User:Xiutwel/concatenated Talk:9/11 archives/starting at 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Words can capture reality

...let's set it free!

here begin the archives, included using templates, to facilitate searching in all of them at once.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

ARCHIVE NUMERO 27

POV - suitability of "terrorist"

Why does it say terrorists im sure many people do not see these men as terrorists it should be changed to something neutral as well as any phrases that are not NPOV (LeoniDb 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

What source do you want to add? Tom Harrison Talk 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Label them as hijackers (76.1.33.197 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Use of the word 'terrorist' invalidates the article by turning it into an opinion piece rather than an encyclopaedic article. 'Suicide attacks by Islamic militant hijackers' pretty much captures it all without using this meaningless Newspeak so beloved of public speakers appealing to emotions. The article cannot be made neutral due to a consensus to retain a GWOT POV by US editors. Academic published sources such as [8] cover the contrary opinion but are not ibncluded due to WP:BIAS. 9/11 is the start of US public consciousness of terrorism and is of course viewed by nearly all Americans as a terrorist attack but this POV is not held in other countries. Curtains99 14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Is opendemocracy.net a reliable source? And what do you want to say with it? That lots of Palestinians danced in the streets when 3000 New Yorkers were murdered, and praised bin Laden as a great holy warrior, while claiming that the CIA and the Mossad were really behind it? That Arafat realized how that looked, and then staged a photo opportunity of him giving blood? If so, there might be a better source for that, and a better article to put it in. Tom Harrison Talk 14:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
He wants to say they are hijackers, where you got the rest from the simply statement is its own mystery. You would probably be better served addressing the statement instead of attempting to decipher an editors deeper meaning. --NuclearZer0 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with hijackers, its the least POV statement it seems. --NuclearZer0 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also of the view that the word 'hijackers' is more neutral than 'terrorists'and is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if a lot of people hold the view that what happened is clearly a terrorist attack, if it is possible to use a more neutral term, that term should be used Wikipinki
I realize I'm probably stumbling into a minefield, but I'd like to help with this article and get it off protected status. I think "terrorist" is a very POV word, and I agree with the reasons outlined above. Sparsefarce 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! What kind of an idiot thinks that the event of 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorism? I am stupified by the stupidity of such a thought process. I also see that this is another article that cannot be edited. Is there anyone out there that can get the stupid copnspiracy theory junk out of this article? Please help me get this lunacy out of these articles!--Beguiled 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of our policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, all decisions are policy based, not based on personal opinions. Thanks! Moscatanix 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see, so the anti-US statement made by the fellow above is to be tolerated? Who runs the show around here anyway? Where is the editorial oversight here?--Beguiled 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'same sort of idiot' who claims that abortion clinic bombers aren't terrorists or that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's civil or not, but I for one am disgusted that anyone would attempt to mitigate the magnitude of the terrorist attack of 9/11. ~~Disgusted2:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that abortion clinic bombers and Tim McVeigh are/is terrorists. The fit the definition just as much as the 19 terrorists hijackers do.--Beguiled 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of us together are the editorial oversight. In fact a lot of decisions are based on personal opinion, in the form of editorial judgement and consensus. As far as calling terrorism terrorism, we have been through this a few times now. I see nothing new here. Since it was terrorism, and virtually all reliable sources call it terrorism, we should call it terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But all content matters are subject to policy, which trumps personal opinion. Moscatanix 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to take this too far into philosophy, but by what mechanism does policy do that? Tom Harrison Talk 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I just mean from a philosphical standpoint and from what RS is. This guy I see after looking at his contributions wants to excise sourced material, which isn't done as it's all notable. Sounds like his personal distaste for it is overriding common sense and respect for the principles of the encyclopedia. And in general, people can't do whatever they want, regardless of anything that isn't policy. I can't add a line that the number of collapsed world trade centers has tripled in recent years for example, unless I source it. Conversely you can't remove a sourced piece of information here if it meets RS and fits the article. 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well sure; you can't triple the numbers because you would be reverted, and blocked if you persisted. We all decide by consensus whether or not a fact is notable and reliably sourced, and if it fits on this page or another. You or I or anyone else can remove reliably sourced information whenever we want. If a consensus supports removing it, it will stay removed. If consensus is against me but I keep removing it, I will get blocked. I think maybe in practice we don't disagree, we just express our understanding in different ways. Tom Harrison Talk 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. It's all the same destination, we just see the road differently. Moscatanix 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is an emotionally charged term, but it can also be used objectively and neutrally - that's the difficulty with the word. Nonetheless, the 11 September attacks were undeniably terrorism (attacking highly symbolic and sentimental targets, and murdering non-combattants in the process), therefore the perpetrators were terrorists. However, it would be worth mentioning (where verifiable) that some consider them first as freedom fighters or crusaders or whatever, and as terrorists incidentally. (They don't stop being terrorists, of course, but the viewpoint deserves a mention, no matter how distasteful.) Peter Grey 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How can the word "terrorist" be used objectively and neutrally when there is no agreed definition for the term? To me "terrorism" means violence carried out without moral justification. As such the term can never be used neutrally when people operate by different moral codes. We may as well say that the 9/11 attacks were immoral and unjustified, cowardly and unfair. Published opinion of the 9/11 attacks shows that a majority of residents of some countries did not view the attacks as terrorist but rather as justified retaliation for US intervention in the Middle East. To quote from wp:npov :

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Discussion of terrorism should form a large part of this article as this event was certainly the start of the War on Terror and the event was described as terrorist by many international commentators and world leaders. However, Wikipedia cannot neutrally describe any event as terrorist in its narrative voice. Not Hiroshima, not Dresden and not 9/11. While the article remains in its current state, employing judgemental opinion terms in its lead in, the neutrality of the entire article is in question. Curtains99 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What else would we call the terrorists but terrorists? Outrageous.--Beguiled 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We could call them 'Islamic militant suicide hijackers' which tells us a lot more than just calling them baddies or terrorists. I just had a look at Britannica's entry on 9/11 which describes the events as follows:

series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States. The attacks caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism.

Curtains99 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that quote. As mentioned above 'Islamic militant suicide hijackers' is not only less POV but also more descriptive. Sparsefarce 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is used, the reader will imediatly assosiate with terrorism anyways, so it doesn't matter. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, so in an effort to improve this article by making it more more neutral, and bearing in mind the Britannica description above, how would other editors feel about changing the lead-in section so that it no longers refers to terrorists in the narrative voice but to "militant Islamist/Islamic suicide hijackers"? At the same time the lead-in paragraph should refer to the agreed fact that the event marked the start of the War on Terrorism. Please suggest a wording. Thanks, Curtains99 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to say at the beginning that this was an act of terrorism, or that the men who did it were terrorists. This is true, and is the terminology used by reliable sources. Calling them something else is not neutrality, it is promoting a political view. Tom Harrison Talk 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Curtains99. The reliable sources that call it terrorism (mostly in the US and UK) have a vested interest in labeling it as terrorism. Because it is such a subjective term, I agree with the more specific terms mentioned above. There are many people worldwide who would not consider it terrorism and would conversely consider many US actions terrorism. Either way, neither should be labeled that in an encyclopedia. Those promoting the use of the word terrorist need to move beyond personal opinions, worldviews, and emotions and aim for a truly neutral article. Sparsefarce 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right, but I've been through this with the camped editors here before. They refuse to accept a NPOV, and being just one person I was unable to challenge them on this. I'd also like to add, that it has been suggested some of the editors here work for the US government. Damburger 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What I meant in my comment is, if we change it to "Al Queda militant suicide hijackers" (which I support doing by the way), readers will still identify it as terrorism. Therefore, we are being more NPOV and specific, while still getting the point across. The section "Let the facts speak for themselves" in the article WP:NPOV explains this more clearly. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the definition of NPOV, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one," I think there is an easy solution to this problem. Why do we not just agree to write something like "viewed in the popular US and UK media as terrorists, a view that is disputed by some as being grounded in self-interest" or something to that effect? --Howtoeatrat 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"disputed by some?" Tom Harrison Talk 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on this discussion I have requested unprotection in order to add a POV tag to this article. Curtains99 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
American Heritage Dictionary: Terrorist - "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism." The noun used in the article is not POV in my opinion. A POV problem could arise from describing the motivations for the terrorist's acts. So far I do not see a POV problem with the description of those motivations. Abe Froman 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Abe. Sometimes it's more POV to say "it's all just opinion" than to use a contested term that some people might disagree with. Let's keep in mind that whatever description we use (not just here, but in other cases as well: "intelligent design," "climate change," "social security," etc.) is going to carry some weight. We can debate the usefulness of these descriptions here, on blogs, and in public--and at the same time respect the sanctity of an article and agree to use the consensus, commonly understood, ordinary language definition without requiring any disclaimer. Any insertion of a POV tag in this article seems likely to provoke a lot of anger and attract a lot more attention to this article--making it much more unlikely that it would be unlocked anytime soon. And isn't the reopening of the article what we're all after? --Nbramble 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Abe and Nbramble. Terrorism is a war strategy, and terrorists are those who engage in that strategy. Using the word "terrorist" to describe the hijackers is a semantically correct descriptive noun, not a biased or unobjective term. Would it be more accurate/less controversial if the hijackers were described as "human bombs", or "kamikaze bombers" or something to that effect rather than terrorists? RDB62453 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As an admins who watches RPP and looks through request, I cannot in good conscience respond to the unprotection request. It is my personal opinion that the word "terrorists" is an NPOV description of what happened. Terrorists=ones who cause terror. What do you call crashing planes into towers and the Pentagon? On the flip side, I obviously don't edit this article because of this. I'll go back to staying out of this now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Editors and administrators here certainly have a difficult time explaining the sources of ideas they convey, and unnecessarily so in my opinion. One problem is that application of the terms "POV" and "NPOV" to editorial discussion are entirely idiosyncratic to Wikipedia, sister projects and their heirs. "More POV" is such a subjective notion it has no objective meaning at all when I read it; I read it as a shared concept primarily intended to cement together a community with the notion that they have a unique and more accurate epistomology than any other thinkers in all of history. Another problem is that the project tends to presume social, political and cultural constructs can be presented in the same definite language as one presents scientific constructs. Blue light is almost always in the 475 nm wavelength and no significant population anywhere in the world contests that construct. Carbon always has an atomic mass of 12.0107 Amu and nobody with any credibility in any scientific community contests the construct. Terrorism is only terrorism among those who say it is terrorism. What's the big problem with saying who calls it terrorism and who doesn't? "Attack" is a very precise word. Why try to remind ourselves each time we read about certain attacks that a lot of people use the adjective "terrorist"? Wikipedia attempts to be the dicator of reality when it declares something to be terrorism. It is only terrorism according to well, the vast majority of the Western world, but sorry, you aren't that important. Maybe that's why you try to be language dictators. Elsewhere, your demand that parochial constructs such as terrorism be presented as a fact tantamount to a scientific finding makes you the object of ridicule and damages your credibility as a source of information. That isn't a personal attack -- it is a frank representation of how strident claims that one's cultural constructs are an ultimate truth are seen around the world.
Fortunately, I don't care that you are the object of ridicule, so I have no vested interest in persuading you that there are more astute and profound approaches to describing your world. I merely share my observations of reputable sources. MunPi 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It may just be a semantic construct in the end, but ultimately, terminology is very important, even with, rather, especially with, something like wikipedia. There are many people read these articles like encyclopedic information. They treat them as science, as the atomic mass of Carbon, for example, as accurate and potentially undisputable. The beauty of wikipedia is that we can all dispute them by taking part in the editing process, etc. to create the closest "scientifically accurate" or least amorphous/opinion based interpretation as possible, and semantics--or POV--is crucial to this project. RDB62453 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who’s right regarding the use of the "terrorist" label, we can at least acknowledge that there is some dispute about it, both on this page and in the world at large. In other words, even if we disagree on the issue, we can agree that we disagree on the issue. Doesn’t that make this a question of opinion, according to the NPOV page’s specialized definition of the term ("a piece of information about which there is some dispute")? Maybe we should agree to concisely acknowledge multiple perspectives in the article, even if we have to do so grudgingly because we believe the correct one is clear. This seems to be what the NPOV policy asks. Jonathan Krop 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not clear that this "dispute" really exists out in the real world. Is there a citation of someone notable who claims, not simply that they would prefer to call the hijackers something else, but who asserts in good faith that the actions were definitively not acts of terrorism, at least with respect to the World Trade Center? (The Pentagon might be considered a military target.) Peter Grey 21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It DOES NOT MATTER how many people say it is terrorism. The factthat nobody can agree what the definition of terrorism is (because any definition a nation comes up with tends to fit some of its own past actions) means the word has no place in an encyclopedia. That is accepted elsewhere in wikipedia, but apparantly not here. The reasons are quite clearly political, and quite clearly due to the makeup of the editors. When you say things like 'nobody thinks its not terrorism.' what you really mean is 'none of my middle-class, white, christian american friends think its not terrorism'. I am getting tired of the blatant POV being pushed here. Damburger 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedon-fighter is not sophisticated neutrality, it is a controversial political point of view. I can't see how trying to inject race, class, and religion into the discussion is likey to improve things. Tom Harrison Talk 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Cause class doesnt play a role in most things in the world ... including peoples own PoV. No comment regarding the rest of his comments, I guess that means we are reaching an agreement that "terrorist" is a PoV. --NuclearZer0 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not think we are reaching such an agreement. The consensus seems to be that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. This is not surprising, since that is the consensus in the sources. Tom Harrison Talk 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • how many people say it is terrorism does not matter, but it does matter whether or not this is a real disagreement that should be documented or an asinine philosophical discussion that adds nothing to Wikipedia. Nobody can agree on definitions of freedom, love, ethnicity, liberal, ownership, etc., but we find ways to cope. If it is not true that the actions are universally considered acts of terrorism, then that is highly notable and belongs in the article, providing that a counter-example can be demonstrated. Peter Grey 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it true that we have at least two groups of people: One group believes that using the word "terrorism" to describe the 9/11 attacks is a POV, and the other group believes that NOT using the term expresses a POV. In the end, both sides are right to some degree. First, let me affirm that most sources cited to as authorities on Wikipedia describe the events as "terrorist attacks." (see below). Of course, you can argue that all of these sources express a POV as well, and you would be right to a degree. But you can argue that everything is a POV, particularly when dealing with a description of past events. What we are arguing is not POV vs. NPOV, but to what degree is something POV and when does that mean something should be omitted or reworded? ---- On the other side of the argument, since there is such a strong contingent not wishing these attacks to be described as "terrorist attacks," what is the harm in using a different term? In other words, why not just call it an attack? If someone can propose a paragraph (maybe I'll do this myself if I have time) I think you might realize the omitting the term might not express a political POV as you might expect. Josh.anders 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Forgive the string of citations: Johnson & Van Natta, "TRACES OF TERROR: THE HEARINGS; Congress's Inquiry Into 9/11 Will Look Back as Far as '86" The new York Times June 5, 2002 ; Storch, "Study to probe slow pace of Muslim integration in burbs" Chicago Tribune, April 20, 2006; Miller, "Rice's Comments to Face Scrutiny at Hearing; Commission probing the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been checking to see if her recent public utterances square with other evidence." LA Times, April 8, 2004; Smyth "EU Urges Banks to Protect Clients' Details," The Irish Times Nov. 25, 2006; "Secure profits; The business of homeland security" The Economist March 27, 2004; Turkish premier stresses importance of "alliance of civilizations" in EU bid BBC Monitoring Europe - Political - BBC Worldwide Monitoring September 18, 2005, Sunday; "Tunisia;IFLA/FAIFE Protests Restrictions On Access to Information in Run-Up to World Summit on the Information Society" Africa News July 8, 2005; "Bush Urged to Provide Visa Waiver to Koreans" Korea Times September 25, 2003, Thursday Copyright 2003 Hankook Ilbo.Josh.anders 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Another suggestion might be to use the word or not and clarify the position in a footnote. I think an actual tag might bring more attention to the dispute rather than mitigate the controversy, but perhaps a footnote wouldn't have the same attention-drawing effect. This is similar to what Jonathan Krop suggested. I don't think its likely that an agreement on the complete exclusion or inclusion of the term "terrorist" is going to reached. Josh.anders 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • A footnote is a good compromise. It's clear that there is disagreement on this term, but that can't require its complete exclusion from the verbiage of this article. After all, the after effects of 9/11 created a world in which the words "terror" and "terrorism" are part of everyday parlance (i.e. the war on terror; the terrorism threat level), a phenomenon that, neutral or not, is directly linked to the attacks of 9/11. Calling the 9/11 attacks simply "attacks" fails to establish that connection--the word terror need not be used in any of its forms as the single descriptive noun in the article, but it does have a place therein. RDB62453 14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a fact no absolute neutral description without preconceived opinions exists in the world of wording, especially for such a event involved so many political and religion controversies. So it is a good approach to add a footnote by just taking "terrorism" as a general description rather than a judgment of the nature of what happened. Otherwise there is no way to get out from endless disputes of POV or NPOV and get the article unprotected for further improvement. Cyber07yl 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I support the use of footnotes. Here's my suggestion: why don't we use the word hijackers in the body of the text and indicate by way of a footnote that many International sources describe the acts as "terrorist" attacks? wikipinki


