Talk:Nuclear 9/11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think this article could be merged with Nuclear terrorism. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will gradually expand this article, as there seems to be quite a bit of material available. Notable enough for a separate article I think. Johnfos (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is different from nuclear terrorism. Essentially the article is a rewrite of editorials stating we need to better control fissile material so terrorists can't get any. As it is, this article reads like an advocacy piece and is pushing the bounds of WP:OR. If this is a separate article (which I don't think it should be), it should simply cover what the term means and maybe evidence of its usage. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also there seem to be some copyvios in the text. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've worked on it some, and it really seems like there's nothing here that can't be merged into Nuclear Terrorism. Remember, since the events of a nuclear 9/11 would be the same as the events in nuclear terrorism, there is no need to rehash the effects here. Instead, this article should cover usage of the term. If there haven't been any improvements by this evening, I'm going to slap a merger tag on it. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think this article should be expanded in some direction to avoid merging. For example, this could be an article about planned actions of US Civilian Defense system in the case of "nuclear 9/11" (identification of source, measures taken, etc.), or this could be an article about predicted consequences of "nuclear 9/11" in the US, and so on.Biophys (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Chris (Dchall1): Wow, three comments in a row on a Talk page; you are clearly worked up about this article. I get the impression you would like the article to go away, and so far you have said the article seems like OR, removed text that you thought was a copy-vio, removed a section that you thought was irrelevant, and now you want to merge the article and effectively bury the issue in nuclear terrorism. What next? Johnfos (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not worked up so much as killing time to avoid classwork. In all seriousness though, I would remind you of WP:AGF and WP:OWN.
- Now, to start with, please compare:
Equipped only with boxcutters, the nineteen al Qaeda hijackers on September 11, 2001, killed some 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars damage to New York City and the Pentagon. This toll would be small by comparison with a nuclear 9/11 — a nuclear attack launched by a terrorist group. Detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in a major U.S. city could kill more than 500,000 people and cause over one trillion dollars in damage
- with
Armed only with boxcutters, the nineteen al Qaeda hijackers on September 11, 2001, killed almost 3,000 people and caused tens of billions of dollars in damage to New York City, the Pentagon, and the global economy. This toll would be dwarfed by a “nuclear 9/11”—a nuclear attack launched by a terrorist state or group. Detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in a major city could kill more than 500,000 people and cause over one trillion dollars in damage.
- The text is close enough that it either needs to be blockquoted, or substantially rephrased.
- I'm sorry, but the rest of the article still reads like an essay to me. If an article were to exist under this title, my opinion is that it should cover only a bare definition of the term and its usage in literature and society. Otherwise, what is the difference between a "nuclear 9/11" and nuclear terrorism? Since there's obviously a dispute, I'll leave off the merger tags. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, sorry if multiple talk page messages bother you; that's just what happens when I remember something later. I tagged the Paul Williams source as unreliable; it's not that I don't believe he said that. It's just such an extraordinary claim that it needs additional verification. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. You are being less critical now, and I do agree that the Paul Williams claim is extrordinary, and am happy to leave your tag there, but I have been careful to state where the claim has come from in the text, and I think this helps. Also there does seem to be other sources saying similar things and I have added one of these. With the copyvio, I'm pleased to see that no single sentence is exactly the same, but agree more should be done, so please feel free to go ahead and make improvements here, if you have time. My concern about covering "only a bare definition of the term and its usage in literature and society" in the article is that it would end up more like a dictionary entry than and encyclopedia article. I just can't see how the article, as it stands, is like an essay. Maybe others will have some thoughts on this. Johnfos (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This page seems more like an attempt to stir fear and emotive responses opposed to providing any actual information.86.16.163.131 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
