Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 27 March 2009

Welcome to my Talk page. Add your comments to the bottom of the page and I will answer them there.

Archives

Archive 1 *March 2007-December 2007 Archive 2 *January 2008-June 2008 Archive 3 *July 2008-December 2008 Archive 4 *January 2009-June 2009

WTC Error

Hi Wayne, it's been a long time. I'm still not editing WP, and still topic banned in re 9/11, but I'm curious to know why an error has been left to stand in the progressive collapse section of the article on the collapse of the WTC. It is not true that "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail." It is only the initiating mechanism that is analyzed in detail (as the article once made clear). The paragraph is sourced to Bazant, not NIST, in any case, so I thought, minimally, a "cite" tag is needed. Where in the report is this "detailed analysis" supposed to be. I have tried to get it changed by various means within the constraints of my ban (see the article's talk page, for example). But to no avail. Would you have a look?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you still around. I took a break from 911 articles for a while to see how they developed as it looked like they were improving. Didn't work...neutral RS's are slowly disappearing and they now look like Cheney has started editing lol. I'll take a look at the sources and see what can be done. I know for a fact that NIST was very clear that they only analyzed the initiator and ignored the collapse itself, I just have to find where they said it. Wayne (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and am gobsmacked lol. While I have no problem keeping conspiracy theory content to a minimum someone has been hard at work sanitising the page by removing any reliably sourced content that could be used by conspiracy theorists and giving undue weight to unsupported sources over official documents to again minimise material that can be used by theorists. I do admit the page is better than it has been in the past but a lot of it is at the expense of neutrality. Looks like I'll have to allow time to work on the article. Wayne (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Actually, I really have given up, and I'm sure it will take a lot of work to fix the article. It may even get you banned if you, as it were, "push it". But as long as it amuses you, by all means go for it. These days, I'm just an observer of WP. I look forward to seeing how it goes. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversation may interest you. It explains why at least one (to my mind) important fact in the article disappeared.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started with edits of things that stand out most. I wont push any conspiracy theory content but will concentrate solely on due weight, relevance and neutrality issues. I'm being carefull to stick with reliably sourced facts so I doubt anyone can make a plausable arguement to revert me. Feel free to keep an eye on my edits and let me know if you have any concerns (or missed something). Wayne (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter's remark is a non-sequitor. The article implies that NIST analyzed the "total progressive collapse" of the towers "in detail". NIST did not analyze the progressive collapse at all. Whether or not NIST should have is not at issue. In fact, the following two sentences actually explain why NIST didn't have to bother with that analysis, so it's a bit strange to open that paragraph with the claim that NIST carried it out in detail. Peter is talking about the collapses. The sentence in question is making a claim about the NIST investigation.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggested formulation: "NIST did not analyse the mechanics of progressive collapse (your ref), but an early analysis..." But I really don't think you're going to have any luck with it. I think WP is stuck with that error. It is actually an interesting study in the ability of this community to correct errors. The article once said that engineers were suprised that the buildings collapsed (even under the circumstances) and that NIST did not study the colapses beyond the point of initiation. It now says that NIST studied the progressive collapses in detail and does not say that the collapses constituted an important engineering puzzle.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's getting worse. Even my edits correcting grammar are being reverted by the extremists!!! LMAO. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just like old times. All the best with this. It will be interesting to see if you and Aude can (will be allowed to) work this out civily. Like I say, I'm not hopeful.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gladiator

Hello! re: your hefty contributions to article, just notifying you of intention to copyedit. Citations, links to refs sought in particular: though by the look of your pages, you may well be too busy? Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. You will find that the references and further reading links will cover just about everything in the article. When I did the bulk of the work I didn't know how to do multiple cites from a single ref so planned to go back later. It gets hard to spend as much time as I'd like doing it but I'll eventually catch up. Wayne (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, thanks so much for the thumbs-up, it's much appreciated. I was beginning to feel I was just driveling into the dark! We seem to share an interest (mine borders on the obsessive, as in the well known phrase "a get life" - re-arrange as required). Resources here in Manchester UK's once splendid city library are a travesty of their former selves. It's amazing how many really core texts they haven't got. Not even the Cambridge history series; not even Hopkins. Fuh!!!! In part, that's because there's little demand for anything other than the internet; easy as bobs-u-like, but you know the downfalls. Cheers, David.Haploidavey (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice about MONGO

