User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/005

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

日本語 template
Hi - great templates. Could you take a quick look at this converation. Thanks. 7 04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen
I partially reverted your revert on the 9/11 section ... I see your point on the "official story" phrase, so left that line with your wording. My main issue was with the third paragraph in your version, which seems to give undue weight - that material can be more cleanly summarized without going into the extraneous detail of how the request was presented. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My version may not be perfect, but the following is either undue, badly worded, or incorrect:
 * "during an Alex Jones radio show" (unnecessary)
 * "the World Trade Center was deliberately razed" (does not represent the view Sheen expresses in this source)
 * "Days before the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks" (unnecessary and unencyclopedic)
 * Not just what Sheen says is important, but also how he expresses it, as we are dealing with an article about Sheen, not with an article on the subject that covers Sheen's views. Cs32en  03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Using a mock interview format, the letter fictionally presents the president with several bullet points reflecting major issues of concern for what has become known as the 911 Truth Movement." is the one with which I was specifically having issue. I won't revert further, as I won't edit war on any article.  But, could you reconsider this one sentence?  It's really the only one I was trying to address as having the extraneous detail, and I was only using the earlier wording of the section for convenience which appears to be where I was tripping up with your concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sentence can be improved. I'll see whether there is a reliable source for the reference to the 9/11 Truth movement in that context. Thank you for specifying what your concerns are. Cs32en  04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also bring up my concern on the article talk page - I was already aware of the discussion, and should have posted directly there in the first place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh
If you want to continue talking about conspiracies, then do so. But I won't allow obviously blatant policy violations. Good day. – túrian  patois  16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the first editors who made statements that argued along the lines "it's not going to go into the article because it's stupid", i.e. using non WP-policy-related arguments, were editors who support the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. First using non-admissible arguments and then trying to close the thread stating that it's not a forum is really bad style. I closed that part of the section that clearly lost focus on the article. I also stated my opinion on the proposals on the talk page. Cs32en  16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said it was stupid. I said it wasn't going in because it isn't verifiable, it is fringe, and it is conspiracy. There is already an article for all of that. – túrian  patois  21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's verifiable that it is a view held by a significant minority, thus it is a notable aspect of the topic. 9/11 conspiracy theories is a subarticle, and the main points of that article could be included in a more comprehensive summary in this article, just as it's the case for most of the other sub-articles. So the argument that there is another article is only valid insofar as it would be odd to insert something in this article that would not be already present in the sub-article. Cs32en  21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

7 WTC / might have been or was?
I'm scratching my head after the last edit I made to your edit. I really couldn't stand that the sentence had "some," "suggest" and "might have been" one right after each other. But I'm trying to understand if "was" is an appropriate way to strengthen the sentence. Is it safe to say that that if some proponents are suspicious, then they suggest that it was demolished? I'm not sure if I see a difference between suggesting (or saying) that something might have happened, and suggesting that it did happen, other than one sentence sounding weaker and wordier than the other. I just wanted you to know that I thought about it after I made the edit. -Jordgette (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [Didn't see you were typing at my talk page. This is from your talk page.]


 * Hi Jordgette! Most of the prominent proponents of CD theories state that 7 WTC had "suspicious" tenants, or something similar. Such statements are intended to induce the listener to conclude that this makes a CD more likely, but they don't actually contain that assertion. So "suggest that they have been demolished" is actually a bit too strong, as it implies a likelyhood not just of CD, but of this being the main reason for it, that cannot be found in these statements. In my view, "alluded to the possibility" would be a more accurate phrase, as "suggest ... might" sounds redundant. English is not my native language, you may find a better choice of words. Cs32en  05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I'll be away from my computer for a few hours.


 * Wiktionary has "suggest" as "to imply but stop short of saying explicitly." How do you feel about "suggest that perhaps? That's a compromise I would get behind, but I imagine others would argue that "suggest" is sufficiently weak... -Jordgette (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If "suggest" means "not saying explicitly", and cannot be understood as "I think it's likely", i.e. an explicit statement of a personal viewpoint assigning a significant possibility to an event, then suggest would be fine for me, with or without further qualification. I don't see much difference between "might" and "perhaps", but then again, I'm not a native speaker. Given all the other distortions that prevail in the 9/11 area articles (in part because our "reliable sources" often decide not to report accurately on statements and events related to these topics), this is a minor issue after all. Cs32en  22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jennings - 9/11 Truth movement
I don't hear Jennings suspecting that explosives may have been the cause of the demolition. He likens the appearance to a controlled demolition, and then posits what would be required to set the building up for controlled demolition. I think you may be synthesizing. In my opinion, a more accurate wording (at least regarding Jennings) would be, "...led many people, including news anchors Peter Jennings and Dan Rather,[sources] to note the similarity in appearance between collapses at the WTC and controlled building demolitions." Unless there's a portion I'm missing in which Jennings explicitly suspects that explosives may have caused the destruction. I feel it's an important distinction. -Jordgette (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the hypothetical question from the viewers at that time was "What did happen?", not "How does it look like?", so the comments from Peter Jennings (plus Dan Dahler) and Dan Rather in that context amount to speculation about the cause. But I'm ok with your wording.
 * From ABC:
 * "Don Dahler: Yes Peter it's Don Dahler down here. I'm 4 blocks North of the World Trade Center. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team setoff (pause) when you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore. ... Peter Jennings: If you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows, that you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down. ... Peter Jennings: Thanks Don very much. Umm, Just looking at that, I don't know why but when was the last time the United States was attacked in this fashion, it was Pearl Harbour in 1941."
 * It's quite interesting that Dan Dahler interrupted Peter Jennings shortly after this, and came up with a detailed explanation of events, very much along the lines of the conclusions from NIST, but without much details of what he saw that would have led him to these statements. Cs32en  20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory edits
Do you realize that you cited an opinion piece without attributing the author in-text while simultaneously insisting on in-text attribution for a non-opinion piece? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please add the author, if you feel like it. The author of the U.S. News & World Report is not a political activist, he's not involved in the dispute, and the statement is very plausible. If an adherent of a movement is a current or former member of congress, it's very reasonable to expect that this adherent is one of the most prominent adherents of that movement. Cs32en  01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration enforcement
This is notify you that I've created a request for arbitration enforcement regarding your disruptive edits to articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the result.--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Race and crime in the United States
Hi, Cs32en. I recently made significant changes to the article Race and crime in the United States to reflect both the concerns regarding neutrality and synthesis as well as the results of some informal research I conducted regarding what could be seen as a fair and even-handed presentation. I would be grateful if you could review the article anew and comment on the talk page. If there are still concerns regarding NPOV and SYNTH, please indicate how the article could be further improved. Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Aryaman, I've been busy off-wiki for the last few days. Thank you for letting me know about your recent work on the article! I'll look at it tomorrow and leave a comment at the talk page then. Cs32en  17:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)