Peter, I do think there are indications of such a controversy. See, for instance, the BBC World Service's decision to refrain from referring to 9/11 as a terrorist act, along with its stated reasons for this choice. And of course, there are people who rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks and would decry the classification of its perpetrators as terrorists. Other examples are a Google search away for anyone who wants to look. Whether or not you or I agree with these perspectives, the fact is that they're out there. We can acknowledge both sides of the "terrorist" labeling dispute without slanting the article towards either. The NPOV policy counsels that we should directly assert, as a fact, only "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." I just don't think that's what we have before us here. Jonathan Krop 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Jonathan that there is a genuine dispute and that if it's possible to use a more neutral description, we should use that instead wikipinki
  • Hypothesizing that there must be someone that disagrees is original research. The people who rejoiced at the attacks obviously understood them to be terrorist acts - they rejoiced because of who the target was. Certainly, there are some people who might wish (as an expression of their particular point of view) to downplay the terrorism element of the attacks; is there anyone who genuinely believes that they were not terrorism? Peter Grey 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter: some of the people who rejoiced at the attacks undoubtedly took the position you ascribe to them (i.e. it was terrorism, and they were happy about it). I'm not sure how productive it would be to dive into other possible conceptions of the attacks by such people, the issue of whether terrorists self-identify as such, etc. Can we reach consensus on the idea that, if it were (hypothetically) demonstrated that there is a non-negligible number of people in the world who don't think of 9/11 as an act of terrorism, we would have a genuine dispute worth addressing? Jonathan Krop 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If, hypothetically, a country had custody of a collaborator of the hijackers and refused, in good faith, to extradite him on the basis that no act of terrorism had occurred, I think we would easily have consensus that that point of view would be noteworthy. Peter Grey 06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of the dispute involving Japanese history textbooks--putatively portraying the WWII as being glorious (I digress). The word "terrorist" does have historical connotations that "hijacker" does not. The meaning of "terrorist" has evolved and is likely to evolve while that of "hijacker" has not and is unlikely to do so. Why don't we adopt here what paleontologists do? They use Latin for naming things because the language is dead. To be objective, one needs to use words whose meanings are not easily susceptible to change. Xye2938 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


It's worth asking rhetorically, what exactly is gained of any significance to the article, by describing the instigators as "19 terrorists" rather than "19 hijackers" or "19 activists" or similar. Someone will say, "It describes the act more accurately". But it doesn't - the act is thoroughly described in the article and none of this needs the word "terrorist" to make clear. The hijacking, suicide collisions, death, destruction and motives, none of this need the word "terrorist" to make clear their nature. I cannot think of another good reason to put a disputed word into an article, when it is not needed and alternative wordings exist, and when the article itself provides all the information needed for a reader to label the act and its instigators as they will. That is NPOV.

So what is the benefit of adding the term "terrorist"? To say that clinically, some people call these individuals terrorists? But that's been proposed and is disputed as inadequate. To emphasize that they definitely, conclusively, were terrorists? But that's just how one side in the war characterizes their lethal efforts. And of course, the facts (if the label were removed) speak for themselves to the reader anyhow.

I'm looking for what it is that calling them in Wikipedia's voice, "19 terrorists", as opposed to "19 something else" (with the rest of the article listing the facts for the reader to decide) would add to the article. I can see no real benefit, nothing the article would convey that it doesn't convey already. To me it seems the main motive is a desire to see these people labelled emphatically as terrorists. And that desire would be a breach of both WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On the question of whether "terrorist" represents a POV, can we cite outside sources? A number of prominent authors (for example, Alain Badiou) have argued that using the word is a matter of your POV? Anysignificant (as per Wikipedia's standards) disagreement on this question should lead us to consider the word POV. To act otherwise is to embrace a (second-order) POV of a certain group of persistent editors. Superabo 08:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See Reuters' statement on why it avoids use of the word terrorist

[9] 194.125.21.99 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reuters seemingly indicates that it is "emotionally charged" not a POV. You might think this is enough to qualify, but I'm not sure. Surely, if such controversy surrounds this term, there is more direct authoritative source. Josh.anders 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this quote from the head of the terrorism reasearch unit at the RAND corporation explains the problem with this word (taken from the terrorism article)

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. `What is called terrorism', Brian Jenkins has written, `thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.

Curtains99 14:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

Not that I'm unpatriotic, because I am patriotic and I do think the events were terrible, but doesn't the word "terrorist" imply some sort of point of view? I mean, some people do think that the people who did these attacks were heroes. I think it would be more appropriate to replace the word "terrorist" with the word "hijacker". Ian Lee 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It does sound POVish but Wikipedia refers to 9/11 as a terrorist attack in numerous other articles, notably in the Terrorist article itself, so it seems to be in good company. Most definitions of terrorist would easily include an attack thats "calling people to" a religion and encouraging them to stop their spread of "lies" and "debauchery". For more information google Osama bin Laden's letter to the american people. Whoblitzell
This is being discussed above at Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#POV Curtains99 03:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The word terrorists is too broad in this context. It must be changed to Islamic terrorists to be specific & accurate.--Patchouli 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The '9/11 Report' refers to the 19 hijackers as hijackers. Yes, they were also terrorists, but hijacker is the more specific term. All the hijackers were terrorists, not all the terrorists were hijackers. Hijacker is the more precise term, and therefore the correct term. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all hijackers are terrorists - D. B. Cooper. Terrorists is the correct and precise description. Calling them anything else makes the article less factual, and advances the (inaccurate) political view that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter'. Tom Harrison Talk 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this debate (nor the one "POV-terrorist" above). Did no one read the article and Wikipedia's definition of Terrorism?

  • Terrorism definition: "Terrorism is a term used to describe certain violent or otherwise harmful acts or threats of such acts. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), deliberately target "non-combatants", and are not conducted by a "legitimate" government". The attacks were violent and intended to create terror for a political goal and targeted non-combatants. Thus the attacks were terrorism by Wikipedia's own definition. Since definitions are the groundworks for any non-subjective communication anyone disagreeing should probably start to change that definition.
  • The source cited for the "Terrorism" classification of the 11th September attack is the unanimous UN security council resolution of 12th Sep. 2001 which "Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 ....". The only thing more saying "We, the Peoples, condem this as an act of terrorism" would be a UN general assembly resolution. Anyone who want to get rid of the name "terrorist" for the hijackers should therfore IMHO present either an UN Sec. Council or an UN General Assembly resolution which says so.

