Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911 Eyewitness

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911_Eyewitness

POV, propaganda and advertising. nihil 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, this looks to be ugly. First pass at votes, only signed votes, by registered users with a minimum of 15 posts pre-vote:
  • Keep: 8
  • Delete: 24

This is 75% delete. Consensus. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sign all your posts on Wikipedia deletion pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.

• Keep There is no longer any reason to delete this page. It just contains general information about the documentary and has no propoganda or advertising. Sangre viento 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I want to thank those of you who have actually taken the time to edit and make it reasonable to this entity. I think that the link to the businessweek article from Sept 2001 was important to the credibility and the fact that the "zapruder" type tape did exist from that time. I guess you moved it to Ricks page. But thank you to the ones that saw, took the time, and did the job. Now it only remains to be seen how this works today, the 5th day. 911 Eyewitness 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The entirety of the businessweek article relevant to Rick Sigel:

he top news Web sites--msnbc.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, abcnews.com, usatoday.com--command from 3 million to 10 million visitors per month, according to Jupiter Media Metrix. Contrast that with New York-based OnlineTV Inc., one of the few independent sites that provided Webcast footage of the World Trade Center attack rather than TV news clips. OnlineTV, which usually offers entertainment fare, got only 334,000 hits that day, says CEO Rick Siegel. His company is barely making it on the $4.95 monthly fee its 31,000 registered users pay. Big media companies "will dominatethrough their ability to fund," says Siegel. "It's impossible to compete with them."

It says nothing about this video, and it's not very significant about

Mr. Sigel, either --Mmx1 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agent Mmx1 has a problem with details, spelling and getting its facts right; it is obvious that it has a problem with that and POV. Just jealous? Where can we send his print stuff scanned for this? The man has stuff from major magazines and Newspapers before the Internet. Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Financial Times, etc. 911 Eyewitness 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Making attacks on editors who disagree with you will not help the page be kept. JoshuaZ 20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting this article would be like trying to cover up history

• Keep Why delete an opinion? Michael Moore's page is still up and running, or maybe because he got too well-known and famous to wipe out? the fact that people are not allowed their freedom of speech around this subject only exacerbates things and creates even more suspicion

• Keep Freedom of Information

• Keep Why banish this?? I mean,, isn't wikipedia a encyclopedia?? well, keep it a encyclopedia and let it keep it's Freedom of speech so that everyone can learn from this..

• Keep "Fight censorhship! Keep this article online and demand your right to freedom of speech!" I agree, what ever happened to free speech? yes I understand that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is just wrong, but it even more wrong to sensor things like this.

• Comment I'm the kind of person who prefer to improve content over deletion, so I have made a first try to improve the quality and content of this article. Please take time to review it and fix it any discrepancy. I'd like to point those of you who haven't seen this video yet and would like to help improve it that there the article provide an external link to watch the video on google video service. thanks for reading Izwalito

• Keep Regardless of its implications, it's a documentary with relevant information regarding 9/11. The only reason for wanting it removed is because your political views disagree. We're already to the point major news networks won't or can't talk about it, articles and forums like these are one of the only ways of freely expressing your opinion left. Don't censor it just because you disagree with it. DgtlDreams 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Fight censorhship! Keep this article online and demand your right to freedom of speech!

• • what is this? hitler? nazi's can go F** off, this is free speech!!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 12.168.204.126 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep If you remove this, you might as well remove reference to any and all videos/documentaries/films from wikipedia. There's no difference. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.95.18.195 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Award Winning Documentary with free link to google video is not advertising. Propaganda is subjective and obscure. POV is what it is, actual point of view of a video camera on Sept 11, 2001 with scientific evidence that you can use to determine what is going on.

Agents will not stop this or the truth. 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete and protect. Advertising and threatened vandalism. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a webhost for free advertising. Eivind^t@c 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To censor this page is a classic case of censoring honest debate. This is a huge issue of debate, that is growing every day, yet there is no public forum availabe in the mainstream. Should we delete and censor pages about border watch, or the war in Iraq?

