow 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree we need an official transcript if one is available. Tom Harrison Talk 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
That is my concern. The important section isn't all that clear and creating a transcript borders on original research. Especially since so much else is hung on the interpretation of the recording. I think we'd do better by removing the transcript and waiting until something official is found. Rx StrangeLove 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Transcribing that interview can be easily and accurately done by any native speaker of English. Every word is clear and understandable, and I've never seen a single conflicting version of the transcript. Silverstein doesn't slur, and there are no audio problems. There may be uncertainty as to Silverstein's message behind his words, but there cannot be any uncertainty as to the words themselves. Calling it "original research" to transcribe it is a bit like calling it "original research" to make a reference to any website because the person referencing it might misread the text for some personal reason. --Hyperbole 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the transcription. I do however object to using that quote, because it is part of the body of "evidence" used in conspiracy theories undeserving of Undue weight. Outside of that, it does not really add much to the article.--DCAnderson 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it must be from a written source, and it doesn't mean anything anyway. It's just another attempt by conspiracy theorists to make something out of nothing.--MONGO 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
A considerable deal of Wikipedia is sourced from non-written sources. Audio and video are valid ways of conveying information. As for your second sentence, that certainly looks like yet another assumption of bad faith on your part. --Hyperbole 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever...assume what you wish. I can't help it if I think those that believe the WTC buildings were imploded are idiots...it's just my opinion...so I can't put that in the article. That is the point...I contribute to a web based reference source...wikipedia...therefore my commentary is no more useful in article space than the nonsense at infowars.com or the other private websites that are out there.--MONGO 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You can help whether or not you choose to disregard WP:NPA. Your choice is regrettable. Calling a large group of people "idiots," present company included, is conduct unfitting any civil human being, let alone a Wikipedia administrator. --Hyperbole 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though I think people that believe in the controlled demolition nonsense are idiots, makes my opinion no more noteworthy than nonsense websites that are controlled by just a few people. I hope that clarifies things?--MONGO 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it a little sickening that you can sit in a position of adminship and constantly make cursory, rude, and insulting remarks to everyone who disagrees with you - completely disregarding Wikipedia's policies that tell you not to. It casts a bad light on Wikipedia when you do this. MONGO, I am not an idiot. If you have another opinion on that subject, show some restraint and common courtesy and keep it to yourself. --Hyperbole 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. I merely said that those that believe in controlled demolition must be idiots....are you saying that you believe in controlled demolition? Then if that is the case, I'm sorry...as I never meant to insult anyone with my POV...you see I am not an expert on mental illness, just as Alex Jones is not an expert on controlled demolition...hence the point...my opinion has no more reason to be in article space than his. The only difference between an admin and a no admin is I got a few extra buttons to push...I mean take a look at the war going on over at AN/I...it's almost exclsuively admins all yelling at each other! You think this is fun?! I can nominate for adminship if you like.--MONGO 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, MONGO: I believe that 7 WTC was demolished. The fact that it housed the CIA and SS, that its collapse was utterly unprecedented, that it left behind some signatures of thermite, that FEMA couldn't explain its collapse, that the 9/11 Commission couldn't explain its collapse, and that NIST has so far been unable to explain its collapse, has led me to the conclusion that it is a more reasonable inference to draw that it was demolished than that it wasn't. And I am no idiot. I think it is painfully obvious that there are people here who have reached the conclusions I have, and it is conduct unbefitting of an admin to refer to them as "idiots." Regardless of how few or how many special buttons you have to push, you represent Wikipedia when you post. Disregard for WP:NPA looks especially bad coming from you. --Hyperbole 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Then there is no hope for you...simply put. You have zero proof of controlled demolition, yet are convinced it is true...where is the proof aside from the trash that is posted by jackasses in those moronic websites...and no I don't have to be either nice or pleasant with trolls that continuously push the POV you are trying to push...I can in fact block you for disruption...show me one reputable newspaper that has published the "facts" that 7 WTC was imploded...show me the evidence that this occurred as was written by a reputable engineering journal...anywhere on this planet...is every single reputable newspaper and scientific journal on the U.S. government payroll? Do you have the first clue about what constitutes proof? Yes, that's right Hyperbole: I believe that anyone that thinks any of the structures that collapsed on 9/11 was due to implosion are indeed idiots. Go take your "evidence" to any reputable newspaper, any reputable engineering journal, see how many time you pester them about this lunacy before they too tell you that you must be an idiot...go ahead...contact them...let them know that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference source because you can't put your ridiculous junk science in the articles.--MONGO 06:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable! This post is like a big middle finger to WP:NPA - and from an admin! Everyone should expect far more from you. No, there is no hard proof that 7 WTC was demolished; there is also no hard proof that it collapsed as a result of fire and debris. I have carefully read the facts, and concluded that they support the former more strongly than the latter. You haven't shown me that you've done anything other than spew angry, cursory vitriol at people whose opinions you disagree with. --Hyperbole 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not angry...I even offered to nominate you for adminship...what gratitude.