Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood

''I have refactored longer comments here to improve readability of the day's AFD page. This is not an assertion that those comments are wrong or less important.'' Stifle (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Wood's approach holds potential for actually explaining what happened, something that neither the NIST report nor any analysis based upon merely conventional explosives can do. That she has been attacked so massively and unfairly is a testiment to the importance of her work. If you doubt the seriousness of her research or the results she is attaining, then at least visit her web site at drjudywood.com and study it. To reject her without understanding her work would be wrong. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk)


 * Presumably you think that Steve Jones and I are notable, which is why we are included in Wikipedia. But he invariably mentions her and I discuss her work all the time.  She is the single most qualified scientist--with degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science--to study 9/11 and I can assure you her work is of the highest importance.  I have discovered that Wikipedia is something other than it claims and political considerations enter into your decisions.  Well, as one who IS in the position to address the significance of her work, Wikipedia is going to look stupid--better, massively ignorant--if you include Steve Jones but exclude Judy Wood.  That there are few contributions to this discussion is because it involves very technical, scientific issues.  You can do what you want, but to exclude her BECAUSE SHE IS NOT NOTABLE is absurd.  James H. Fetzer (again!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).  — 71.117.42.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And, just for the record, while Steve Jones has around 40 papers, Judy Wood has published 60--and in far less time!  I cannot abide comments that are based upon false information in dealing with controversial subjects IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! JHF
 * The intense interest in this very page may itself be further evidence of Dr. Wood's notoriety.