• Keep Wikipedia is for information not censorshipt. A leading documentary cannot be left out and be complete. While you leave a documentary like Loose Change on which is selling streams on its page you claim can claim my page as advertising? What it is the most dangerous piece of evidence of criminal doings in the demolition of the 3 Towers in NY on Sept 11, 2001. 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a forum for debating the events of 9/11/01, and neither is this vote for deletion. The above user deleted the following comment: "Do not delete this or we will continue to post it again and again." 911eyewitness 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC). This is an obvious threat of vandalism. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 02:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on the talk page User:911eyewitness claims the documentary has won an Oscar, having searched for it, I can't find any sources confirming this statement. Eivind^t@c 02:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect and censure article creators for making threats. Haikupoet 03:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above, vanity and spam, nn documentary not on IMDb, no apparent media coverage. The director's article Rick siegel has NPOV problems also. Esquizombi 03:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect Wikipedia is not a soapbox or webhost. Get someone else to cover your movie, and we'll reconsider it. Until then, no. --Mmx1 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my prod that was removed without comment. --Rory096 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Censorship is different than POV. I cant help your lack of skills in google, or your laziness in following links. The best I can do is add the links to the awards, media coverage, etc. Since the "media" is part of the problems this movie exposes it is not impossible to get them to incriminate themselves. Instead people do it themselves. It has the awards in less than 3 months from when it was released. It has already been shown with Dr. Griffin presentations as well as shown in Salt Lake City Library, Utah for a huge public gathering and at Palatine High School for an assembly of students and parents. For a grass roots film it is moving like wildfire. April 10 Mr. Siegel goes on national radio on Coast to Coast, next week on Republic Radio. The documentary is massive. 911 Eyewitness does not need this as a webhost or platform. This entry is here because the 911 Eyewitness is real, it is here in this world, it is reality. As a piece of history that is gathering momentum, you would be wise to not be censoring it because you disagree with what it may show. The only thing such deletion will show is that Wikipedia is just *Agents trying to remove 911 Eyewitness because it exposes too much about the frauds. What are you afraid of? 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion this is a public encyclopedia - if removing this is a form of censorship, than it should not be done, I think as an encyclopedia this should be a wealth of information - it should be up to the reader to decide or look into with their own open mind as to if this eye witness text is valid or not. Just like the news, just like everything else in life... think for your self, question authority. —This unsigned comment was added by 70.30.49.199 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete: Obvious Advertising/POV, seems to have no worthwhile content beyond that, since it doesn't assert notability. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising (User:Ricksiegel posted comment here that "The production team created the 911 Eyewitness page") --mtz206 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep So will you remove the zapruder entries too? How far does censorship go on this site? A free editing style does not mean to exclude the obvious. Your disagreement with content does not erase the existance of the entity. For whatever intent or purpose you find to argue the inclusion of this films entry, or my own Rick Siegel entry, the fact remains, this is the zapruder film of this century. You will become a laughable entity bare minimum, even more than you are now. Keep the entries, sooner or later they will be there. You cannot stop what has been already done and erase history, it will catch up. Ricksiegel 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Comparing your work to the Zapruder film is logically nonsensical -- the Zapruder film is a primary source, and a documentary by its very nature cannot be. Haikupoet 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment-- The documentary contains the complete 38 minutes of continuous footage, uncut or censored - that is the part - and is the zapruder film of this century. There is no doubt the footage has been used by researchers since the day it appeared on Sept 11, 2001 on the Internet. It is a large slice of history in its completeness.911 Eyewitness 08:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment if this is the 9/11 zapruder equivalent how do you explain Rick Siegel saying: (...)the Russian TV in Jersey City was broadcasting and showing the people jumping. (...)They had studio gear, real professional cameras with those wonderful lenses, from their high-rise across the river. (...) I think their stuff would make mine look pathetic.[1]

• Delete — "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Loopy censorship comments only confirm my opinion. :-) — RJH 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep SAVE THE TRUTH

• Strong delete and protect. This is essentially a very biased advertisement. It is very POV, and not really an encyclopedia article. 911 has added this to shoutcast. Just read the arguments of the "do not delete" (keep) camp and you can see this is clearly not objective, which is why it has no place in Wikipedia. Apfox 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As the agents try to curtail you from registering and taking part in the so called "democratic" process here remember if you do not they are the only ones heard. You can see by the warning they already know their attempt at censorship is being heard around the world. Is truth to be buried?