Hi Wayne, maybe you don't need to be told, but MONGO is a bit of a special case. I think your comment is dead on. Now that MONGO has involved himself, no progress (of the kind you propose) can be made. Note that his user page essentially says that he's now an SPA that aims to "eliminate" the "folklore" related to 9/11. If I were in your position (and I have been), I would politely ask WP:AE to look at this latest exchange, in which MONGO blatantly introduces drama after you and Aude have developed a working relationship (his insults begin after you have complimented her). AE should lead to a warning. It will probably not, though. If it does, the act of warning MONGO will cause some sort of incident in which the warning will be retracted. This will confirm that MONGO's insults are deemed justifiable under the circumstances and you will therefore "officially" have become a CTer. In fact, you will then likely be warned (or just topic banned). I stuck to my guns in part out of curiosity about how WP works. If I had not had such curiosity, but had just enjoyed editing and supported the Idea of WP, I would have left long before I was finally banned. It really isn't worth it. It's just another drama-ridden website—just another battleground.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify: by "it" I mean the 9/11 related pages, which are all I really know something about. But the drama has been endorsed at the highest level in the project. Almost anyway: I'm not sure Jimbo has spoken.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Some prose

Hi Wayne. Interesting stuff about the tilted sections. I always learn something from reading your comments. Shouldn't a paragraph like this go in the article (under "progressive collapse")?

The top 19 floors of the south tower tilted roughly 20 degrees to the east as the collapse began, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it and the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse with its centre of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building entirely, it pulverised on impact with the ground. The north tower collapsed to the ground by essentially the process, which has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse (ref to bazant & Verdure 2007).

What does "31g" mean? 31 times the force gravity?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time arguing in Talk. Some editors are so obsessed with owning the article they reject anything they don't understand even if its part of the official theory. All those idiots had to do was read Bazant. On the plus side the arguement revealed their POV bias to anyone who reads it so it may avoid scaring off good faith editors.
Force amplification of 31g does mean 31 times the force gravity. A clearer way of saying it is that the upper section impacted the lower section with a force 31 times it's own weight. Wayne (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now I'm getting it. I've edited the passage (originally based on your talk page comments) a bit more. I think it should replace the second paragraph of this section. (Using the references, I guess.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not much comes of the talk page. Peter was right when he remarked that all the talk was distraction from something that was "easily fixed". And you are right that much of it arises because some editors don't really read the talk page very carefully, or with an eye for improving the article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've touched it up a bit more. Is there some reason you are not adding it to the article?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Cristina Schultz

I'm hoping to get more discussion about a proposal to delete Cristina Schultz. I'm giving this message to all registered users who have contributed to Cristina Schultz or its talk page, except for some with no WP contributions in the last four months, and one WP:SPA with no talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterson

Hello WLRoss...

Looking at wiki history on changes to the Michael Peterson page, it appears you took on the task of much of the editing. I would note that there are some factual errors. First off, the medical doctor who did the autopsies on Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff is correctly titled a medical examiner. Her official title is Associate Chief Medical Examiner for the state of North Carolina. In NC, coroners are not necessarily MDs, but are elected or appointed to the office.

From the NC OCME site :

Deaths in North Carolina that are unattended, suspicious, or the result of violence (homicide, suicide, and accident) are investigated and certified by our State Medical Examiner System. Despite several attempts to improve the quality of medicolegal death investigation, prior to the passage of legislation in 1967, these deaths were, for the most part, investigated by an elected lay coroner. These county officials often lacked medical expertise and worked in isolation, dependent solely upon the resources within their individual counties to obtain medical input into death investigations.

