User:Haemo/Draft FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page adresses common concerns, criticisms, and arguments brought up at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks by answering the various misconceptions behind them. Before commenting on the talk page of September 11, 2001 attacks, please read through this list.

The main points can be summarized as:

Answer: Wikipedia presents information only based on reputable sources that are widely accepted by scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified organizations or individuals. The article's account of the attacks is the only one supported by reliable, widely accepted information. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.
  • "Things don't add up..."
Answer: Piecing together a wide array of information and coming to a conclusion is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If this is your intent, please review Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.
  • Isn't one man's terrorist another's hero? Common concerns over why the article defines the attacks as terrorism.
Answer: The attacks are widely considered "terrorism" by reliable sources, including the United Nations. Therefore, they are defined as "terrorism" in the article. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.
  • some NPOV question to go here...
Answer...

Certain topics, questions, and objections crop up repeatedly on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequently consume a lot of time which could otherwise be used more productively. This article is designed to address those questions before they reach the talk page stage. Please read through, and consider, the arguments presented here — if your question is not listed here, then refer to the Archives to try an find an answer. If your question is not covered adequately in the archives, or this fact, then please make a subject on the talk page; however, questions which do not substantially differ from those dealt with here will, in general, not be given very much consideration by other editors of this page.

Contents

[edit] Why do you call them "terrorist" attacks?

This question is based in the argument over what "terrorism" means. In fact, Wikipedia has an article about the differing definitions of terrorism. As the article states:

The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.[1]

Fortunently, it is not necessary to engage in philosophical debate. Per Wikipedia policy, this article is bound to follow a majority of reliable and unbiased sources, which have reached a consensus in calssifying the attacks as "terrorism" and those involved as "terrorists." A selection of these sources includes the United Nations,[2] The Washington Post,[3] the Christian Science Monitor,[4] and The Guardian,[5] as well as news media in U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, India, South Korea, along with Al Jazeera, to name but a few. A Google News search brings up many other examples. Alternative terms suggested, like militant or freedom fighter either confuse the issue for a general reader, or are inherently relativistic in nature, and inappropriate in an encyclopedic context. The article, however, strives to minimize the use of this controversial term by employing the word "hijackers", using specific names, and refering to organizations (like Al Qaeda).

[edit] Related archives

[edit] The article isn't neutral (or "why do you not mention...")

Another common question that is asked about the article is why certain theories are not mentioned, or why the manner in which the article is written uses definite language (i.e. "is" instead of "presumably is", "were" instead of "believed to be", etc.). This is rooted in our neutral point of view policy — specifically, in the idea that while we are bound to explain information fairly, and neutrally, and the amount of space, text, and context, devoted to any particular view needs to be weighted by how much credence qualified, reliable sources give them. This is especially critical when we are talking about pages which discuss a general topic, like this one, and are segmented into subpages.

An understanding of what this entails is rooted in summary style — that is, a Wikipedia article is composed of sections, which are in turn pages as they expand and grow. Any given fact, opinion, or viewpoint has a "size" or degree of scope based on its coverage and acceptance in reliable sources who are generally accepted to be qualified about the subject. For example, the flight number of the plane which struck the South Tower (175) is a very important, and relevant fact to an article about the attacks. However, the original pilot of Flight 175 (Victor Saracini) is not that relevant — so, he does not appear on the 9/11 attacks page. However, instead he appears on United Airlines Flight 175, and further gets a whole biography on the September 11 Wiki.

This same process applies to opinions, and theories, in an analogous way. For example, there has long been theories that Adolf Hitler survived the invasion of Berlin in 1945, and fled to Argentina; there have been books on the subject, and picture purportedly of him. However, if you read the article, it doesn't mention any of these; they plainly say that Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide in their bunker. This plain, direct, statement of fact has been disputed -- however, it does not violate neutrality guidelines to make it; rather, neutrality guidelines support it. The concept here is undue weight — that is, giving too much space, credence, or weight to viewpoints which are not accepted by reliable sources who are qualified experts on the subject. To qualify the entire article, and the entire story of Hitler's life, based on a fringe theory violates neutral point of view.

This does not, however, mean that it is always inappropriate. Continuing the Hitler example, above — although talking about the theories surrounding Hitler's death on the main article is inappropriate, there is an entire article called "Death of Adolf Hitler" which discusses the theories and speculation surrounding his death. The theory, which has not very much mainstream credence, is removed to a subpage; much like the name of the Flight 175 pilot is removed, as well.

The analogy is then clear for the 9/11 article; there are numerous theories surrounding who carried out the attacks, whether they had inside support, what planes hit which buildings, whether they were planes at all, whether the Jews had anything to do with it, whether the towers where dynamited, etc. The list is endless, and ongoing. However, the simple fact remains that an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources, both in and outside of the government, disagree with them; they are fringe theories, in the same way that Hitler escaping his death is a fringe theory. A good way to put it is that there are many questions about the 9/11 attacks which have not been answered; however, the major narrative of the attacks is not challenged by any of the most credible question. This article follows neutral point of view and gives conspiracy theories a short section, and then an entire sub-article at 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, following undue weight guidelines this article does not compromise the overall structure of the article — in the same way Hitler doesn't talk about him as if he escaped death, this article uses definite wording, and definite phrasing to explain the view outlined and supported by reliable sources who hold expert credentials on the subject.

[edit] Related archives

[edit] The "facts" just don't add up

For many editors on this article, especially new editors, they've been drawn here because they read something, watched something, or talked to someone about the attacks, and started to do their own research. Some people come away from this research with useful sources, and interesting facts to add to the article — other people come away with (no less interesting) questions about the veracity or truth of the "mainstream account". These questions conflict with the account presented in this article — and thus, the argument is made to include them, since editors believe they are real, and important issues.

Unfortunately, your own research on the subject is usually original research or original synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. While it is useful to have people researching a subject, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to support claims, opinions, or questions laid out on an article. It is a fundamental policy on this project that:

“ Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ”

Many of the questions raised are, indeed, exceptional, and are "surprising [..] reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography." We require the best possible sources for claims, opinions, and questions of this nature. Often, the claim is made that these sources do not exist, even though the questions are valid, because of some degree of suppression or censorship by a number of parties — unfortunately, the validity of this argument is immaterial; the standard on Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth".

[edit] Related archives


[edit] Why does Wikipedia just repeat the 'official story'?

It doesn't. First, there is no "official story" as such - this seems to be the name some people give to the narrative of 9/11 Commission Report, which is subject to criticism. Second, the Wikipedia article is based on a large number of reliable sources, of which the 9/11 Commission is only one. These sources have been vetted by many editors.

[edit] More or combining sections...

  • Piecing together unreliable facts