We must not delete this. Freedom of speach should have no conditions. What are people afraid of? Why should this be deleted? 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Uh, what democratic process? Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Rory096 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--If this issue were not important then there would not be this much debate. Obviously the firestorm over the content in Wikipdeia on this subject, at the very least, is enough to include this information as a growing portaion of our population are interested. The subject of 9/11 is ambiguous to some and set in stone to others so we must make our best effort to offer both sides of the story with the hope that a general concensus can be found. This, however, does not mean one will be found and since this site can be edited by its users we must make sure that each side is given the chance to present their own compilation of information while informing the readers of the nature of the information.

• Wikify and Keep

CENSORING A REAL 9/11 EYEWITNESS AND HIS HISTORIC FOOTAGE SHOWING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER is clearly against the design of Wikipedia as a historic information source. Charlie Sheen's radio interview on CNN must have forced the 9/11 coverup team to leave the reading room and get back to work putting out information awareness fires like here on Wikipedia. 911Eyewitness won the Portland Independent Media Oscar for Best 9/11 Documentary 2005 for those who have trouble typing and using search engines.

• Wikify and Keep Article needs radical NPOVification. Dev1n 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So you like to delete even in the debates. History cannot be hidden 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe the "messenger" is a bit "weird" or the message a bit too off for some, but the "paper" it's written on (the video) is too important to be lost, hidden or whatnot. Anyway it now can be found in many more places, even if its being deleted here. *Comment Maybe the "messenger" is a bit "weird" or the message a bit too off for some, but the "paper" it's written on (the video) is too important to be lost, hidden or whatnot. Anyway it now can be found in many more places, even if its being deleted here. ok, i edited some of my comments. The Video is actually accessible for free, using search engines DOES help. people... remember "divide and conquer" and "qui bono"? —This unsigned comment was added by 212.202.4.227 (talk • contribs) .

• wikify and keep per Dev1n Jcuk 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• wikify and keep- I don't get it. I looked up "The Matrix" and "The Fortune Cookie", so Wikipedia has articles about movies. The controversy stems from the fact that the movie itself has POV, not the article about it. When I read the article- (3/23/06, 19:00 EST) I saw a description of what the documentary alleges. Are descriptions of controversial films verboten on Wikipedia now? —This unsigned comment was added by 68.100.42.194 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP- Ok wether 911 was staged or not, the big dogs got to tell their story in the media and most of their information is on wikipedia. Now let these guys put this up.

• KEEP- Information = Free. Not Censored —This unsigned comment was added by 67.177.225.246 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete - Advertising/spam - Hahnchen 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep SAVE THE TRUTH This is a Watergate tape, a Zapruder film, a historical record of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION during FEMA's TRIPOD 2 TERROR DRILL at the WTC running from the PORT AUTHORITY PIER 92. Just look at all the doublespeak ad/spam comments attempting to open the memory hole and protect the evil doers responsible for 3,000 deaths.
• Keep - it's just info about the movie, why the hell it should be deleted? It's info it should be in wikipedia! —This unsigned comment was added by 193.219.62.88 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep If you can keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FahrenHype_9/11 and call it something other than propaganda (much the same can be said for Fahrenheit 9/11), then you can certainly leave this be. It's amazing how fascist people can get when their established reality is called into question. Civilization would never progress in the absence of reason and question. I believe 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy as much as I believe that JFK was the target of the cuban mafia working together with the Soviet Union and elements within our own government, but I believe every opposing viewpoint should be heard from.
• KEEP No reason to delete it. —This unsigned comment was added by 12.168.204.126 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep I just found another documentary listed 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands This seems more POV than any of our edits. What "balance" would there be if agents like these have their way to delete the 911 Eyewitness documentary? 911 Eyewitness 09:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- Ridding of this page would be a direct infringement upon ones first ammendment right. We are not in China here and we deserve our free speech. Wikipedia should not have to subdue and delete this article just because it is in the governments best interest. Doing so would be the next step in complete internet censorship, something that the US is proud to not have to do. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.12.163.99 (talk • contribs) .