 * Dr Wood's attorney, Jerry Leaphart, has stated that NIST is legally obligated to respond to the RFC. See the press release: Complete Truth 07:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Love to see what form that takes. Just on your comment below, I'm not comparing her noteworthiness as compared to others but to how many multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Could you please post a link to the New York Times or similar where they discuss Judy and her theories. thanks, Ctbolt 07:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OpEdNews found Dr Judy Wood's work noteworthy. So did Rense. But unfortunately the chances of the NY Times publishing Dr Wood's information is very slim. I'd say the chances about the same as them publishing the fact that one of organizations NIST contracted with was Applied Research Associates, a manufacturer of directed energy weapons, and a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society. Complete Truth 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the photographs and video used in the article have just been deleted. Can't have people actually looking at Dr. Wood's evidence, now can we? These photos and videos are clearly, unambiguously protected by the fair use doctrine. Wikipedia ought to reinstate them forthwith. 68.122.147.56 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC) — 68.122.147.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The claim that her theories are "absurd" is a cowardly way to avoid confronting the evidence. Dr. Wood has presented a Request for Correction to the NIST that, in my opinion, is the single most important development in the history of 9/11 research. Here is a challenge to those who submit that her work is "absurd" (which means laughably ridiculous, a function of your personal background knowledge and beliefs), HOW DO YOU KNOW SHE IS WRONG? I submit that those opposed to her inclusion are scientifically illiterate regarding the laws of physics and engineering and massively ignorant about the facts of the case. This is one of those (truly) absurd situations where the less competent are judging the more competent! And I suspect more than a whiff of sexism is involved here, too. Who among you has credentials and publications that are comparable to hers and offer evidence that you are qualified to render such determinations? Who among you? I challenge you to read the press release from Scholars (http://911scholars.org/Scholarsfilechallenges.html) and continue to maintain that Dr. Wood is not a "notable person". Think about it. She is not a "crank"; and if you continue to exclude her from representation, Wikipedia will have reinforced the impression that it is untrustworthy because politics enters into its every determination, as this case reflects. .JHF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC). — 71.117.42.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment The American Association of Civil Engineers has 130,000 members. Is there one of them which supports this directed energy weapon theory?  If one argues that Wood's theories deserve credit because she is a former assistant professor then why do the opinions every other expert in the field count for nothing?  She is the only 'academic' to believe this theory.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  There is no evidence to support this theory which is not better explained by more mundane and widely accepted factors. It is based on false evidence, false reasoning and is technically impossible for a whole host of reasons.  Nick mallory 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I spent an hour adding to the June Wood article. I didn't change any of the original article but I did expand the 'criticism section to deal with some of the points the theory raised.  Naturally an unnamed editor has just removed everything I wrote.  This is the problem with this sort of article.  Nick mallory 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I moved your work to the discussion page, with comments added. Yours was an op-ed piece. Zarcon 14:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC) — Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No, it merely expanded the criticism section to deal with each of the points raised by the article. It was based on facts, not supposition.  For someone so keen to 'ask questions' and so opposed to 'suppressing debate' removing such material from the article seems rather strange.  The fact that the original article is logically incoherent and based on 'evidence' which is easily explainable by other facts is the fault of the original hypothesis. Wikipedia articles have to be based on fact don't they?  This is why this whole article shouldn't be on wikipedia.  Nick mallory 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Can I just thank Zarcon for his suggestions re improvements to the article? After removing the first addition I made to it, he suggested on the article's talk page that I quote from the work of two authors who have written on the subject, rather than write my own precis of their critiques.  Zarcon was absolutely right to do so and the section I worked on is infinitely better for it.  Thanks again Zarcon for suggesting these improvements to the page. Nick mallory 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My goodness. Look at the voluminous section Nick Mallory has added to the criticism section of the Judy Wood article. Could so much criticism from so many "reliable sources" really be directed at someone un-noteworthy? Hardly. I request that Nick Mallory change his opinion on this RFD. Zarcon 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) — Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I'd like to thank Zarcon for his kind suggestion that I change my mind over this issue. In respectfully declining his request I would merely point out that it is easy to write a considerable amount in a critique of a severely flawed thesis.  The fact that I was able to cite so much criticism from 'reliable sources' is because there is a lot to be criticised in the hypothesis that a space based directed energy weapon of unkown design destroyed the World Trade Centre, rather than, say, planes hijacked by terrorists.  His argument that my pointing out so many difficulties with the theory proves its notability is strange.  I would remind him that he invited me to quote from these sources on the talk page of the article, so I accepted his offer and did so.Nick mallory 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nick, when you pointed out your criticisms, I deleted this original research from the aricle. When you did secondary research, citing Jenkins and Gourley, I left it in. I think it greatly needs to be consolidated, and we'll work on that. The point is, the fact that you can cite published sources that respond to Dr. Wood is strong support for the idea that she is notable. You can't have it both ways.Zarcon 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is supposedly about Judy Wood but there is virtually nothing about her in the article you wrote. She is not a notable person.  As for the parts of the article dealing with her theory itself, you may think the article needs to be 'consolidated', I would disagree.  There is no repetition in the criticism, merely closely argued logic backed up by evidence.  The article would be greatly improved if you added some evidence to it on 'your side'.  In the end, you do not own this article any more than I do, this is wikipedia, a peer based commons.  It is not for you to decide what should or should not go in it and you don't have a final say any more than I do.  I note that you have been unable to improve or expand 'your' part of the article to tackle any of the claims made against it, you merely wish to cut what I wrote.  I am not trying to have it both ways, as I said the fact that a nonsensical idea can be easily debunked does not make that theory notable.  I think the thesis itself is clearly absurd and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia of fact, rather than fiction.  I am interested in seeing your independent, verifiable, non trivial sources for the existence of a giant space weapon able to destroy skyscrapers.  Seeing as the article is presently included in Wikipedia I took the time to improve it by adding more information germane to the topic it addressed, even though that's not the topic of its subject - which is Judy Wood.  I would remind you again that you invited me to quote from these two sources, and so I did so.  I didn't edit anything you wrote and as space is not limited on Wikipedia I don't see what is to be gained from reducing the page of material I added.  They tackle the points you wrote about, in detail, in the order that you wrote them.  The fact that you can write so little in support of your argument, and I can write so much in support of mine, might give you pause for thought.  Have you actually read what I wrote?  I certainly read what you wrote, which is why I felt moved to refute it.  You say that the extent of my criticism of the article proves its notability, but then say that criticism should be cut.  Wouldn't that also cut the notability of the article?  You can't have it both ways.  Nick mallory 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ewing2001 writes: ::Wikipedians run many political double standards. The business of Directed Energy Weaponry started before 9/11. Almost 50 companies received contracts and developed the weapons, satellite tools, codes and additional equipment. Their names are: Boeing ("Team ABL"), Lockheed, TRW, General Atomics, SPARTA, Inc., Ionatron, Rockwell Collins International, Mevatec/BAE, Ball Aerospace, Allied Signal, Hughes, EMS, United Technologies, Comlinear plus Israeli co-contractors Elbit/El-Op and IAI/Elta... ... BoozAllen Hamilton, Research Planning, Inc./BTG ("Eagle Alliance"), CSC, ACS Defense, CACI, Compaq, TRW, Windemere, Fiber Plus, Verizon, Superior Communications, Veridian ("Logicon TASC team"), Advent Systems Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corp., Advanced Engineering & Sciences/ITT Industries, RDR Inc., SRS Technologies, Washington Group/Raytheon, Titan Systems Corp., Delfin Systems, SAIC ("Digital Network Intelligence Enterprise Team"), Northrop Grumman, Telcordia/SAIC... see also http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2963 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewing2001 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC). — Ewing2001 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The antithesis to this, which is just as notable is the way the media and professional organisations have for the largest part completely ignored the inconsistencies in the official explanations for the effects that were witnessed on 911. This makes Dr. Woods proposals even more notable. I notice that nobody seems to have a problem with STEVEN JONES having an article here, though he has done absolutely zero research of his own on the issues of 911, and his theory seems to be based solely on the assertion that thermite was the material used to destroy the WTC buildings, even though he has contradicted this claim himself when he quoted Greg Jenkins as saying that "it would take five times the total power output of the Earth to reduce the WTC towers to dust". Dr Wood has a much more definite case for being considered notable than Steven Jones. 82.23.139.49