MBP 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is BTW also a UN general assembly resolution (A/RES/56/1, see bottom of http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r56.htm) which says the same. MBP 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Islam extremeist terrorists", so we don't imply that all Muslims are terrorists. Zbl 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: terrorist is not a 'precise description'. It is a notoriously difficult term to define. Over 100 definitions are provided in this book and another 100 in this book alone. Many terrorism experts have written about the subjective nature of the term (as I have referenced above). Everyone has their own definition, including or excluding certain characteristics. One key subjective element is that of 'legitimate violence'. Morally legitimate? Legally legitimate? Legitimate by the laws of Natural Justice? Who knows?
MBP: Unanimous UN resolutions do not constitute NPOV. If the UN announces something this neither makes it true or a neutral point of view. The UN has great difficulty deciding what terrorism is and admits this on its own site and further admits that its members have a variety of differing definitions of terrorism. Four years after 9/11 when the UN resolution called the attacks 'terrorist', the UN secretary general was still seeking a definition of terrorism as reported by the BBC. How does that make sense?
Wikipedia's defintion of terrorism as quoted by MBP above is just one of many in this encyclopedia. In any case wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (wp:rs).
I'm going to try to empathize a little with those who believe that terrorism is a precise description and a neutral non-pejorative term that should be used in Wikipedia's narrative without fear of editorializing the content.
    • I guess that many people really believe that terrorism is a scientific definable term because it has elements that are non-subjective such as that the act should include violence by irregular forces aimed at civilians for political purposes.
    • I think that for Americans, 9/11 is the event they associate most with terrorism and an event that was described by all their friends and national media outlets as such.
    • I guess that many editors here were personally affected by the attacks; either they lost loved ones or they were emotionally affected by the coverage. They thus find it hard to think in a neutral way about what happened.
Curtains99 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Terrorism" has some fuzziness in its definition - so do most words. That's not the same as having no meaning or a purely subjective meaning. And the 11 September attacks are not a borderline case - there are no examples of people who claim the attacks were not terrorism, just philosophical objections to the word. Peter Grey 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A majority of residents of Jordan and Palestine believe that the attacks did not constitute terrorism. So do at least 25% of Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese.[10]. Many articles appeared in mainstream Arab newspapers supporting this POV. National TV channels also carried coverage reflecting this opinion.[11]. Published reliable sources including the opinion that the WTC did not constitute terrorism include:
    • Al-Hayat (London edition), 17 september 2001

      The meaning of terror according to the American [dictionary] is known. [The term] refers to any resistance to the new colonialism. In contrast, the collective and racist annihilation of peoples constitutes (according to the American dictionary) a civilized action that should not be resisted."

    • Afaq Arabiye (Egyptian newspaper), 19 September 2001

      In the eyes of Muslims, the US is a force of oppression, thus the Muslims see what happened as divine retribution, carried out under the supervision of Allah by unknown soldiers.

    • Many more references to published Arab opinion that the attacks did not constitute terrorism are available here.
    • A better approach to this article would be to describe the event factually including all the elements that would lead some readers to decide that the event was terrorist. Then the article could include the fact that the UN and various other reliable sources described the events as terrorist and that the event led to the foundation of the GWOT. This is more convincing for the intelligent reader than just baldly stating the point of view that the attacks were terrorist or evil or bad as a fact. Curtains99 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Curtains99 has made a very sound suggestion. I could not have said it better. We should strive to be as factually accurate as possible and if these facts would lead some readers to arrive at the conclusion that these acts were that of terrorits, then so be it. The reference to the description by UN etc could be stated in a footnote. Wikipinki
  • And the survey question contains a false choice fallacy. This idea that "terrorism" is merely an expression of disapproval and not a characterization of tactics (i.e. disconnected from the whole concept of 'terror') is exactly why omitting the word introduces a non-neutral point of view. Peter Grey 14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC) That's not to say the opinions aren't important or aren't valid - that result is certainly noteworthy and, in the absence of more scientific polling, should be mentioned in this article or possibly a sub-article. But it's not a statement that no act of terrorism occurred. Peter Grey 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Terrorist, despite its negative connotations, has a factual definition. It means one who participates in acts targeting civilians with the aim of causing other civilians to feel afraid and thus comply with their demands"
    • I feel that the most specific, least POV, term we could use is "Islam extremeist terroist" It does not imply that all Muslims are terrorists, but it explains that these terrorists were Muslim and had Muslim goals. Zbl 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If the Jordanians, Palestinians, and whoever else think we had it coming because of colonialism, and that it was not terrorism but part of some noble struggle, I could support including a section saying so with appropriate citations. Tom Harrison Talk 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well then we are making some progress. That's great. Peter, "terrorism" is both a characterization of tactics and a term of disapproval; in the same way that "whore" and "infidel" describe "prostitute" and "atheist" but throw in some disapproval. To some extent this article as it stands is neutral from an American point of view, but Wikipedia articles are meant to be free from geographical and political bias (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias). There are five times as many Muslims as Americans on earth and another 4 billion people from neither camp. I'm in the last group and from my point of view the article looks biased. The article shouldn't say that the attacks weren't terrorism - that would be a POV; but it should list all the characteristics of the attacks that are often associated with terrorism: hijacking, suicide bombing, militant islamism, non-governmental militia, targeting of civilians, political motives, desire to instil fear, and then leave the reader to make up his own mind whether it was a good or a bad thing, whether 9/11 was obscene terrorism or a justified action. Do you not think the facts speak for themselves? Curtains99 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WP is supposed to only report what reliable sources report. We are using sources written about 9/11 to describe what happened that day and immediately after. This should not be from a personal standpoint but from what the reliable sources say. --PTR 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • WP can only report as fact information that is not in dispute. Otherwise it should list each opinion with attributions. I have previously linked to a large number of Arabic newspaper articles that do not consider the attacks terrorist. Have a look at this IHT article detailing Muslim attitudes to suicide attacks in defense of Islam. The source survey for this article is here . Curtains99 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • This article is not discussing suicide attacks in general but the specifics of one event. The article you reference didn't specify the 9/11 attacks in their survey. In addition, it only shows Jordan (45%) and Egypt (43%) answering NEVER in the minority to the question of when it's appropriate to use suicide attacks. All others in the list answered NEVER in the majority. This, again, is all beside the point. The reliable sources, not our opinion, is what this article is based on. You mention above that from your point of view the article is biased but does it correctly report the reliable sources available to english speakers who would be using this resource? --PTR 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "terrorism" is... a term of disapproval Find a dictionary that says that and we'll be all set. Peter Grey 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Peter, If you agree that 'a term of diapproval' is a synonym for 'pejorative' then see the Oxford Concise dictionary of Politics:

        Terrorism: Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of Vichy France then the term 'terrorism' is avoided and something more friendly is substituted.

        Other dictionary definitions run along the lines of 'terrorism=violent action intended to terrorize' which is broad enough to include war, shock and awe etc..
        • Cute. Resolving a alleged NPOV problem with a dictionary of Politics. Peter Grey 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • PTR, the article does not correctly report reliable sources which should be done by attribution, what it does instead is to select some of the views expressed in the sources and express them as fact in the narrative of the article. Foreign language sources are as valid as English language sources in the English version of Wikipedia (see wp:v#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English). I am going to bow out of this discussion now and return to the nasty business of work. Thanks for your insights and particularly to Peter for his false choice fallacy which I had not come across before. I am leaving you with the majority view of editors on this page that terrorism: is not a pejorative term, has a precise definition and is universally applied to the 9/11 attacks. Curtains99 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism CAN be pejorative (like the word fascism), and does NOT have a precise definition. What governments agree on, organisations (like the UN) decide on and newspapers print has nothing to do with this. Obviously governments have to be careful with their definitions, otherwise they may well find themselves branded with the very term they seek to define. The broad sense of the term is what matters here. The act was clearly carried out by terrorists, whether they consider themselves freedom fighters or not. It would be refreshing to have people say "Yes I'm a terrorist, but this is what I need to do", but sadly because of the nature of the world people are forced to spin everything.

This is a nonsense argument. What is a good argument is whether the term should be used in the headline, and I for one think it should not. Whilst I accept it is clearly an act of terrorism, I do not believe that such an emotive term should be used in the headline, and most definitely not the disconnected term Islamic. --Angryjames 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If this attack started the "War on Terrorism", how can it not be called terrorism? Zbl 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to perpetuate this discussion, but the question nicely illustrates the opposing positions - the "War on Terror" shamelessly exploits the sensationalism of the word 'terror' while having relatively little to do with actual terrorism. This is an obvious politically-motivated distortion. So the debate can be rephrased: does the existence of this kind of spin prevent Wikipedia from using the term with its proper meaning? Peter Grey 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should NOT be prevented from using such a term, but rather it should seek to avoid exacerbating such exploitation. By careful placement of such words you can neutralise the ill effects, in direct opposition to the approach taken by journalists. This sets the neutral tone of the article. By all means state the facts, but do NOT compress those facts into emotive sound bites, no matter how semantically and factually true they may be. --Angryjames 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant also to add in direct response to Zbl; by all means call it what it is, in this case terrorism. But when you headline that term, or use it in sound bite you encourage and emphasise shallow thinking. When people are presented with over simplified concepts they tend to ignore all else. What is important here is that a group of men flew planes into two civilian occupied buildings. That leads to the question WHY? Which is the most important issue here. Many people who see the word terrorism believe that answers the question WHY, as if terrorism was a motive unto itself. The same is true for "War on Terror", as opposed to a "US coalition force invaded Afghanistan". Do you see my point? One technique begs for further analysis, the other appears to define the whole. --Angryjames 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"That leads to the question WHY? Which is the most important issue here." It may lead the reader in that direction. I do not agree that the root causes of terrorism, or 'why do they hate us' is the most important issue rising from the facts of the attack, either for this article, or as a matter of public policy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you jump from "Why?" to "Hate"? I didn't imply a connection. "Hate" has nothing to do with it. Did the Americans hate the Japanese? Is that why the Americans dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think not. Nor did Britain hate the Germans when they bombed Dresden. They were clearly acts of terror, but they weren't acts of hate. The hijackers may well have been manipulated because of their hate, but it's unlikely. So my question is now; if "why?" is not the most important issue in such an event, then what is? As for public policy, how can one solve a problem without understanding why the problem occurs? I'm not implying that if you find out your foreign policy is unpopular or a root cause that you should necessarily change position. Difficult decisions must be made. But to avoid analysing such data is to me abhorrent. I realise it's not the job of Wikipedia to emphasise such things, but perhaps it should be considered ethical to avoid a partisan position. --Angryjames 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding you. Whatever the most important question, I would not organize the article as answers to questions, but as a series of summaries with links to other places to go for more information. We have a sub-section on 'motive', and an article on Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, which is unlocked. That might be a good place to summarize the various notable analyses of the terrorists' motivation. And of course, I don't think you are avoiding a partisan position, but promoting one. Although now that I think of it, maybe it would be useful to describe again exactly what change to the article you are proposing. Tom Harrison Talk 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the article should be nothing more than a statement of facts. I'm just concerned that using certain language, whilst it may be factual, in the lead paragraphs and/or title can appear partisan, and will offend certain areas of the global community. Specifically I object to Islamic and Terrorist, and would proffer the neutral term Hijacker in those positions. I'm not suggesting you cover up the truth here, but merely move such facts into say the motives section where they are less likely to be objectionable. Yes, they are Islamic, but it is unlikely that their religion per se has anything to do with this. To highlight that fact is pointing the finger at the religion and most importantly the many peaceful people who follow its tenets. I should point out that I'm a white British Anglo-Saxon atheist, with absolutely no connection to Islam or Muslims. For the sake of a word, I urge you please to consider my suggestion. Regards. --Angryjames 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it bias to use a world recognized, or mostly world recognized term for an event that started a war with that same term in its title. Also, how nonbiased is a politcal dictionary. Anything political is biased. Zbl 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case yes, in perhaps another no. You are suggesting a World Encyclopedia should make use of a political slogan as its basis for including such a word. --Angryjames 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A History book (neutral source) used 9/11 as an example when defining the term terrorism. THe same histroy book (rememeber the book is neutral) used the word terorrist and terrorism to refer to Al-Queda and Bin Laden. In that case, the wording may need to be changed if the word terrorist falls out of public usage, but otherwise it is fine. The term "War on Terror is not a Political solgan, it is as much a factual name as the "War of 1812" Zbl 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Hundred Years War" is the factual name of, not a single war, but a sequence of wars over a period lasting, not 100 years, but 116 years. The "War on Terror" isn't even an actual war, and appears to only incidentally involve terrorism (not counting terrorism that it has itself generated). (Although it has started at least one genuine war so far.) Peter Grey 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Peter, and I'd like to add in response to Zbl: How do you know the book is neutral? You're telling me it is and then using that as a fact to prove something. You're not proving much mind, no one but a fool would doubt these people were terrorists. I don't understand how such a term would fall out of public usage either. It's a perfectly good word and, political spin aside, pretty well understood. As for War on Terror, it sounds like something the McDonald's or Coke PR people would dream up. It's an advert. If you think the advert represents the truth read no further. If you accept the need/desire to go to war and using such advertising is valid so be it, but let's not try to teach a grandmother to suck eggs, please. --Angryjames 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of compromise