--MONGO 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned OR in regards to the transcript is because it's not totally clear exactly what he said. The whole thing rests on a half second part of the recording where he says pull..or pull it..or something else that starts with pull. It's clearly more than just pull but it's not clear that he's saying pull it. If you think that's nit picking fine but we're not having this discussion if he clearly just says pull. So without an official transcript any transcript that any of us produce is just original research. Showing the video is fine, if license considerations are met, but there's no official source for the transcript that people are pointing to as validation of a certain POV. The transcript needs to meet the same source standards as anything else. Rx StrangeLove 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Silverstein clearly says "pull it." Nobody transcribes it any other way, and it's completely unambiguous to my ears. Thousands of people have watched that video, and there is a clear consensus as to what he says. A hypothetical policy that Wikipedia can only include a transcript if it is "official" - transcribed by the person or organization making or publishing the quote - would make it impossible to quote anyone for saying anything they didn't want reprinted. I think it's clear that that would be no good. --Hyperbole 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it really adds all that much to the article.--DCAnderson 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have a section on the collapse, and it is the building's owner's personal explanation of the collapse. On most articles, I think it would be a no-brainer for inclusion. --Hyperbole 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear. It seems obvious, doesn't it? --Guinnog 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is not an explanation of the collapse. The quote is basically him saying that it did collapse. (Unless you buy into that controlled demolitions garbage.) That doesn't help the reader understand anything.--DCAnderson 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the quote is of Silverstein talking about a decision he made. No matter what your POV on the issue, it is undeniably not just a passive observation that the building collapsed. --Hyperbole 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well there are two ways of interpreting that decision:
  1. He was talking about "pulling" firefighters out of the building. Which in and of itself is mundane, and doesn't help the reader understand the article.
  2. He was talking about blowing the building up, which is a minority view that does not deserve Undue Weight, so should not be in the article in the first place.
Either way it does not belong in the article.--DCAnderson 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. Our job is to report the (well-referenced and well-known) facts and credit our readers with the discernment and intelligence to decide what they believe. How could you possibly have a problem with that?! --Guinnog 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suspicion by some that Silverstein conspired with the Fire Department of New York and other government and non-government entities to destroy 7 World Trade Center by means of a controlled demolition on September 11, 2001 is a fact. That's why it appears in the conspiracy theories article. How could you possibly have a problem with that?! patsw 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, we can't include every little tidbit or fact in the article because of space constraints. If it doesn't help the reader understand anything, it shouldn't be in the article.--DCAnderson 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Space constraints? I disagree. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I would rather the article were a bit longer and looked less censored, with a better balance of information in it.--Guinnog 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that's probably why we do talk about it in 9/11 conspiracy theories.--DCAnderson 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Two things, first it's not all that clear to me, if it's that clear to everyone else fine. If there are all these sources where are they and are they neutral observers? Secondly, DCAnderson has it right when he listed the 2 possible interpretations, one is not news and the other completely unsupported by any serious resource. And as a result doesn't belong. Rx StrangeLove 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The source of Silverstein's quote is the documentary "America Rebuilds," where he gives it. I'm not sure what else you're looking for. The fact that the quote is controversial is one of the things that makes it notable. The other is, of course, that it's the owner's account of the collapse. --Hyperbole 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Does "America Rebuilds" present the quote as being controversial?--DCAnderson 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No. The quote later became controversial. --Hyperbole 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So do you have a reliable and notable source that says it is controversial?--DCAnderson 01:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The existence of controversy proves whether something is controversial; I could give you dozens of sites participating in the controversy. Notability is established, in part, by that controversy. You will almost never find an external source, on any topic, that states "This is notable because it is controversial" - that is a determination we make within Wikipedia. --Hyperbole 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yah, but can you give us a reliable and noteworthy source that has a contrversial interpretation of it? So as to establish that there is a controversy worth noting in this article.--DCAnderson 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
By "reliable," do you mean "mainstream"? Or does the definition of "reliable," in your view, include "does not think Silverstein was referring to controlled demolition"? --Hyperbole 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Basically yes, the sources that say he meant controlled demolition are generally unreliable. I havn't seen one that you could say otherwise about. This isn't a selective opinion either, the sites that say this are run by a handful of vocal individuals like Alex Jones and do a lousy job of fact-checking. Since the only sources of this "controversy" are unreliable in the eyes of Wikipedia, there is no noteworthy controversy to talk about. Now I'm removing your NPOV tag because there are no real issues left to address except this quote which is really a non-issue anyway.--DCAnderson 03:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If your standards for what is a reliable source are inseparable from whether the source gives a POV you agree with, then your standards are worthless. The fact that controversy exists makes the quote notable; Wikipedia does not ask its editors to approve of the fact that controversy exists before acknowledging it. --Hyperbole 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't have a controversy over what Silverstein meant by pull it. One side is what Silverstein says he said. The other side of this faux controversy is essentially the Silverstein mind readers claim. patsw 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you take a strong position in the controversy does not mean the controversy doesn't exist. Silverstein's spokesperson claims that Silverstein meant "pull the contingency of firefighters"; NIST says that "there was no firefighting going on in WTC7." People are right to seriously question Silverstein's statement in light of that. --Hyperbole 04:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Precisely...what is the big deal, anyway. He said "pull" or "pull it". What difference does this make? All the difference in the world for those that wish to believe the ridiculous...even though the words he used are not traditional slang in the controlled demolition industry and he's not a controlled demolition expert anyway.--MONGO 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What difference does it make indeed? It's the truth and it presumably matters whether this article contains the truth or a censored mess. I know which I prefer; how about you? --Guinnog 12:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag?