The last time I checked, there was no "first amendment" to Wikipedia which gives you any rights at all. I think you're already getting a lot of mileage out of your "American" first amendment rights with your own website. Slowmover 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• SERIOUS TIDY AND KEEP Just clean it up a lot, but the basic idea of having this in the Wikipedia is sound.--BakugekiNZ 12:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Please do not allow the deletion of this article. It is necessary that word spreads about the murderous and treasonous events that took place on 911. 6:51am MST March 24, 2006 —This unsigned comment was added by 216.87.93.145 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep - whether the information on the documentary is correct or not is irrelevent, its about freedom of speech, you can't remove something just because you don't like what it's saying. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.33.156.253 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment. It would appear that the "Oscar" that User:911eyewitness is claiming the movie to have won is in fact a 9/11"truthseeker" Oscar for "Best 9/11 'documentary' of the year". --Maxamegalon2000 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that even a legitimate award? I couldn't really tell the article's POV, but whatever it was, it sounded somewhat sarcastic. Haikupoet 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We all know 9/11 was a worldwide scam, but hardly anyone knows the truth, i say any version out there is as good as the one that the US government tries to make us believe. —This unsigned comment was added by 62.131.72.69 (talk • contribs) .

• Strong Keep - Some of the facts and eyewitness accounts mentioned are undeniable. As such anyone purpoting to delete these entry should consider the facts again. To delete this entry would be paramount to political censorship!! —This unsigned comment was added by 137.205.164.131 (talk • contribs) .

Strong delete as advertisement, but it probably deserves a mention in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it isn't already there. All the sockpuppetry going on should be severely punished! Slowmover 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding the views above about (1) censorship, and (2) comparison to other film articles. It isn't censorship to object to a blatant promo by the makers of this film. Anybody who wants to can create an article about this film in the manner of other film articles (objective, written by a 3rd party, supported by 3rd party references). The article on King Kong, for example, is not written by Peter Jackson and isn't designed to get Google hits for marketing purposes. Slowmover 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this was comic, we posted the same idea at almost the same time. nihil 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As not to lose information of the documentary per se, it could go to 9/11 conspiracy theories page. However, I believe keeping the page would lead to a revert war, as is shown from the article creator's behavior. nihil 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The author is not behaving like someone who will accept any changes to an article he writes, contrary to the most basic concept of Wikipedia. He wants freedom to edit for himself, but not for others, IMHO. Slowmover 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss slowmover, it is already mentioned substaintially in the conspiarcy sections by other works. This is the original. I suppose some idiots would try to bury zapruder into the conspiracy section and leave the actual work or the out. Leave the kids alone.911 Eyewitness 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Smallwood 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP. This world need records from every body about every thing. How else or our children going to learn our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.63.9 (talk • contribs)

Comment The above user attempted to misrepresent himself as Slowmover --Mmx1 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Many of you seem such fascists. They probably just put their comment in without understanding the convention. This is not an easy system. It is obvious the right wing nuts here have the ability to swing the system with this knowledge. However my original statement stands, it will return again and again as other people will not understand why the work does not have its page. You sorry excuses edit my posts too, so stop the mental mastrubation. Sorry that we are all watching. Are you nervous?? 911 Eyewitness 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP of course, and if there is some dispute as to the accuracy of it, include a disclaimer the same way other contested information carries such. All this protesting, to me, is a sign that people want this information. The best way to deal with it is to provide evidence to prove or disprove, support or undermine it... don't just censor it.

KEEP needs to be expanded and wikified though. and the documentary is definitely worth viewing. Izwalito

Comment You arogant toads get off your stool and edit it then. Bunch of fairy princes blowing wind. Complain and do nothing. Anyone can edit a article on this an "information" site. EDIT! 911 Eyewitness 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment thanks for this un-necessary flame and advice, that's what I've been doing, as you can see, I even added a comment on top of page to say so. Could you be by any chance that henrik melvang guy mentioned by Richard Siegel, or maybe a part of the cohort, or maybe that obsucre danish reference or at least the same 911eyewitness that has been posting here. Izwalito

• Delete this non-notable work of sock-supported tinfoil-hattery. Lord Bob 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For me, the question is whether or not the video itself is notable, regardless of its content. The problem is that I can't find a good source to verify it, since a bunch of links go to the video's site or to blog links. This would put it on par with a lesser internet meme, which probably wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. The snarky comments and sock/meatpuppet votes are also really annoying. The part I find amusing is that people insult Wikipedia and the consensus process, and yet they still want their articles here. --Alan Au 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete About 10 pages deep in google and still only blogs and such referring to this makes it non notable, looks very much like an advert. Sfnhltb 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP Relavant information about the DVD, unless all DVD info gets removed from Wikipedia