  • I would like to suggest that perhaps this discussion is not going anywhere, and perhaps there are some possibilities for compromise that, at the least, could be raised for discussion. If the problem for some people is simply labelling something as "terrorism", that could be altered provided some very strong statement as to perception as terrorism is made. This would, undoubtedly, actually further emphasize the terrorist character of the attacks, but would satisfy the semantic concerns that have been raised. Peter Grey 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Listening to the tone of the debate here, I do not believe such a strong (read convincing) argument could be put forward. I might as well go back in time and try to convince people that having two wash basins, one for Negroes and one for Whites is a bad idea. Why am I even saying "go back in time"?!? Terrorism is one thing, but the fact that no one here seems to give a hoot that the term Islamic is used in the first paragraph is beyond me. This argument seems subtle, it seems not to matter, irrelevant... "it's just a word". It's a marker, a line drawn in the sand by people who think their opinion is irrefutable and accepted. The same people who might lock a supposedly global encyclopaedic web page to prevent anything but the stench of their own opinion from seeping out. It's a butterfly flapping its fragile wings, another ripple capable of destroying two gigantic towers, and perhaps much more. --Angryjames 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Terrorist

Is the noun, "terrorist," defined as "one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism [12]," appropriately used in the September 11th attacks article? Abe Froman 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree

  1. Abe Froman 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. stevencool104 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR. We don't invent reality, we report it. NPOV does not mean misrepresenting sources in order to make the subject of an article happy. Weregerbil 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. --MONGO 08:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Not calling terrorism what plainly was, is not neutrality, but promoting one point of view, and giving it undue weight. Tom Harrison Talk 12:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Certainly an act of terrorism caused by terrorists. --Dual Freq 12:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree. Encyclopedia Brittanica also states (in their history of terrorism article):
    The deadliest terrorist strikes to date were the September 11 attacks (2001), in which suicide terrorists associated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the third into the Pentagon building... --PTR 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. A spade is a spade... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 constitutes terrorism. The term has been used by Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and major news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, India, South Korea, and the list could go on. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. yep --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. It is. See here. Wikipedia is not supposed to make reality subjective.--Sefringle 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. They crashed planes into buildings and killed many people! "Hijacker" is usually a reference to a plane being taken over because of some specific person and being help for ransom/kidnapped/ect. And the only people who dispute this is those who call them "freedom fighters". The IRA probably was called something similar by supporters, but we in the real world™ called them terrorists. What was their goal? Kill many people, nothing else (ref=Osama bin Laden et all). Bin Laden is a terrorist (defined by the CIA), and admitted to doing 9/11 sometime. Therefore, by extension, anyone who is allied with bin Laden and carries out his goals is a terrorist. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Agree, due to Wikipedia's own definition as well as cited source of classification, see talk above. MBP 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Agree Though a thorough understanding comes not from that nearly self-referential definition, but from the one it does refer to.

    Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (emphasis added)

  14. Zbl 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I feel that making the wording "Islam extremeist terrorist" would also work.
  15. Agree Based on MunPi's argument above that use of such a term must be based on the clear consensus of credible sources on the subject, with evidence to this requirement being met by MBP's note that the United Nations security council unanimously and unequivocally condemned ""in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001." Mael-Num 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. I agree that the terrorists were, are, will continue to be terrorists. We aren't going to be sugar-coating the facts so some radicals won't feel insulted.--Beguiled 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Curtains99 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. As much as a acting gribbleflitty is the act of acting like a gribbltflit. Defining words with themselves is something you are told not to do in 4th grade. Because the word still has no definition in the end. --NuclearZer0 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Definite disagree - The NPOV issue here is that "terrorist" is a word used only by those on the outside, to describe those on the inside. It is not a word that both sides agree on. In other articles on groups classed as terrorist by some other people, the term is only used in "X describes them as Y" format. The voice of Wikipedia itself, shouldn't. There is a significant and notable minority view that rejects the classification as terrorist. So we note that "X says Y", but we don't use the term in our own voice as a definitive label for them. Thats standard NPOV approach. To do otherwise would be using Wikipedia to make a point. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Disagree: Terrorist is clearly a pejorative word and every nation that defines it, excludes its own actions from the definition. People reading a factual description of this days events will not need to be editorialised to in order to understand it was a bad thing. Damburger 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Big Disagree and just seeing the conversation grow on this talk page, I'm even more inclinded to disagree with it's usage. Thanks for bringing up how the BBC world news (referenced above) doesn't use the word "terrorist." Sparsefarce 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Disagree. That the hijackers were "terrrorists" is disputed by a clearly significant portion of the world's population, and therefore constitutes opinion, not fact, as per NPOV policy. Superabo 18:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Disagree. The word terrorist IS entirely appropriate as a description for those who carried out these attacks, but it should NOT be used in the headline. The actions speak for themselves and if you want to use such a term please do so further down the page. --Angryjames 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Disagree Per user:FT2 and WP:WTA The policy clearly contradicts what those who agree say:

Terrorist, terrorism There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below. 1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.) 2. It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Wikipedia has handled terrorism can be found at: Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..." Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Ireland, the US] and many other countries..." Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians." Encyclopedic: X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list. X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies]. Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...] Not encyclopedic: X is a terrorist group. Y, leader of the X terrorists, ... After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

Key points have been italicized.--Acebrock 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No vote

  1. Peter Grey 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) I would consider this a question of fact, not opinion of editors. If there is a verifiable disagreement out in the real world as to the substance of the question as opposed to word games (and not otherwise), then WP:NPOV would require that both perspectives be accomodated.
    If, as some editors believe, "terrorism" is appropriate as a label of people's opinions, rather than actions, then perhaps the article could simply say the attacks are universally regarded as terrorism (which would actually make a stronger statement). Peter Grey 03:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. bibliomaniac15 06:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC). But I'd like to ask the opposing side, what word would you use to substitute for terrorist?
    The use of the word in the article now is just gratuitous (it modifies "suicide attacks." One could also use "hijackers." Superabo 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. It is a matter of reporting what other sources use. A large amount of WP:RS use the term. The definition of terrorism in almost all cases fits the acts of Sept. 11th. It probably shouldn't be bandied about liberally but it should definitely be used. Intentional targeting of civilians by non-state entities usually qualifies with everything from McVeigh to Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter what our opinion is. "Terrorist" (or some version thereof) is what is usually used to describe the attacks. If significant WP:V disagreement can be found than include both views in an WP:NPOV discussion. It is that simple. --Rtrev 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Unfortunately, I'll have to classify this event as State-sponsored terrorism, thus successfully disabling myself from this vote:(. Lovelight 13:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. While I'm not intrisicly opposed to the description of this as terrorism, I do feel the other proposals are better Nil Einne 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Islamic terrorist

Agree

  1. Islamic terrorist is specific & captures reality.--Patchouli 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Definitely captures a reality. Can be used objectively especially if linked to articles that discuss it in greater depth. Although, I do agree that sources should be used when available to employ the word. --Rtrev 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sefringle 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. The word terrorist cannot be used objectively and should only be employed in sentences like "X described Y as a terrorist". Curtains99 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Diagree that iy should be used at all, but if at all will have to follow the rules on WP:WTA, and cite who said everytime per Curtains. --NuclearZer0 14:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Disagee strongly: Not onlt is this using the POV term 'terrorist' but it is also is slandering the Islamic faith. Its clearly a political slur/ Damburger 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strongly Disagree. (please see my comments above regarding the use of the term terrorist. Furthermore using the term Islamic in this way is entirely inappropriate (see my comments in a section below). They may well have been Islamic, they may well have been a lot of things, but using such a term in the heading is extremely offensive. You may of course later point out that person X was a Saudi or that they were Islamic if you must. But not in the headline. --Angryjames 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strongly Disagree: Do we call Timothy McVeigh a "Christian terrorist"? Senseless and biased. My heart would support "religious terrorists" even as I intellectually recognize this as biased asshole athieism, and I would more decisively support "political terrorists", or "(geographical location) terrorists", This wasn't really about religion, all religions are equally flawed, all are equally capable of motivating or supporting acts of horror. Anybody who argues otherwise is deluding themselves. No sense in singling one religion out. --Action Jackson IV 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Islamic refers to Islam, Islamist is a proponent of re-establishing a theocratic caliphate. Terrrorism is a tactic - it is better suited as a description of actions rather than people. Peter Grey 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Disagree I happen to think that "terrorist" is the correct term, but I do not think we need the religion added in. --Wildnox(talk) 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Technically that is the current name of the article, but it shouldn't be.--Sefringle 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Calls for independent investigations

