Wikipedia:Peer review/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center edit

This article was created as a valid content fork (note, not a POV fork) from 9/11 conspiracy theories where the related section had simply grown too long. It was born in controversy and was nominated twice in close succession for deletion. The editors who took it on since its survival have striven to render it wholly NPOV, and have also striven to remove, where the discussion of a hypothesis allows, any weasel words.

The overall objective since that time has been to create an article of sufficient quality that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status with a good chance of success.

Part of the challenge in editing the article has been to document the facts of the controlled demolition hypothesis without either seeming to validate the hypothesis or invalidating it. People have misunderstood the article at times and stated that its existence at all gives credence to the hypothesis.

All editors are interested in comments on all aspects of the article ranging through the whole gamut from style to the actuality of the NPOV and the position of neither endorsing the hypothesis nor refuting it, but simply documenting in a cited manner that facts about the hypothesis. The article is about the hypothesis, not about the collapse itself. Our objective to to have a robust and excellent article that withstands the test of time. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to the review should be aware that there is now a new AfD running on the article currently. It was not unexpected since the article has been nominated for deletion twice before. This makes the receipt of review suggestions even more pressing. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do keep the comments coming. Looking at the AfD there is a pretty strong consensus currently in favour of keeping the article. I know an AfD tends to put people off spending time looking at things, but, unless things change substantially, it is likely that the article will survive. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article survived AfD. Interestingly the outcome was declared as "Turnip" which was translated to "Keep". Fiddle Faddle 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH and related comments edit

It seems fine over all, and I didn't see any major issues. In terms of length it may be a bit of overkill for what is, in reality, an improbable and rather paranoid concept. I do think that placing ~~"official explanation"~~ in double-quotes is questionable, as it implies a falsehood. Either it's official or it's not. Also I think this sentence is too suggestive and is in need of some neutrality: ~~"Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition."~~ Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're waiting a while until we implement suggestions, and will gather consensus before many of them. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RJH about the quotations marks, they are not needed and they do imply the authors think the official eplanation is a falsehood. Johntex\^talk 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is more complicated. This discussion is relevant to this matter and the quotation marks are there not because an editor wanted to imply falsehood but because some editors were unhappy with calling this explanation "official" (there were voices that it's rather a "mainstream" one, etc.). Anyways, I agree they better be removed. SalvNaut 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks are removed, and struck through to indicate completion. RJH's other comment remains for consideration. I am adding it to the "ToDo List" on the article talk page. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." has been raised on the talk page for careful discussion. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been edited and documented on the talk page. It is struck out (far) above to indicate completion Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh comments edit

The Other Issues section of Criticism needs some work. ~~At least four of the sentences start with "NIST" and all are very short. The section needs rewritten into stronger paragraphs~~. ~~Also, I'm not sure why the Building Seven section below that has a bullet point in it.~~ -- Kesh 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added to the to do list. We will report back on completion Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet point item complete, struck out to show completion. Wording remains for thought. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some of the referenced material is a series of YouTube videos. These are copyright violations, which is antithetical to Wikipedia's established goals.~~ It would be best to find transcripts of those news reports and cite that, or another source entirely. -- Kesh 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has concerned us, too. The issue is challenging. For example, one such video is the only shot we have been able to find which shows or purports to show the molten metal flowing from the building. We've been scratching our heads over this one. Thoughts on how this could be handled would be appreciated. The article is better for it, but Wikipedia is probably not. Fiddle Faddle 07:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the image itself is necessary from video, and I'm sure I've seen stills of it elsewhere. Again, copyright could be an issue with the stills. Best would be to find a written account of it and cite that. -- Kesh 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difficult thing is that people seem to need to "see" (eg) a flow of molten metal with their own computer screen. It seems to me that the best of all outcomes is to seek a source that is correctly released, and, in the interim, to remove the links with an html comment inthe text to say what has been done Fiddle Faddle 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see the video or photo as relevant. Probably best would be to link to a web site that has a photo, but it doesn't really apply. It's well established that the "molten metal" existed from photos and interviews, but what metal it was is the point of contention. That's not something that can be answered from a picture, so a photo wouldn't help. -- Kesh 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only added value a picture brings is the posisbility to see the colour. I take your point and have fed it in to the article's talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first pass on commenting the potential copyright videos is complete (and struck out, above, to signify that) in that they have been removed. New citations have not yet been supplied. Item is on the talk page for further work if necessary, but the legality issue is now solved. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "multiple NIST sentences" have been edited and much has been changed in this area. I think it is fair to indicate by striking thsi out that it is completed. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sthomson06 comments edit