• Delete and protect - and do all these anons count? --Khoikhoi 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

keep it

• Keep (after severe cleanup). While I do see how this is a clear violation of advertising and other policies, there is some amount of information that should be included as part of Wikipedia, and if this is not enough for an article without the advertising junk then it should be merged with 9/11 conspirancies. IMHO comments such as Lord Bob's above are not constructive... The issue is not whether or not this film is credible or, in your eyes, based on crackpot theories. The issue is whether or not this article merits inclusion on Wikipedia. If this many people care so strongly about its existance, then it probably deserves some kind of presence here. Someone mentioned FahrenHype 9/11 above. I think that article is appropriately formatted for Wikipedia, free of POV, and of an appropriate length considering its importance. We should do the same for this article, regardless of how its creator is behaving, because others who aren't behaving inappropriately agree that it should remain in some form. If you want to ban or censure the creator, do that, but there's no reason to take down an article that could potentially be cleaned up and provide information about a documentary that DOES exist.-- Mac4drew 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable CT video. There are a million of these floating around. Rhobite 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure theres adequate room for any unconventional 911 theories on pages that aren't trying to sell you a video.

• Keep What is the ACTUAL basis for wanting this removed, under which specific articles of Wiki's deletion policy does this violate, the obvious: Advertising is suggested but various documentaries are equally presented like this one is minus the lengthy detail. Aside from personal opinions we must look at it in such detail as that Does the entry actually convey a point that does not border "advertisment"? Or is there an Underlying reason why this specific item is under review where many other entries of documentaries are VERY Similar in presentation, IF this goes so should all other entries on documentaries under the rules which govern the whys of wiki as each and one of them would be violating the same rules that this supposedly does. OR better yet, Just EDIT the page to give it more detail so that it doesnt look like an advertisement. (if.thats.the.case)

ZaGZaG 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

fake signature, user ZaG does not exist.

• Keep If there's a Wiki article on Farenheit 9/11, why shouldn't there be a Wiki article for 911 Eyewitness? Protect the internet's freedom.

Keep it.

• Delete. Notability not established. Every camcorder pointed at the twin towers isn't immediately notable. Weregerbil 14:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This really isn't an advertisement. By starting this big controversy, so many large news sites and such have MADE this video significant. Keep it all.

• Keep KEEP THE TRUTH. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.92.157.247 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

• Delete* Propaganda! —This unsigned comment was added by 65.11.65.80 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

• Delete. Film is not notable; article uses 'marketing speak'; exists only as advert for film. Shax 07:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep KEEP THE TRUTH. History untill this time is made by the winners. We need the truth no matter how we feel about it. Lives fill our lives every day to make our lives "feel" better. Truth is has more pain and pleasure when it is whitnessed first hand. So the account of what happened is never lost. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.159.94.54 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC).
• Comment: What's the real difference between this film and any of the other 9/11 conspiracy theories out there? What makes this one notable? (Other than the fact that people are protesting very loudly to have this one kept, that is.) --Elkman - ^(talk) 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What is the purpose of wikipedia if information is censored!!??!??` —This unsigned comment was added by 24.42.114.215 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

1. Keep Noteworthy despite what one may/may not believe. TruthCrusader 11:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Keep Don't let Bush control our minds.sickre 11:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep An INVALUABLE piece of source material (And primary source at that) to anyone researching the events of 9/11. It would be insanity to delete such an item. SpeakEasy 14:07, 26 March 2006 (GMT)

• Keep This is information about the documenterary. You don't delete information about the documenterary just because you don't agree with the message or thing it's in the wrong direction, you rewrite it! You talk like it's advertising, but you don't want to put up proper information about it. To me, it sounds more like you want to cover it up than fix any problems this article has. Have you ever heard of "freedom of speech"? I think you have, it's that pesky first ammendment you want to do away with so well.

• Keep I know Bush would like to pretend there isn't, but there IS in fact a constitution, which includes a bill of rights that says this article may stay.