A while back we had suggestions about enlisting notable individuals who are well aware of 911 inconsistencies. Apart from famous-Bravo Charlie! interview, in which Sheen send his regards to our fine conspiratorial editors here, pointing clearly what is a civilized perspective on commissioned edits: "It's like they want to pigeonhole all of us into conspiracy nutbags when we're not debating things that are related to UFO's bringing down the towers or Building 7 or the Pentagon and so its feels like there's things in there that we’re not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," or in other words: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets: that feels like a conspiracy theory." We should certainly mention David Lynch who recently also said it decently (& non-conspiratorially) well, while describing 911 as: "event which has many questions, and no answers." Or how about pointing to well placed statements of Barbara Streisand, she had to endure quite a lot of vicious attacks from official conspiracy nuts you know? Same goes for James Brolin who once again pointed that we all know it. Then there's Sean Penn who's recent speech does strike at the heart of the matter. Anyway to avoid further "linkspam", Acebrock already did some excellent work on these and other missing topics, and my only concern with such well intended edit is whether these calls should be addressed in section about conspiracy theories… To clarify, if we backpedal a little, we may recall that in the root of truth movement and probably every other truth related site is (nothing else but a) call for new and independent investigation (so we would finally seize to conspire so ludicrously), yet this call is nowhere to be mentioned? Perhaps we could find a valid and unbiased formulation which will address these notable concerns from notable individuals without making conspiracy circus out of it? Preferably in a new section which would also reflect current public opinions… if you would kindly share your perspectives… Lovelight 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • My suggestion: no additional conspiracy drama is needed on this page. It's as simple as that. Weregerbil 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is trying to confuse two issues: there were legitimate calls for investigations in the face of Little George's inability to provide explanations and accountability. This is a valid part of the story, and perhaps the existing articles could be expanded. Because there has been no accountability, these calls rightfully continue. There is a completely different phenomenon of conspiracy theorists who reject (mostly maliciously) actual truth and propose pursuing a new "truth" suited to their superstitions. Also, "notable individuals" in this context can only mean qualified experts, not simply any notable person, and those making ludicrous speculation have so far not been influenced by reality. Peter Grey 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is about a number of unanswered, not investigated questions (foreknowledge being among easy ones). Who would be "qualified experts" on this issue of unanswered questions? Mainstream media which most of them support goverment on its issues? Those voices mentioned by Lovelight are definitely notable. To the Lovelight's list I would add Gore Vidal, Peter Dale Scott, Robert M. Bowman (who got 44% votes in Florida[13] and new 9/11 investigation is one of his main issues).... more to come. SalvNaut 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A celebrities opinion doesn't carry any more weight then any of us when it comes to conspiracy theories. If Sean Penn's opinion can be added, then I want my opinion added also. If he has something to say about acting or movies that might be a different thing. Rx StrangeLove 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between unanswered questions, and speculation as to the reasons for unanswered questions. Question X remains unanswered raises a valid issue; Question X remains unanswered because any investigation would reveal ridiculously implausible crimes is conspiracy theory nonsense, and hurts good-faith investigation. Peter Grey 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that problem here is whether to include Sean Penn's particular opinion or not but whether a paragraph about unanswered questions, unresting voices from general public and celebrities, has its rudiments. I think that it has, or at least the paragraph about 9/11 conspiracy theories should be enlarged. Now, here, you won't find information about those difficult questions raised, other than short CT paragraph. This is very POV. SalvNaut 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and recognizing that difference would be a step towards valid and unbiased formulation… Emphasis should certainly rest on notable demand for answers. I'm sorry if I've pointed that too vaguely. Lovelight 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There already exists a page for 911 conspiracy theories. No need to litter this page with repeats from that parent. Abe Froman 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You have it backwards, this is the parent article, hence it should mention breifly however items that are in 9/11 conspiract theories. --NuclearZer0 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Other than a single link to the 911 conspiracy theories saying there are conspiracy theories, I don't see any need whatsoever to add the theories themselves to the parent article. Separation between fact and likely fiction should be maintained. Abe Froman 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Its kinda the norm when it comes to parent articles, the sub articles get minor mentions in it to point people toward the articles that spawned from the parent, see: Iraq War, Operation Gladio, etc. --NuclearZer0 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Now who is backwards :-) Abe Froman 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've asked politely, let's try and avoid any such circus. This discussion has nothing to do with term conspiracy. I'd suggest you drop such link (or spin, if you prefer such terminology). We are talking about demand for independent investigation. Apart from vox populi, we have voices of celebrity and I honestly see no importance whether these are scientists, researchers, politicians, free artists… Perks have no importance here… Once again, valid questions about unanswered questions and calls for independent investigation don’t belong to the realm of conspiracy. Lovelight 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly why the talk pages have repeatedly asked people to distinguish between unanswered questions and questions certain people don't like the answers to. It shouldn't be hard - the conspiracy theories are not exactly subtle with their suspension of disbelief. Peter Grey 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering the demand for indy investigation has lead to the creation of the 9/11 commission its surely ntoable enough to make its own section into the article. Not only did it spawn that but it also spawned an investigation by the New York State Attorney Generals Office, which is another, but on a smaller scale. So I agree, the indy investigation isnt about conspiracy theories, just about a non governmental investigation and its quite notable to have its own section, good job Lovelight. --NuclearZer0 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The 911 commission is linked in the 911 attacks article, already. Abe Froman 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As well it should, as part of a larger section is what people are stating, its also highly notable as I believe there is a study citing over 40% of people wanted a new investigation. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Then feel free to add what people are stating to the 911 conspiracy theories article, which exists for speculation surrounding the September 11th attacks. Abe Froman 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I will start writing the section, thank you for your input however. It just seems like we are not understanding one another. Lovelight, I will try to get somethnig to you this weekend to look over and let me know what you think before I add it. --NuclearZer0 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Lovelight 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Great. You might find these polls useful.[14][15] SalvNaut 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And make sure any additions have consensus! Rx StrangeLove 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So Charlie Sheen thinks that there was some conspiracy? and Sean Peen too? NO surprises here. Are they like some kind of experts or something? Like their opinions are what should be in an encyclopedia? I think I am important enough to alos have my opinion in the article, but I don't think many people here would allow my opinion to be in the article.--Beguiled 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned only two among so many. Isn't your opinion already there? SalvNaut 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, two, but none of the rest (not that Charlie Sheen or the likes are experts). None of thir opinions are worth anymore than that from two dead flies, so it makes no difference. Opiinions are everywhere, but don't have squat to do with an encyclopedia.--Beguiled 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism

Please add following reference, as pointed: "Immediately after the September 11 attacks U.S. officials [16] speculated on…". Lovelight 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A blog with a POV slant in its title does not conform to WP:RS or WP:NPOV. The presentation of primary sources in the form of notes is also problematic. WP:RS generally disallows blogs as reliable sources. Is there a media outlet meeting WP:RS that has reported the notes presented in the blog citation? Abe Froman 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The origin of report is confirmed by Pentagon. Here is a qoute from Guardian: "The Pentagon confirmed the notes had been taken by Stephen Cambone, now undersecretary of defence for intelligence and then a senior policy official. "His notes were fulfilling his role as a plans guy," said a spokesman, Greg Hicks." Lovelight 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that might go better in U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, those statements are directly linked to so-called "war on terrorism" with regards to 911 events. There is no more appropriate location than this one. Lovelight 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Not War on Terrorism? Tom Harrison Talk 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've took only brief look at that article, it seems heavily disputed and in somewhat poor condition. The point is, we've got this excellent citation, it's just a reference and I see no reasons for dispute. I've noticed that this was already noted in article about US invasion of Iraq; however, all of this has little to do with 911 link to Iraq, while notes speak of this link before they speak about anything else. As Guardian pointed: "But these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck." Lovelight 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it sounds to me by your own description that it is about the U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and should go in that article (linked in the right-hand template, by the way). Tom Harrison Talk 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it sounds like it's a citation of the fact that US officials decided to invade Iraq immediately after attacks. As described right here. I'm not sure why you have impression that we are talking about writing a section in another article, because we are talking about simple reference for this one. Lovelight 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more appropriate in the article that is about the same topic as the reference. There is no reason to expand an already long page to add material that should go on a sub-page that could benefit from it. This page should summarize the detailed material presented in the sub-articles, from Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, to Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks, to September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services. Now I'm close to repeating myself, so I'll stop and wait to hear what others think. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The link provided by Lovelight is not suitable for this article...haven't we repeatedly stated that this article is primarily about the events on 9/11/2001 and not the Iraq war and related subsequent events? Anyway, if that source does have a place, it is best in the U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Will this be another unnecessary marathon? MONGO, the story goes, once upon a time on September 11th Donald Rumsfeld said: "Go massive… blah, blah, blah." I'd suggest we act rationally and logically. This is a citation about direct link between 911 and invasion of Iraq, which is already (so modestly) recognized in wot section here. It's just a meager, itsy-bitsy reference… so please, you'll need to find another argument and you'll need to be aware of the trends too. I'll certainly be spooked if Illuminoso jumps in… Lovelight 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Only if you deem it necessary, Lovelight. So silly the ongoing effort to tie the events of 9/11 to the much later Iraq war. There should be no surprise Rumsfeld wanted to seek all information he could as to who the culprits were, and certainly Iraq was on the trouble meter...but all this is still neither here nor there because this article is about the events of 9/11, and adding weak and peripheral nuances to this article to satisfy the never ending attempts to say the Iraq War was a part of the big conspiracy...so big a part, it still was well over a year before the "invasion"! You do relaize that the Iraq war wasn't some knee jerk reaction of course...I mean, if the administration was so anxious to go invade Iraq, it would have been far easier to create some silly diplomatic incident as a justification. Rumsfeld wasn't the only one pushing to go big...and even Al-Qaeda had considered going after nuclear power plants, but thought it might get out of control[17]...had they gone after nuclear power plants and killed a hundred thousand with the spread of radiation, the likely consequence would have been, at the least, massive bombings using MOAB's and maybe even a nuclear retaliation...what else would someone expect if one group of people killed a hundred thousand or more of another...did the terrorists think the U.S. was going to sue for peace? Fat chance.--MONGO 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is Rumsfeld one of the "U.S. officials" referred to, and did he actually make any speculations at the time? The document does not demonstrate any deductive reasoning or speculation. Peter Grey 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering all of this to be common knowledge, after all it was already (invisibly) stated in former secretaries biography. I'm not sure about the other part of your question? He obviously gave very precise speculations on that day. If you take a moment to study whats provided you'll see that: "The actual notes suggest a focus on Saddam. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH at same time - not only UBL [Pentagon shorthand for Usama/Osama bin Laden]," the notes say. "Tasks. Jim Haynes [Pentagon lawyer] to talk with PW [probably Paul Wolfowitz, then Mr Rumsfeld's deputy] for additional support ... connection with UBL." Also note that it was said to the person who was: "responsible for crisis planning, and he was with the secretary in that role that afternoon." It's all incredibly irresponsible if you ask me… Lovelight 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Rumsfeld is speculating on action, not responsibility. Common knowledge includes the disconnect between the two. Peter Grey 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Common knowledge was response to your query about whether "Rumsfeld (is) one of the "U.S. officials" referred to…"… And I agree on first part of your latest statement, yes indeed, Rumsfeld was irresponsibly sharing tasks (speculations if you must) which are a very base of what we today know as "missing link" between 911 events, Saddam and al-Qaeda (he also defined that reasonability, and after these notes UBL has become the part of the paradigm, even if you are ready to avoid such conclusion, but that is another issue…) What puzzles me most, is the fact that we've been through all this already; you agreed on all that… it’s a citation of that fact. I'm not sure what's the issue here? I'm assuming a good faith and all that, but is this some sort of domestic (lets cloud our judgment and see no evil hear no evil) concern? I'm from Europa and from here I tend to see these things without any fantastic colors… I've already agreed on your over-moderate "speculating" in wot section, in spite the fact that we are talking about unfounded and incredibly Kissinger alike decision to invade another country on false pretences… I'm honestly not sure why you don't consider this edit for what it is, and that is just a citation intended for verification of existing content. Lovelight 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What is it, a missing link or false pretenses? You repeatedly try to assert both, and they're contradictory. Let me rephrase: Is Rumsfeld making a speculation related to that particular context of the Wikipedia article? In other words, is he publicly suggesting the possibility of official Iraqi collaboration with the hijackers? Rumsfeld directed the scope to be [t]hings related and not, so in fact responsibility is not raised as a concern at all. What the documents actually say (and on which outragedmoderates.org apparently agrees) is that Rumsfeld wanted, in secret, to examine military action against Saddam Hussein, a pre-existing political goal. In other words, exploit the tragedy for political ends, something the hijackers are not responsible for. Peter Grey 14:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Flawless, it seems we constantly agree. The swindle goes both ways, but that is not the issue here… So let me remind once again. We already have formulation. "Immediately after the September 11 attacks U.S. officials speculated (things related or not, judge whether… and all that following nonsense from US administration we listened for years…) on possible involvement by Saddam Hussein; although unfounded, the association contributed to public acceptance (outrageous exploit of the tragedy) for the 2003 invasion of Iraq". I've just provided citation for that fact, this citation or section itself is in no way related to hijackers. You keep repeating that strange argument… As for last part, Rumsfeld tried to give his orders secretly, but these are now available publicly. Lovelight 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's very, very simple: A document only made public on 10 February 2006 can not possibly have contributed to "public acceptance" in 2003. Peter Grey 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, all is very, very simple in deed, and you're simply wrong. One wouldn’t be as disappointed, but you are obviously able to use your organon well. Well… I'll have to admit, there are certainly moments in which one enjoys these sorts of sophistic game play, but discussion should end once silly and/or serious arguments are put to rest. Nothing has change when it comes to my contribution; it is as valid and decent as it was in the moment it was suggested. This note is verification of the claim long available to the public. Most of the mainstream media was well aware of this and I'm not about to comment on their complicity for this particular dispute we are having here. In 2005. polls showed that 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks and from decent perspective wikipedia shares huge responsibility for such nonsense. I'd suggest that our fine editors think about that for a moment… The fact is, origin of these opinions is that meeting held on 911 in which US administrators, Rumsfeld in particular sought the ways to justify invasion of another country. For that he used tragic event which will be classified as "State sponsored terrorism", and we will get there even if it takes a lifetime…
Now, about your point. Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11, this information was made public around 2002. memorial as an exclusive story who's summary is clear: Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack (or immediately after the attacks, as it is written right here). In other words, we were sitting on this singular information for years, however, it is now (since 10 February 2006 that is) sourced and verified, therefore it can and will be used as a citation in this heavily disputed article. If you would prefer some other source, such as Guardian, or CNBC, no problem there, just say so… if there is a need to show the flaw in your deduction, say so. Lovelight
Re-add {{editprotected}} once consensus has been reached about this external link. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've opted to use the CBS news source for this -- blogs are not considered reliable sources, per policy. However, a CBS news report (in my opinion) seems like a more reliable source to include in this article. Plus, the site to be cited is named "Outraged Moderates" -- a fairly POV title. If you don't wish to have this source, please continue discussion to find the most appropriate link, and add {{editprotected}} once consensus has been reached