Interesting article! One thing I would note is that grammar and phrasing are very important for "Featured Articles." I noticed a few phrases in the introduction that were awkward at best. Example: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center (not hit by any plane)..." In this case, the interjection would flow much better if it was "which was not hit by a plane", or perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole article should be examined for tone by a seasoned editor. -sthomson06 (Talk) 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point well made re the parenthesised phrase. I have added your comments to the to do list. Regarding the "Seasoned Editor" element, is there anyone you feel happy to nominate? Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthesised phrased now handled. Ref also moved to correct punctuation point. No striking out above because this is simply an example of an entire and large task Fiddle Faddle 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RedHillian comments edit

I'm impressed It's good article (ok, this comes from me as a n00b, but...) It seems to me to be a good article, NPOV and well written. I can't offer much beyond that, but I thought I'd throw in my words. (01:58, 6 January 2007, RedHillian)

Thanks for your encouragement. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Parham comments edit

The lead of the article is missing important information; for instance, ~~it should identify the proponents of the theory~~. Also, ~~the fact that this is a conspiracy theory, which is absolutely crucial information, should probably appear in the first sentence~~. That is just one example of an excessively sympathetic tone that I think would get this article in trouble at FAC. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple or more questions on this:

The opening sentence is "The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial proposition that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance." Is it simply the word "conspiracy" that you feel is absent, or do you find other issues with the sentence? I suspect we felt that the word was covered in the article title, but there is nothing against including it in the text in the lead

I have now added that element. struck out above to signifiy completion. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are so many proponents of the hypothesis, I'm thinking that the wording could be "major proponents of the CD Hypothesis include...", but would appreciate your comments.

Added to the lead paraghraph, and struck out above to signify completion Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tone: Part of the challenge of editing an article is that one can stand too close to it to be able to see what others see. The consensus of those who have worked on it is that it was rendered, so far, unbiased either way, and simply factual. You obviously see something different. Further examples would be appreciated, please. We may need to "tune in again" to get this right.

I or anther editor will add your comments to the "ToDo list" once we have a closer understanding of your comments. Fiddle Faddle 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, the lead in the current version of the article is much improved and does a better job summarizing the article. As far as the tone, I think that has also improved since I last looked. Tone-wise, the biggest obstacle to overcome is that the article is broken up into proponent and critic sections; it's difficult to take a neutral tone when you are only presenting the one side of an issue at a time.

~~As another question, what is up with the footnote on Bloomberg's comment at the end of the 'destruction of the crime scene' section? It doesn't appear to be a complete quote,~~ but if it's not there's a lot of bad editorializing there. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference looks very much like a careless edit. The ref tag is now completed. The tone element is being taken to the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpacho comments edit

~~Rebuttals should be close to the corresponding arguments, not in a ghetto near the bottom of the article.~~
Before introducing arguments for the hypothesis, the article should have
- A brief description, in neutral terms, of what the 3 collapses looked like
- A summary of the consensus explanation for the collapses.
- A brief description of what happens in a controlled demolition.
The hypothesis is marginal and has no support among structural engineers. It should not be described as "controversial."

Gazpacho 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: the section you added (Engineering Consensus) is completely without citations. Yes, it is the accepted model, but we still need to verify that through citation. -- Kesh 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not currently agree that the description of the collapses or the engineering consensus have a place in this article, but see them as more for an article about the collapse. This article is about the hypothesis and refers explicitly to the collapse article. The same comment applies to that about a controlled demolition. That is well referenced as it stands. We have taken this to the talk page of the article.

We will look at the rebuttal proximity on the talk page and build consensus. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we"? Gazpacho

Those of us who are working on the article?--Thomas Basboll 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more correctly, "those who have been working in this article long term." I'm sorry, my "we" looked elitist or cliquey. That was not intended. Gazpacho is also working within the article. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals task is complete, and struck out to signify completion. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO Comments edit

I think it would be great if all the references used the standardized citation templates. Not only does this clean up the way the references look, it makes it easy to adjust (at least I think). This might add a kb or two to the article size, but it makes it have a cleaner, more encyclopedic style...for quick link look at the templates here.--MONGO 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute agreement with you here. It is on the To Do list. There seems to have been a sudden influx of editors who seem unfamiliar with the template set. Probably this will end up being the final task before nomination for Featured Article status. Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dead set on trimming the article down to 32kbs either, as I have mentioned on the article talk page. Many featured articles are significantly longer than 32kbs.--MONGO 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really a matter of striking the right balance. An aim for brevity concentrates the mind, but it may paradoxically make the article longer. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]