• Keep only if it's going to be rewritten, preferably by a neutral party than the article creator. The grammar, writing style, everything is really blech, however I don't think it should be deleted just on that basis. The What the bleep do we know page still stands and that "documentary" is equally as sketchy as this one. As a New Yorker I invite dissenting opinions about 9/11, but this article really needs to be fixed and cleaned up and someone not so personally involved with the movie should do it. - mixvio 17:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a non-notable movie. Toss your tin-foil hat and use the common sense you hopefully have. If this is censorship, why isn't this article being deleted? This article contains all the theories this movie might shove in your face, and you don't even have to pay for it. Joffeloff 17:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep freedom of the media, this is media, if its true or not, who cares, if any of you are true americans, then you'd keep it.

• Comment: Actual text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Since a lot of people are screaming about First Amendment rights in regard to this AFD, I thought I'd quote the First Amendment here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in this text does it say anything about Wikipedia, or what it can decide to keep or delete. For that matter, the First Amendment doesn't force newspapers, radio programs, or TV shows to publish everything that someone has to say. A newspaper editor or a TV program producer decides what's published based on standards of newsworthiness and noteworthiness. (And advertising popularity, unfortunately.) So why would the First Amendment application to Wikipedia be any different? --Elkman - ^(talk) 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's an advertisement for a documentary that is neither popular nor outstanding. "Freedom of speech" does not apply on a website with rules and regulations about what can be on here and what can't. That's why there are style guidelines and candidates for deletion in the first place. Why aren't all you freedom of speech martyrs on the other candidates for deletion screaming "freedom of speech!"? This is not a case of freedom of speech, it's a case of "why is this necessary"? Ryan Salisbury 19:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement for a non-notable conspiracy theory documentary. JoshuaZ 19:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Why even consider deleting it? There so many other articles on other movies and such, but i dont see any people bitch about them! (Cloud02 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

CLEAN UP FOR NEUTRALITY In the version of it which I viewed, it seemed like propaganda. I have seen many articles discussing movies, television shows, online games, and so on. The article should stay, but be cleaned up to be a neutral description of the movie in question. There should be a separate section of the article to discuss the controversial nature of the film. (also to help limit the possibility of vandalism to one section) Sarysa 11:38, 26 March 2006 (GMT-8)

• Does It Matter?

Quote from Wikipedia's page on Fasiscm: "Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality."

Quote from Wikipedia's page on Propaganda: "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading."

I feel that this "personal" account is neither fasiscm or propaganda.

• Delete Advertisement for a non-notable documentary. Bov 20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wikify, Modify to NPOV, and Keep - The thought behind the article has merits, however, in its current form it is not acceptable. If it must be deleted, then it should be at least noted in a larger article describing documentaries. Starblazer 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Why don't we just get all the encyclopedia's we own, and burn them...it would be the same thing if we deleted this post...regardless of its nature.

• Delete Burning encyclopedias, which are full of useful, factual information researched extensively by a team of professionals, is NOT akin to removing an advertisement from a site dedicated to knowledge.

Wikipedia is an international site; the constitution of any single country does not apply here. There are numerous references to other similar tapes within this thread, and there's enough on the internet, and on Wikipedia itself, that getting rid of the detritus wouldn't be a bad thing. A tape with this much obvious bias cannot be called a documentary, as a documentary is an impartial account of events.

To put it simply, get rid of BS advertisements so that more credible versions of the same thing can continue to exist. --Makavely91 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Shouldn't matter what the film is about or what side of any issue it is on. If the reason for delete is that you don't agree with a film, don't delete as that would be unfairly influencing wikipedia with your POV. On the other hand, this is a nn documentary with no verifiable sources and so really shouldn't exist.. Propoganda, freedom of speech, advertisement, book-burning, facism, etc all have NOTHING to do with this at all. It simply isn't verifiable enough or notable enough for a wikipedia entry. There are 911 conspiracy films on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with including 911 conspiracy films. But they have to be at least somewhat notable. Shadowoftime 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP This site is NOT inflammatory or propaganda. It is a documentary. Entirely besides this, if so many people feel so strongly that some information deserves to be on the Wikipedia then let it be there. Those who dont want it, can always neglect it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.