Weak exposition of motives

The Motive section seems to have an odd presentation. It starts with "According to official U.S. government sources..." - weasel words - before explaining the 1998 fatwa, which is the only really comprehensive claim of responsibility. Then the 9/11 Commission findings, which have some special credibility issues, and then Little George's inane "hatred of the freedom" nonsense. The findings of qualified experts appear last. Peter Grey 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to add it and start an edit war, but Osama bin laden answered the 'why' question himself in his often glossed-over letter to the American people. It can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/021120-ubl.htm and as far as I'm aware it isn't on Wikipedia Whoblitzell 08:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Osama bin laden has answered why clearly for years before 9/11 in interviews, declarations, messages and conversations. The purported "bin Laden letter" that you refer to has not been authenticated as coming from bin Laden. Information was provided in this Wikipedia article at one time that debunked the letter. The letter appeared on the Internet in Arabic a year after 9/11. It was reported in a November 24 ,2002 article in The Observer , in an article that cites no intelligence-agency estimates about the likelihood of its authenticity, only using journalists' beliefs that it is really a letter from bin Laden explaining the motivations for the attacks.

Reasons to question the authenticity of this particular letter include:

  • a style different from all the interviews
  • a strange intro to the letter that acts like the motives have not been stated before.
  • lack of any other source that includes as motives either
  • "debauchery of Western Civilization " or
  • a "call for conversion to Islam of the infidels."

The letter has other obvious problems that indicate it is a fabrication which at point is extremely amateurish. Does anyone take the following seriously?: "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?" Who ever actually wrote the letter got carried away. And what is this Islam that the writer of the letter "calls us to" "And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language. " But Bin Laden is a fundamentalist Islamic, this letter talks about "total equality" "without regard" to even sex? Who ever wrote the letter was really having fun at that point. The letter, in an outline format that bin Laden has never used, supposedly asks us to do in numbered several things and now "stop supporting Israel" is pushed down to number 4? Come on. The whole style of the letter is a different from everything that is known to have actually come from bin Laden. 69.114.77.59 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"According to official U.S. government sources..." are not weasel words, because they are sourced. From the weasel words page, in a nut shell, you should "avoid 'some people say' statements without sources." The only source for most of the info on this site, is US government sources, or news sites that quote US government sources, or videos and letters that are found by, and validated by, (wait for it...) US government sources. It's not wrong to say that the motive for this attack is described by US government sources, if they are the ones describing the motive, and we can't get other passable motives into the article. I'd go even further to say that most of the arguments in this talk page are as weak as the one made at the top of this section, saying that these are weasel words. If the only source for a section is the US government, and it's cited, then it better say that it's according to US government sources, or it's nothing more than government propaganda.—Slipgrid 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Even with sources, do we really know?

Do we really know, even with the sources that American Airlines Flight 77 actually crashed into the pentagon? And do we really know that the phone calls were really those of the people inside the planes? There has been much debate on what actually happened, and I don't think that we should display these events as fact if we're not almost certain that these events took place. I'm not unpatriotic or anything of the sort, but I think that we really don't know that these events occured. Ian Lee 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, among MANY other things, do we know that al Qaeda did these terrible things? I think, again, we should remove the things we don't know for certain (or are at least really sure of). Ian Lee 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really know Yes. Peter Grey 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If nobody "really knows" (while true, nobody knows) then we may aswell remove most of the articles on Wikipedia Lithium500
We don't really know if God exsists so should we ban organized religion and tell people that they must begin saying maybe when they discuss the Bible? "Maybe Jesus died for our sins. So you should convert to Catholocism because Jesus may be able to save you. we aren't entirely sure tho....." I think the events should be reported to the best of our ability this is Wikipedia not Cospiracypedia. 69.214.49.245 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC) GodoftheLost
What are you talking about?!? Do we really know if the plane hit the Pentagon? What leaves a doubt in your mind about that? I have absolutely no clue what you are getting at? If the plane didn't hit the building, then what did, and where the hell is the plane now? I still can't believe I just read that posted question. I'm totally confused by that one... J-Dog 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not we call the attackers of 911 terrorists or something else is not important at this stage, as long as the opening of this page in its whole is much worse and clearly carries out the subjective opinion of certain people. But as long as its the US governments opinion no rules apply. Like is the case on so many issues in this world after the attacks. And now this topic is closed for editing, bye people with the very same view as the US Government official explanation. Not surprising. I beg you to stick to the fact. There were attacks, no doubt about it, but we have little proof that says muslims planned and carried out these attacks. I think it is of significant value for this Wiki that the opening is edited to be more objective. Wake up Wikipedia. Youre not supposed to be one of many tools on this "war of oil". As long as its possible to proof what happened this day I think it is very important that the people are enlightened with these facts. God doesnt exist, there is no proof about it, just like there is not enough evidence and proof that the opening on this topic is correct. The difference is that we can find proof on this issue. As long as its possible to find answers, we must find them.

84.48.86.37 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Bryan S.

Philosophically speaking the difference between "know" and "believe" is a complex issue. We must assume in order to survive.

What I'm more concerned about is the use of the term Islamic or Muslim which whilst it may be true, it implies significance beyond stating the fact. Like saying five black men robbed a bank. Yes they may have been black, but should we state it, and particularly as a headline?

--Angryjames 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Moussaoui info should be given its own sub-header & Motassadeq needs to be mentioned

Due to the notable case brought against Moussaoui the segment entitled "Other potential hijackers" should be subdivided with his info first and then everyone else listed later in the segment. It is ridiculous that his name does not appear in the contents table, and you have to go out and Google around until you can get the right spelling and then come back and do a page search to find him in this article. Because he was found guilty you don't automaticlly realize that he might be included in "potential hijackers" (though once you find him there it seems a logical placement). It would aid the reader looking for his information to sub-divided the segment so they can click on his name from the contents table.--Wowaconia 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:

1 The attacks

...
1.5 Other potential hijackers
1.5.1 Zacarias Moussaoui
1.5.2 Others mentioned as likely conspirators

Please change this, the article is currently locked against editing or I'd do it myself.--Wowaconia 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No new edits have been allowed since Dec. 26. How long is this lock-out going to drag on? Now this page is becoming dated and losing credibility as there is no mention that A German Court sentenced Moroccan student Mounir al-Motassadeq to 15 years in prison for helping the September 11 suicide pilots plan their attack. Reference = http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,458610,00.html

Go to arbitration already!!! This is making the whole Wikipedia project look petty.--Wowaconia 18:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename "Conspiracy theories" section

I propose that the "Conspiracy theories" section be renamed to something along the lines of "Alternative theories". The term conspiracy theory is misleading and has negative associations. However you view it, the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy; that is to say people conspired together (in secret) to carry out the attacks. Under the true definition of the term, even the "Official version" is a conspiracy theory; theorising that Islamic extremist CONSPIRED to do it.

Furthermore, In my opinion, the negative (almost comical) associations with the term reduce the neutrality of the article.

For these reasons I believe the term is being used inappropriately.