I notice the POV tag keeps being taken down. Surely even a cursory glance at this talk page would show it to be justified? I'm restoring it meantime, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Let's discuss it here instead, ok? --Guinnog 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you're upset that we don't allow nonsense about controlled demolition in the article.--MONGO 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The tag doesn't belong. The "alternative" theory is already mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you have taken it down again rather than trying to seek consensus here first as wiki policy prescribes and as I asked. Have you actually read this talk page? Do you really not see there is a dispute here? --Guinnog 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What would have to change for you to take down the tag? Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There are ongoing disputes about several issues, including whether the Silverstein transcript is encyclopedic, whether the due weight afforded the demolition theory is a mere link, and whether external links should reflect the existence of controversy. Editors should not be removing the NPOV tag - in effect claiming that the neutrality of the article is not disputed - simply because they are personally satisfied with its current incarnation. It is obvious - both from this talk page and even just from the edit history of the article - that neutrality is disputed. --Hyperbole 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
And it should be equally obvious that the quality of the dispute is such that no tag is required. - Nunh-huh 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The tag doesn't say "The neutrality of this article is disputed, and both sides of the dispute feel that the dispute is of a high quality." --Hyperbole 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should. Or some other formulation that indicates that the dispute is reasonable, since there are unreasonable people who will dispute anything. - Nunh-huh 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There are half a dozen editors, at least three of whom are active today, who feel that the exclusion of external links representing significant POVs, the exclusion of the building owner's own account of the collapse of the building, and in general the campaign to limit any mention of alternative theories about the collapse to a single sentence and a link, represent an attempt to push the article in a specific POV direction. This is what the NPOV tag is for. Editors should not remove the tag merely because the article presently exists in a state they are comfortable with. --Hyperbole 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But, there are many more editors (I see seven active today) who strongly oppose the links. Including the links are in excess of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As for the Silverstein quote, I think it's in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Again, anything more than a very brief, one sentence mention of conspiracy theories, and an internal link to 9/11 conspiracy theories, is excessive. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that's my point: there's a dispute. The neutrality of the article is disputed. Just because approximately twice the number of editors feel one way as another doesn't mean that no dispute exists! A tag should be put up notifying readers that the neturality of the article is disputed and directing them to the talk page if they want more information on the dispute. It's what the tag was made for. --Hyperbole 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The dispute is noted with mention of the conspiracy theories, and the internal link. That suffices, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The article fully complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. No dispute tag is needed. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
...and it doesn't matter what 36.4% of Americans believe. — goethean ॐ 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get that 36.4 % of Americans believe...? (1) believe in what? (1) This talk page isn't a representative survey. (2) I didn't know that participation in this talk page was restricted to Americans. Wikipedia is based on principles of WP:V, and WP:NOR. One-third of Americans also believe in ghosts [12], 41% believe that "surgery could spread cancer", and 27% believe a "cure for cancer exists" [13]. Just because these polls find such percentages of Americans believe these things, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should devote undue weight discussing these cancer cures, and other unsubstantiated myths in its articles. We are perfectly in compliance with Wikipedia policies on this article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
From Hyperbole's numbers, below.
One-third of Americans also believe in ghosts
Then Wikipedia should document that belief. It should also document what Americans believe about WTC7, in the article on WTC7. What is so outrageous about that? — goethean ॐ 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So where is the poll that says Americans think that controlled demolitions brought down WTC7?--DCAnderson 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The poll says that roughly 40% of Americans believe in a 9/11 cover-up, and roughly 70% of those familiar with 7 WTC believe the 9/11 Commission should have investigated it. That proves the notability of alternate theories about 7 WTC. --Hyperbole 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fine then. Show us a poll that says they feel that way about demolition and you'll have a point. Otherwise adding a specific theory isn't supported. Rx StrangeLove 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that:

  1. No one has come up with a new compelling argument for including the quote, and
  2. The only other issue brought up as a reason for the tag (the link) is a dead issue that hasn't even been discussed in forever, and
  3. My 3RR window is open again.

I'm taking the tag down.--DCAnderson 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Editorial judgments

Editorial judgments on what is included and what is excluded are eventually resolved: have a debate, people reach a consensus, and it's time to move on.

Is there a suspicion to be raised or an argument to be made that Larry Silverstein conspired with government and non-government entities to destroy 7 WTC on September 11, 2001 at 5:20pm by a controlled demolition that hasn't already be made in the talk pages several times over? Is the repetition of that helping to create a better Wikipedia? Has anything new appeared in the talk pages in months?

Subjects with a longer history of acrimonious debate get Wikipedia articles. There isn't a perpetual siege of contributors insisting on adding content that a consensus of editors have consistently rejected by faily applying the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. It's called finality — at least until there are new facts or a new batch of editors with different consensus.

Please follow the actual dispute resolution policy and don't repetitively add material previously deleted or add the NPOV tag. patsw 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While I would echo your insistence that the proper methods are used to change articles, I don't agree that these policies and guidelines have been applied fairly here, or that there is a consensus consistently rejecting proposed changes to this article. I think what we have here is a very poor article which does not give sufficient weight to the (very notable) body of opinion that there was something slightly fishy about the way this building collapsed. Having more than the single short sentence and a wikilink to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, with no external links at all, seems insupportable.
I think that in the meantime the least we can do to recognise the dispute that is going on is to display the NPOV tag; that, after all, is what it is for! --Guinnog 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center/Archive_3&oldid=141110271"