In 1955, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation to allow individual counties to appoint medical examiners and to identify pathologists who were willing and able to perform autopsies when the medical examiners or coroners needed them. Legislation passed in 1965 allowed individual counties to abolish the office of coroner and to appoint a medical doctor to investigate deaths within their counties. Only a few counties acted upon these bills. The Statewide Medical Examiner Act of 1967 however, insured that medical input into death investigations would be occur and by 1972, all the counties of the state either had physicians acting as county medical examiners or the coroner had been appointed acting medical examiner (and operated under the medical examiner statute with assistance and medical input from the Chief Medical Examiner's Office). Since that time, the medical examiner system has annually certified approximately 1/6 of all deaths that occur in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Medical Examiner System is a network of over 600 medical doctors throughout North Carolina who voluntarily devote their time, energy, and medical expertise to see that deaths of a suspicious, unusual or unnatural nature are adequately investigated. At the county level, medical practitioners are appointed by the Chief Medical Examiner for three-year terms as county medical examiners. In counties where there are no physicians willing or able to serve, non-physicians may be appointed to serve as acting medical examiners. By law, medical examiners must be notified when a death occurs in their county that falls within the statutorily defined categories. The county medical examiners take charge of the body of the deceased and conduct such examination as is necessary to properly determine the cause and manner of death. These duties are all in addition to their normal roles as private practitioners.

Therefore, Dr. Radisch was not the Durham County Coroner at any time regarding this case (Kenneth Snell, MD, was the original Durham County ME who responded to the scene and offered his pre-autopsy hypothesis).

The last line in the following graf is misleading and the source seems void of relevance to the contention that "the coroner stated she did not research criminal cases so could not comment." Obviously, as a forensic pathologist Radisch spends a good deal of time researching criminal cases in her work; however, in this case the defense contended that Kathleen Peterson died by an accidental fall, therefore Radisch researched accidental falls of NC women of Peterson's age/size/health to ascertain the prevalence of such falls and the injuries sustained. Since it was the ME's contention that Peterson was a victim of homicide, there was no reason for Radisch to research homicides (indeed that's why the defense researched them).

The Durham coroner concluded that Kathleen had died due to lacerations of the scalp caused by a homicidal assault. There were in total seven lacerations to the top and back of her head caused, according to the coroner, by repeated blows with a weapon similar to a fireplace poker. The defense disputed this finding as Kathleen's skull had not been fractured by the blows nor was the brain damaged. When asked by the defense if she knew of even one other similar assault that did not cause such injuries the coroner stated she did not research criminal cases so could not comment.

Also, as far as I can recall from following the case here in my hometown, the defense (US spelling vs. defence) never officially requested a Texas ME undertake the exhumation autopsy of Elizabeth Ratliff, nor objected to Radisch doing the autopsy (at least not before it was done). In fact, defense representatives were in attendance at the Ratliff autopsy. There are no sources cited for the graf that follows:

Before Peterson's trial, the Durham court ordered the exhumation of Elizabeth's embalmed body for a second autopsy in April 2003. The defense requested an independent autopsy by a forensic pathologist in Texas, pointing out that the state has no shortage of qualified professionals in this field. Over the defence’s objection, the autopsy was conducted by the same Durham medical examiner who had performed Kathleen Peterson's first autopsy. This necessitated that the body be transported under guard from Texas at great expense.

Thanks and best wishes.

--71.111.240.80 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Rebekah (Dr. Radisch's sister)

Always interesting to hear detail on other countries systems. We dont have "medical examiners" and our coroners are roughly equivalent to Grissom and his team in the TV show CSI so your system is almost incomprehensible to me. In Australia, apart from those with natural causes certified, his office handles every death in the entire state (I assume because we have a relatively small population). We recently had a heatwave and the extra deaths meant a six week delay in issuing death certificates until they caught up so we must be close to changing our system. I'm quite happy with any corrections so feel free to comment on anything. I have an interest in crime among other subjects but not with any particular case. I read an article and get annoyed when it lacks detail so search for sources so I can expand it. The problem I think is media reporting which is not always accurate. Of course I am to blame as well because I assumed ME and Coroner were the same. Wayne (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/timeline.html>.