Physicsellis 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physicsellis (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, those are conspiracy theories. The section name is therefore more accurate as it is than it would be with the one you suggested. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The section is aptly titled, already. Abe Froman 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree--Sefringle 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial." - Wikipedia ariticle "Conspiracy theories".
QED. The alternative theories have less methodological flaws than the "official" version. I suggest you take the time to research this before dismissing them as "conspiracy theories". The neutrality of this article is being compromised by this term.
Physicsellis 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's already neutral by menationing them. The main article also labels them as conspiracy theories: 9/11 conspiracy theories. Look through this list, and you'll see that conspiracy theories should and are labeled as such. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories are folklores. It is in no way true that 9-11 was committed by anyone else other than Islamic terrorists. Conspiracy theories are almost always wrong and are almost always just to stir up contravercy. The 9-11 Conspiracy theories are no different.--Sefringle 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Then why are 9 of the 17 hijackers still alive? Impressive terrorists if you ask me; not only do they defeat the most sophisticated defense system on the planet, but they also defeat several fundamental laws of physics and also defeat death. It is extremely unlikely that the events were carried out by Islamic extremists and is much more likely (and the evidence shows this) that it was carried out by rogue elements of the US government. This page continues the effort of gatekeeping the truth from those who seek the truth by labelling this section "conspiracy theories". I believe that many of you arguing in favour of the official version have not studied any other alternative. I was skeptical too, but in the interest being scientific I studied the facts, and this caused great anger, upset and fear but eventually I had no choice but to yield to the facts. We are not stirring controversy, merely seeking the truth. I will stop pressing for 9/11 truth when the universe collapses and everything dies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.77.200 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
OK. Now lets make up information from unreliable sources and pretend they are fact.--Sefringle 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because you are unaware of something and have not studied it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is a fact that there are dozens of unanswered questions which many people feel are very important —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.77.200 (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Ignoring talk of conspiracies, cast your mind back to the events of the day. You should recall that the events that the media reported do not tally with the official 'theory' of what happened that day. Therefore they should be labelled 'Alternative' to distiguish themselves from the official 'theory'. Note the official story can only be truley classed as a 'theory' as it too is unproven. —The preceding 86.142.172.138 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Jamie
This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for promoting conspiracy theories. There are plenty of other websites where you can do that. Everyone please note, there is no need to respond to posts that obviously have no relevance here - doing so only encourages more misuse of this talk page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user obviously wants greater notice of conspiracy theories in the article, not sure why everyone is oblivious to this and treating it as "off topic discussion". I will assume good faith in that its a Friday before an extended weekend in the US and perhaps some people are tired and not noticing the obvious. Please also refrain from telling people to ignore those you do not agree with, its quite disrespectful. --NuclearZer0 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the petition to rename the Conspiracy Theories section. The term is derogatory and insulting to the principals of Wikipedia. Criticism of the Official Account would be my personal favorite for a title. All articles that are written from a neutral point of view contain some criticism. I hope no one here is arguing that it is un-Wikipedian to add some criticism of the official account? Digiterata 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We have an article which does this and interestingly enough, it's titled 9/11 conspiracy theories...so no reason to call them something other than what they are.--MONGO 08:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input MONGO. Just to clarify, whether or not there is a name change for the 'Conspiracy Theory' section, I still believe there is room in this article for a section titled "Criticism of the Official Account." To represent a neutral point of view, criticism of the official account - separate from "Conspiracy Theories" - would greatly improve the balance here. Digiterata 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
We have an "alternative theory" article already, it's called 9/11 conspiracy theories. We don't need to muddy up a factual article with paranoid fantasy. Morton DevonshireYo 06:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "Paranoid Fantasies of Conspiracy Theorist?" Or if that's too POV, we could go with with "Conpiracy Theories of Paranoid Fanatics". --Tbeatty 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is altogether a misnomer, however it has become the common term to describe alternative theories that contradict official statements, albeit pejoratively. Once again arguments here have been reduced to semantics rather than dealing with the real issues. I personally hate the term, but I see no valid alternative, except perhaps linking "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" which seems ridiculous. --Angryjames 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If I say that Gordon Brown's rule of keeping the British state's net debt below 40% makes no sense and is anyway rendered meaningless by the off-balance-sheet accounting for PFI, that is an alternative theory that contradicts an official statement. "The WTC was collapsed by a Martian bomb from behind the grassy knoll in a fugging Fiat Uno" is a conspiracy theory. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, and it's a valid one. The rules for CTs vs ATs are complex, but can be argued from past experience. CTs generally require non-official support, come from a non-official source and tackle highly charged emotive subjects where the theory implies wrong doing on the part of officials. The term official here is being used in the broadest sense of course (the BBC would be considered official for instance). If you said Gordon Brown was covering up something, and if you gained support for that theory, and if you represented no official body, then yes, your argument would be labelled as a CT. Of course even the BBC print rubbish, consider the Alive Hijackers article for instance ;) --Angryjames 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but even the official theory concerns a conspiracy! How else do you get four airplanes to crash at the same time, get Superman (who doesn't exist) to go bad? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I said "The term "Conspiracy Theory" is altogether a misnomer". CT is a label, you therefore cannot debate the semantics. It would like arguing that you cannot call someone "white" because their skin isn't white. It's a label. Nothing more. --Angryjames 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather than rename the section, remove it and post a secondary entry called "Alternate 9/11 Theories" with a remark that the investigation into the complete causes is ongoingRobblin 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there an ongoing investigation, or simply a group of people asking questions and rooting around for scraps of evidence? --Angryjames 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
We use extremely poor (doublespeak extreme) terminology. We use it because mainstream media (obviously complicit when it comes to forging of our actuality) and those behind it instructed us to do so. To refer to people who ask valid and important questions about inconsistencies of 911 events as to conspiracy theorists is remarkably dim. Almost as dim as having a war on terror (purely psychological term/war as you may well be aware of). If you ask Google about 911 investigations you'll be overwhelmed by their #'s, independent investigations are everywhere. As for your other point, I strongly disagree with your conclusion, BBC didn’t print rubbish (especially not with regards to your example there), as a matter of fact editorial discussion show's clearly that those folks were forced to go back and implement changes in the archive (Orwellian Nightmare at its best), thus trying to rewrite the history itself. If you are wondering why mainstream media won't touch this, you should be well aware of the true reason and the true reason is sheer lack of freedom (clearly reflected in this circus we have here). As we have learned in the Northwoods, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin bay, Operation Gladio, 911, London bombings… there is persistent consistency which can easily be described as State Sponsored Terrorism. Lovelight 15:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Valid and important questions I support whole heartedly. What I don't support is disconnected logic. I called the BBC article "rubbish" because they printed the headline "Hijack 'suspects' alive and well" when they had confirmed no such thing. In fact they had grabbed an Arab story line that proved to be untrue. When they found this out they simply made a minor alteration (as detailed in your link). What they should have done is made a public apology with a similarly significant headline. Is that too much to ask for? Must also ask, why do you compare London Bombings to the others on your list? --Angryjames 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The reports of living dead (even partying) hijackers were, if nothing else, then numerous. I see nothing wrong with article in question; as a matter of fact statements of FBI, flight (passenger) manifest as well as news reports clearly show that we had more than one "case of mistaken and/or stolen identity." If you prefer logic you should demand the apology from FBI (who acknowledged that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt), not from BBC who simply noted that alleged hijackers are alive and well (while clearly stating possibility of mistaken identity). All that spinning aside, truly troublesome fact is that none of this was adequately investigated by 911 Commission. The report has same, as noted by the FBI itself obviously questionable list of hijackers… To be honest, it's just another of inconsistencies, like those bags which Ata (who enjoys lap dances and frozen margaritas) so conveniently left (to be instantly found) with all that incriminating evidence… Not to mention other "Uncle Sam's lucky finds". Well, what's there to say? Crash-proof passports? Its very poor screenplay to say the least… As for London bombings, there is persistent consistency (interlink) when it comes to inconsistencies of these events. You probably saw the the Ludicrous Diversion and Minded the Gap? As with 911 we have, yet another, terrorist act which has many questions, rumors and theories. To make things worst this consistency goes further, and if you remember political climate in which another great plot was foiled you'll see that timing of these events (midterm elections in US are conveniently missing from pointed skepticism), as well as the lack of transparency and/or solid facts are something to be worried about. imo, of course. Lovelight 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Jihadist?

Many have expressed concern over the use of the word terrorist in the article. What about the term Islamic Jihadist? Eh? Nobody should argue that one, imho. Could anyone say that the hijackers weren't that?--SweetNeo85 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "jihad" does not necessarily mean war in the sense most of us understand it, and cannot therefore be used here. As for Islamic, that is highly inappropriate and offensive (see my other posts on this page). --Angryjames 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article is Islamist terrorism. Changing that name can be discussed on that article's talk page, or at requested moves. Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The headline (first paragraph) of the Sep 11 page now uses the phrase Islamic extremists. But no doubt other pages use equally offensive terms in titles and headlines. --Angryjames 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Can an admin delete all of the links to a picture that does not exist in the article? It makes the page take a long time to load. --BenWhitey 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Already done. --BenWhitey 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Windsor Tower

Windsor Tower at 12:06 p.m. on February 13, 2005. Quite charred, as one can see.
Windsor Tower at 12:06 p.m. on February 13, 2005. Quite charred, as one can see.

..sustained in Feb of 2005 sustained a 20 hour fire without much damage to its steel frame? Was that a hoax? Are Spaniards worldclass engineers that such building withstood complete burnout with fire leaving only frames behind. Or is it the other way around with World trade centers... I still don't see any reason that a single aeroplane would be given the power to take down such building, that was according to documental archive built just (and only) for withstanding terrorist attacks. And I doubt it that Spanish are better engineers, quite the opposite... --195.210.230.226 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What the eyes see and the ears hear the mind believes. It is impossible for one plane to do that to each of the towers, especially when they were designed to withstand multiple impacts from jet liners while enduring a 150 year hurricane and 10 times the maximum load that could ever be exerted on them (i.e. the weight of people standing shoulder to shoulder on every floor multiplied by 10). Furthermore, the majority of the jet fuel was burned up in fireballs outside the building on the initial impact. This left only moderate low temperature fire (characterised by excessive smoking (oxygen deprived fire) which in no way could melt the steel. The firemen even said they could put it out with just two fire hoses right before the building mysteriously imploded (after only an hour too, gee, who writes this stuff?). At what about WTC7? If you think that buildings spontaneously collapse symmetrically and at free fall speed onto their own footprint then I suggest you read up on some basic laws of physics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.77.200 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC). This page is actually not a conspiracy theory chat board. This is for discussing the maintenance of the associated encyclopedia article. No drama, no trolling, no general chatting please. This discussion thread will be removed in 3... 2... 1... — Weregerbil 09:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we're discussing facts presented and written in this very article, wouldn't you agree Weregerbil? This is a video of the Madrid Windsor Fire that lasted over 20 hours and raged with fire, contrary to what was seen with World Trade Center ... all » #7. This building survived as have every other steel framed building that has ever caught fire. This isn't about conspiracy theory, it's questioning whether those who built towers should be taken on responsibility for not so flawless job they've done. It is a structural question of a building that was built to withstand.. Minoru Yamasaki was the architect. --195.210.251.17 09:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That building had reinforced concrete in its core and was not hit by a widebody jet.--MONGO 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The WTC buildings also had 47 reinforced concrete support columns at their core. Furthermore, these were hermetically sealed as standard. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3281135121622917423. It's true that the out columns supported a percentage of the weight, but as the designer of the building says, it was very effective at redistributing weight in the event of damage.