 * delete per David Eppstein, she's not notable as an academic. Comparisons to Steven Jones are simple WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and dismissable on those grounds.  This article functions as a soapbox, which is what Wikipedia is not.  If the raygun theory is notable then an article (establishing encylopedic notability) should be on that topic, not Judy Wood. Pete.Hurd 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem attack. The sort of thing your side has to resort to. Judy Wood IS notable in the development of the discussion of these topics. What this is really about is your sides attempt to fashion Wikipedia after your biases about the 9/11/01 events. Judy Wood is a fact and her presence in the public debate about this topic is notable. When your side loses be as vociferous in ensuring the accuracy of the coverage and you will have made up a little for your efforts towards intellectual dishonesty. Specifically, I mean hiding facts, attempting to make people you disagree with disappear is the worst sort of intellectual crime. leschwartz
 * There's no ad hominem attack there. Everything I said was based on WP policy.  The name calling is not in *my* comments. Pete.Hurd 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed your comments are a personal attack. Judy Wood IS notable as an academic with courage, and that is the point here. Judy Wood's work is about the data, not a soap-box for a political view. signed leschwartz April 15th 2007, 12:32 CST.
 * Why do you use the term "raygun"? Do you consider Dr Wood's theory absurd? Do you not know that these weapons already exist and are being used? See here for links to multiple reputable sources. Complete Truth 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They use the term - raygun - because that is all they got, ridicule. In fact DEW weapons exist, and there is substantial evidence to show their presence in the 9/11/01 events. But that really is beside the point. This is about enforcing neo-con views on Wikipedia. People, some people who think and investigate for themselves are dangerous. Theories which counter the official line are dangerous. Such people, such theories should be made to disappear. leschwartz


