251:? Should the two "viewpoints" be cleaned up and re-merged as it were? I understand that the two may be overlong together, and splitting off "independant" sections may sometimes be a recommended remedy for that, but it can also often be fixed by simply condensing the "facts" down to the bare minimum and providing reference links to reliable established external sources for the reader to consult if desired. Mention the controversy, give a reference link or two, and move on to the next topic. Conspiracy theorists will always be around to tell the rest of us how wrong and stupid we are,
222:
appear to be a POV fork or soapbox, appears to be well source-documented, seems rational and balanced/neutral (the "alternative theories" are discussed largely from both sides, and some provide basis for dismissal). Deletion in possible anticipation of future soapboxing POV-creep is probably not an
162:
I went ahead without asking for consensus, and forked off this part of the main article mainly for two reasons: the main article was getting way too long, and invariably those who believe that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile try to push that POV in it. As for FfJ's concerns, I agree with him 100%
196:
received a lot of press coverage. Keeping them in this article is a good idea because we are now reporting on the existence - and the resulting media coverage - of the theories. Putting summaries back in the actual article makes it appear that we are reporting them as fact, and detracts from the
281:
This tragedy is the subject of many conspiracy theories, which have received a good deal of press, and article is well-sourced (and thus the topic is notable). 9/11 conspiracy theories have their own page; while this is not as extensive, it's still a large enough body to deserve its own
188:- I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, and personally find this article questionable, but my personal standards are not what goes at Knowledge. Given the extensive referencing, notability and reliable sources isn't an issue here. Whatever your opinion, the fact remains that there
294:
The point is not to argue that these theories are true, but that there are people who think there was a conspiracy. I see no problem with neutrality, and any soapbox addition would tend to be taken care of by our laissez faire system.
307:: I don't agree with most theories out there these days (they are just theories, otherwise they'd be called facts) but I sure like to understand where they are coming from a bit more when I come across someone that does believe this.
333:
97:
92:
101:
124:
84:
319:
as long as it's clear that these are either alternate or conspiracy theories. When the original article is too long, then it makes no sense to merge into a huge article.
131:
Far too many controversy exist and it will be hard to make it neutral. I also fear the article will become a soapbox to people who have their own theories on the crash.
88:
80:
67:
343:
323:
311:
299:
286:
273:
210:
178:
167:
152:
135:
61:
17:
267:
253:
but my view is that we should avoid giving them a soapbox article that will almost by definition move us away from
359:
175:
132:
36:
227:
is probably a better way to handle it if edit wars or other content disputes arise. But then of course we risk
358:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
55:
308:
208:
164:
244:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
50:
283:
232:
296:
254:
248:
199:
145:
224:
163:
that there will always be these problems that will constantly have to be dealt with.
149:
228:
243:: is (or should) the AfD nomination be based on whether the article constitutes a
118:
340:
320:
260:
282:
page--particularly when the main page for Flight 800 is long enough. --
352:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
258:, but as pointed out this can be dealt with as needed. --
114:
110:
106:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
362:). No further edits should be made to this page.
334:list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions
237:(own previous question/commentary follows...)
8:
174:Thank You for being so understanding LP.
144:possibly serves a function as part of the
332:: This debate has been included in the
223:appropriate criteria for deletion, and
7:
81:TWA Flight 800 alternative theories
74:
68:TWA Flight 800 alternative theories
148:article, but does need scrutiny.--
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
344:00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
62:01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
324:16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
312:20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
300:22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
287:21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
274:17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
211:13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
179:07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
168:07:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
153:04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
136:01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
192:a lot of theories, and they
218:for now. Article does not
379:
355:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
235:admins. Ah well. //
231:coming in to play with
73:AfDs for this article:
197:factual text there.
176:Fighting for Justice
133:Fighting for Justice
346:
337:
309:Strawberry Island
271:
370:
357:
338:
328:
265:
205:
204:
122:
104:
58:
53:
34:
378:
377:
373:
372:
371:
369:
368:
367:
366:
360:deletion review
353:
341:John Vandenberg
202:
200:
95:
79:
76:
71:
56:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
376:
374:
365:
364:
348:
347:
326:
314:
302:
289:
276:
249:TWA Flight 800
213:
182:
181:
171:
170:
165:Lipsticked Pig
156:
155:
146:TWA Flight 800
129:
128:
75:
72:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
375:
363:
361:
356:
350:
349:
345:
342:
335:
331:
327:
325:
322:
318:
315:
313:
310:
306:
303:
301:
298:
293:
290:
288:
285:
280:
277:
275:
270:
269:
263:
262:
257:
256:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
206:
195:
191:
187:
184:
183:
180:
177:
173:
172:
169:
166:
161:
158:
157:
154:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
354:
351:
329:
316:
304:
291:
278:
266:
259:
252:
240:
236:
219:
215:
198:
193:
189:
185:
159:
141:
130:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
284:Deusnoctum
297:Mandsford
220:currently
268:contribs
245:POV Fork
241:Question
233:WP:ROUGE
150:ZayZayEM
125:View log
255:WP:NPOV
203:Radecki
160:Comment
142:Comment
98:protect
93:history
321:E343ll
225:WP:RPP
102:delete
57:larity
261:T-dot
239:But:
229:WP:WV
119:views
111:watch
107:links
52:Singu
16:<
330:Note
317:Keep
305:Keep
292:Keep
279:Keep
216:Keep
194:have
186:Keep
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
46:keep
339:--
336:.
264:( /
247:of
190:are
123:– (
272:)
201:AK
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
48:.
127:)
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.