 * The Directed-energy weapon article says "Some of these weapons are known as death rays or rayguns". "Raygun" requires less typing than "directed-energy weapon", in much the same way that "carbomb" requires less typing than "vehicle borne improvised explosive device".  As for your question of whether I consider her theory absurd, I don't see why that matters.  I consider many ideas absurd, such as creationism and scientology, that nonetheless belong in an encyclopedia. The template at the top of the page reads "This debate is about whether Dr. Judy Wood's article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss the merits or truthfulness of her theory. Please base your arguments on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines." for good reason. Pete.Hurd 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the visual evidence and the arguments as well as the factual information concerning the existence of Directed Energy Weapons included in Dr. Wood's paper are extensive and credible. While it remains to be seen whether or not Directed Energy Weapons powerful enough to disintegrate one hundred story buildings exist, Dr. Wood has taken steps to verify this hypotheis by contacting individuals in the Directed Energy Directorate to elicit their opinion on whether or not the phenomenon observed in the World Trade Center attacks are consistent with the effects that would be caused by Directed Energy Weapons.

Dr. Wood’s theory has been controversial and has attracted much attention on a national level. It would to the public detriment to exclude information about her from an open source encyclopedia -- a curious public should have the opportunity to educate themselves about a provocative and original theory and the person who conceived it.

A Google search for “Judy Wood Directed Energy Weapons” yields three hundred sixty two thousand hits. There is much public interest in Dr. Wood and her theory. Plainly, it would serve the public interest to maintain an entry.

Dr. Wood’s theory is scientific and not political. She does not speculate about who might have been responsible but limits herself to her theory and a discussion of the physical phenomena observed and recorded. In is not a "conspiracy theory" but purely scientific.

Dr. Wood has published her theory on a website where it can be viewed and considered by her peers, her critics and the general public. Dr. Wood's theory provides an informed and unique perspective on unusual physical events whose cause have been the subject of much discussion and dispute for nearly six years. Consideration of Dr. Wood's theory invites reconsideration of other theories thus catalyzing a more detailed, critical and objective dialogue on the subject.

Dr. Wood's detractors often assert that DEWs don't exist and yet DEW research, manufacture and development is highly developed. The existence, development and manufacture of Directed Energy Weapons is not merely conjectural it is based in fact.

From the Directed Energy Professional Society website http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/extLinks.html -- links to corporate and other entities and indviduals involved in DEW research, development and manufacture:

http://www.aoainc.com/ http://www.aesys.net/ http://www.aegistg.com/ http://www.ara.com/ http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/ http://www.aps.org/ http://www.aptec.com/ http://www.boeing.com/ids/mds/index.html http://www.cpii.com/ http://www.csaengineering.com/ http://www.denergysolutions.com/ http://www.em4defense.com/ http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/ http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/ge...TI2766,00.html http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/nps/plasma_science.html http://www.itea.org/ http://www.ionatron.com/ http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/fi...sp=fnec&ti=100 http://www.mri-rtp.com/ http://www.mza.com/ http://www.northropgrumman.com/ http://www.tosc.com/ http://www.osa.org/ http://www.raytheon.com/ http://www.schafercorp.com/ http://www.saic.com/ http://www.scires.com/ http://www.smdc.army.mil/ http://www.sparta.com/ http://www.spie.org/ http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/sor/ http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/ http://www.systems.textron.com/ http://www.trexenterprises.com/ http://www.tybrin.com/ http://wstiac.alionscience.com/

One of these entities, Applied Research Associates was contracted to clean up Ground Zero as well as to consult on the reports completed by the NIST. Clearly, the DEW theory is based in fact.

Dr. Wood certainly meets the criteria for notability as specified by Wikipedia:

o The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. o The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. o The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. o The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.
 * Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.

It would be unreasonable to exclude Dr. Wood's innovative though unproven theory for Dr. Wood certainly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Dr. Wood challenges convention, provides an informed perspective and insight and so has elevated the level of discussion on these issues.

References:

http://www.drjudywood.com

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html

Thurn X

Is a YouTube vlogger called The Winekone more notable than Judy Wood? Andrew Lowe Watson 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the argument: "Other articles exist that may be less notable." We determine whether any article should be included here on the article's own merits. Please use arguments based in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)