No, it had 47 steel columns encased in gypsum boards, and none of that matters anyway since the columns themselves were damaged by the impact of the planes. The weight was redistributed but the subsequent fires reduced the carrying capacity of the floor trusses.--MONGO 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the planes did not strike that far into the center, which is why the elevators remained working throughout. There was a documentary on WB11 some time back that had a middle eastern guy talking about how the plane hit the building on the floor/side he was on and he was able to still get out.--NuclearZer0 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
None of the elevators in either tower above the points of imapct were working after either plane hit each building. In fact, many elevators had their cables snapped causing them to crash to their lowest normal service floors. Naturally, one would have hoped for more survivors, but to cite one example of someone who managed to eascape from a near death situation is not a good example that explains why all the others perished. The aviation fuel even sent a fireball down to the concourse level in the south tower, probably via an elevator shaft. The only reason anyone escaped from the south tower above the point of impact is because that aircraft hit the southeast side of the building, leaving the northwest stairway only partially damaged. All the elevators and stairwells were located in the central core of each building.--MONGO 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes little sense, if the plane penetrated the building into the center the elevators would not have worked at all, not simply not worked above a certain floor. But you also believe that all WTC buildings collapsed because of a fire, which defies history. --NuclearZer0 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The elevators were staged...they didn't all go from the top to the bottom of the building. Each building was essentially three buildings in one and persons needing to go the uppermost floors would ride at least three different elevators to get to the uppermost floors. I never said the buildings collapsed just due to fire...they were also hit by wide body jets going at speeds near to and over 500 mph. Have you read anything produced by the National Institute of Science and Technology?--MONGO 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats normal, if you worked in an office building you would be aware that staged elevators are common. I ride 2 elevators to get to the floor I work on and that is only the 36th floor. You dont get points for stating the obvious. --NuclearZer0 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Building collapse is a question of structural engineering, not history. And no-one thinks fire was a factor in 4 WTC. Peter Grey 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
So true I am sure there is a logical reason its just never happened before and happens to the building specifically made for it not to happen rofl, gg no re. --NuclearZer0 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Real engineers know that every building is designed not to fall down. And it's not like Madrid Windsor Tower was salvageable. Peter Grey 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
So you say? Wow I am flabbergasted at this revelation. Perhaps I should have been clearer since you didn't get the implication. I was reffering to the "made to withstand a plane collision" issue. --NuclearZer0 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:V is your friend. How many reliable sources support these "alternative theories"? If your answer is more than zero, go back and read WP:RS. Anyone who wants to remove the more obviously delusional posts from here will have little opposition from me Guy (Help!) 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase so people dont need to get some WP:TEA. Mr. Guy I happily disagree with you, your concept of "delusional" does not share reality with polls from Gallup etc. which state that the majority of Americans at least do not agree with the account presented on this article space. I find it quite in a negative light when an admin makes a decision on a page that they have a personal opinion regarding, but that is why we often do not meet in the middle it seems. Well good chap good day and have a jolly old fun extended weekend if you are located here in the states. Perhaps we will meet one day on the slopes. --NuclearZer0 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If an elevator shaft was damaged, then that whole shaft would have been out of order, not just the part below the plane strike point. That said, elevators should not freefall just because their cables have snapped, thanks to Elisha Otis. Do we know which of the three stages was hit? Presumably the middles ones? I guess that might have also cut power to the top stage if the power cables to it were cut? I am not an expert, but I'll have a guess that the bottom stage shut itself down for some reason, rather than actually being seriously damaged. Elevators are a really bad way to exit a damaged building. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In each tower, only one elevator went almost the entire distance from the base to the top floors. All other elevator were staged. The express elevator in the south tower would allow access directly non-stop to the observation area at the top of the building, and the one in the north tower went to the windows of the world restaurant at the top of that building. In the north tower, the uppermost stage was hit. There were over 100 elevators in each building, counting freight elevators. (97 passenger and 6 freight) [18]. In the south tower, the aircraft struck right at the dividing point between the middle section and the upper section of the building. See the 4th diagram on the right and the section titled elevators like subways in this link. There were reports of elevator failures which resulted in the elevators plunging to the lowest level they would normally service.--MONGO 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There were lots of reports remember, you said we cant rely on news from that day. Lets not cherry pick, are reports from that day, immediatly following the attack credible? --NuclearZer0 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, I do not see any Boeing aircraft inside Windsor Tower. The fire it sustained was from other causes. Comparing it to the WTC fire is simply apples and oranges. Abe Froman 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct there was less fire dmg to the WTC when it fell and it seems no real proof of structural damage, however the building was made to take the impact of a larger plane then actually hit it. WTC 7 was it that is said to have fallen due to fire dmg alone? --NuclearZer0 03:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1 WTC took out 7 WTC - that's hardly "mostly into their own footprint". No-one cares what the "Bush White House" says on technical issues. If there's a "more reliable source", please identify it, and it may possibly contribute to the article. But bear in mind a source is not "more reliable" simply because it says what you think it should say. We've had the engineering vs intuition discussion before. Peter Grey 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you can find pictures but being someone who passed ground zero and actually worked 2 blocks down as a messenger for some time before it fell, I can tell you it did fallinto its own footprint. The issue you seem to not understand is that even if it feel straight down ther eis still the issue of all that concrete and it was enough to splatter across the street. For instance make a tower of sound and then squish it straight down, its going to expand at the base outward ... Do you realize how close the buildings were geographically? --NuclearZer0 12:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There's video showing how the buildings really collapsed. Unless by 'into its own footprint' you mean the unremarkable observation that things fall vertically. Peter Grey 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes vertically, now make a pile of something and knock out one side, does it fall straight down? If the arguement is that it was damaged beyond being able to stabalize on one side only, then it really should no thave fallen straight down. The arguement for the elevators is that only one side was hit really badly, then it goes back to being that it was dmg all around so it fell straight down. Tell me something, why do they hire people to knock down buildings if all you have to do it put it on fire and let it crumble? 3 buildings fell straight down due to fire, first defying the idea that towers can fall from fire dmg, havent so far, then defying the idea of ever needing professionals to demolish a building. I guess its a coincidence or just dumb luck that NYC skyscrappers will always fall straight down, bad luck that fire will take them down though =/ Lucky I start a new position next month where I should be on the ground floor. --NuclearZer0 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You might want to read Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_collapse_mechanism. Apparently the WTC towers had some load balancing trusses on top. Quite useful to ensure the building continues standing if only few structural support elements fail but something which will probably cause catastrophic failure of all structural elements if enough of them fail since the load is constantly transfered to the remaining. If you need a more intuitive example, imagine a bicycle wheel. You can continue to ride if a spoke cracks since the load is distributed to the remaining ones. If you'd continue to ride long enough more and more spokes would crack over time due to the increased and asymmetric load and then you would suddenly have a catastrophic failure of the remaining spokes and land on the street (actually you wouldn't be able to continue to ride such long as the lateral deformation of the wheel would stop you before). Something similar probably happened at WTC and didn't happen at the Windsor tower so both events are not comparable. Note I'm a layman concerning mechanical engineering but you also don't seem to cite experts. Uups, forgot to sign. MBP 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right, but there is no point in using this page to argue the merits of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are forums for that. Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not? This is the 9/11 article talk page. The point is to talk about editing of the article. Discussions of conspiracy theories are germane to the article because the causes of 9/11 are relevant to the topic of 9/11 itself, and thus the discussion of conspiracy theories about 9/11 is relevant to the editing of this article. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Have any qualified experts made a comparison of the two buildings? Otherwise all this silliness is original research. Peter Grey 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • second that. Abe Froman 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am Spaniard and this issue was broadly commented here. I was also curious so I listen carefully. The two key differences between WTC towers and Windsor tower were 1) the temperature of the fire was much lower in Spanish building since only furnitures and carpets fed it (instead of jet fuel) and 2)not any support was damaged by any impact so not any column was forced to support nothing that did not support before the fire started. Apart from that, the concrete around the steel (I do not know the correct english word for the steel inside concrete columns) was much thicker in Windsor. I heard a full interview with one of the architects of WTC and he said that they have been aware of the risk of a fire so each column in each floor had a fire estinguishing device aimed to reduce temperature of the columns. Unfortunately the whole system was damaged by the planes so it did not worked on 9/11. The combination of high temperatures on the steel plus the lack of some elements of support caused the collapse. Just as to round the question, I also saw in Scientifican American a report about conclusions of 9/11 for future towers to be built, specially in Pacific Rim were many are planned or under way. The conclusion was that in the same case of a plane full of fuel crashing the towers, there was no way to make the building last much more than the time that the WTC lasted. So the strategy will be to create evacuation procedures using reinforced emergency elevators that allow the building to be abandoned by everybody in half an hour. Thus, the towers that are going to be built from now on would have a requirement of being able to resist any fire -on foot and with enough elevators working- until are empty. So the behaviour of WTC towers was not only outstanding for his time but dificult to improve even now with all the new materials and computer simulations available.--Igor21 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of a talk page?

Why is this talk page semiprotected? This is nuts. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting a merger of the new page with this parent page, now that the new page's purpose has ended. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it was being trolled by those whose primarily purpose was disruption...just guessing, of course.--MONGO 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

weren't you the one who semi-protected this page MONGO? and didn't you semi-protect it because someone you permabanned out of process was posting as an anon? I'm prepared to rekindle the POV debate sometime in the near future, because the more I look the more the evidence points to conspiracy theories. Also this article is far from neutral. I'm putting an unprotection request up right now--Acebrock 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't remember if I semiprotected it or not, Acebrock. As far as being nuetral, if the conspiracy theory people think they will succeed in adding their misinformation to this article, they have been mislead. In fact, if there are more pieces of misinformation that are nothing but disruption and harassment as was the case until it was semiprotected, then it will be immediately removed. The person I permabanned out of process...oh, you mean Cplot? What was out of process was that he already had two 3RR blocks leading up to that and was doing nothing but attacking everyone...get your facts straight before you make loud misrepresenations about my actions.--MONGO 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I see, that I didn't ever once protect or semi-protect this talkpage....[19].--MONGO 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was Naconkantari's fault, and he or she has also apparently picked now, of all times, to go on a wikibreak. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The page has been unsemiprotected. Since I succeeded at what I set out to do, I'll shut up now. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I see no reason to listen to anyone who makes personal attacks against me as you did here. note the edit history and how you say I got my facts wrong as usual. if that's not a personal attack then personal attacks do not exist. I admit I got one fact wrong, the person semiprotecting the page, but you still blocked Cplot without going through the normal channels, and why is adding more about the conspiracy theories POV? please explain, in full without calling them nutty, idiotic, or anything else that would be deragatory--Acebrock 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi...either add discussion that is designed to make this article better or your misrepresentations about myself and other editors will be removed in the future.--MONGO 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 and All That

Wow, all of this nonsense about conspiracy theories and planned demolitions. Yes, it's unusual for skyscrapers made from steel to collapse from fire. However, this was a very hot couple of fires. Furthermore, folks who were IN the danged Towers reported having seen no demolition work going on, whereas had explosives been planted beforehand some would've seen something unususual - after all, the Towers were supported by their side walls, and many folks had offices by those walls. Thus, someone's office would likely have been disturbed by the drilling or by the planting of explosives. Yes, I agree that 9/11 was a Bad Thing, and I even agree that it was a conspiracy that did it - after all, four planes don't crash for nothing - but this was a case in which skyscrapers literally burned to the ground, unlikely as it seems. I suppose those Conspiracy Theories are quite a Silly Thing indeed, and maybe their proposers should head over to Hastings and take a break - with "1066 and All That", of course. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Not soapbox. Also the fires aren't 2000 degrees, which would melt the steel, but 1400, which would make them slightly rubbery--Acebrock 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if you ever worked in a building like the Twin Towers but there is construction going on almost every day, everytime a tenant moves out contruction comes in to redo the layout of the floor. Movers come in and out of the building constantly as well. Anyone saying they didnt hear commotion is either not near it, or lying. --NuclearZer0 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, people would've known something was going on - at least some of them. Construction workers get seen. Furthermore, since the 1993 bombing, security was beefed up at the WTC, so if there was an inside job, it would've had to involve someone on security (explosives in massive quantities are harder to sneak through than the box cutters that Al Qaeda used on the airplanes). — Rickyrab | Talk 18:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Split screen 9/11

Just wondering why the multimedia link that used to be on this page located at http://ia300233.us.archive.org/3/items/20041102-Last-Chance-911-Timeline/20041102-Last-Chance-911-Timeline-44min.mpg was removed. I think it is highly valuable material, and I have no agenda.

I understand that people might think this guy was agenda driven in producing this video, but it's the only one I've found that so effectively places the coverage from so many outlets together. I'd be very interested to know why this link might have been removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K-lit (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Arbcom For 911?

This page has been protected on and off for a month, and that's not good for Wikipedia in general. There is a concentrated effort to add conspiracy theory related material to this article. It makes me wonder if the effort is being organized offline. That being said, should we consider bringing an ArbCom for the 911 article itself? The objective is to have arbitrators agree conspiracy theory material should be included in the conspiracy articles, and not the main 911 article. With such a decision, the offending material could be deleted on sight, and/or the contributing editor warned or banned. Without a higher authority involved, I do not see a way to unprotect the page without edit warring. Abe Froman 17:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinknig quite the similar except change to There is a concentrated effort to remove conspiracy theory related material from this article and I wouldnt violate AGF. Perhaps that is what is contributing to the hostility here, pelase try to abide by the Wiki policies in the future. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh-oh, a conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theories. What's next, a conspiracy theory about people conspiring to theorize about folks conspiring to theorize about others conspiring to destroy the World Trade Center? This is getting ridiculous - people not only theorizing that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 (there was, that's not the point; the discussion is over who conspired and how the conspirators brought down the Twin Towers), but people theorizing that those conspiracy theorists are themselves ganging up in a conspiracy. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Or people conspiring to remove material about conspiracy theories, for that matter. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
OR conspiring not to! Whatever, I think it is perhaps time to goto Arbcom, I have some conspiracy trends that will be useful. --NuclearZer0 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The page is off to arbcom, feel free to add your statements, folks. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't: the arbcom clerk decided that WP:RFPP was the best place for this dispute. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Arbcom form that I used and what I had put on it, though.

Conspiracy theories on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and semiprotection of that page

Initiated by — Rickyrab | Talk at 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Note: There may be others involved in this; it is a complicated discussion and I waded into the middle of it. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

Note: Cplot, the banned user, could not be notified on account of his ban and the protection of his userpage; furthermore, obtaining a statement from him would be difficult due to the ban. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried - am not sure about this

Statement by Rickyrab

There is a situation of semi-protection of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, which is making it practically impossible for anons to submit requests for edits to the main article. It is there because people supporting conspiracy theories and people feeling that the talk page should not contain discussion of conspiracy theories are arguing with one another, and some users (I am uncertain about this) may have been banned and may be using sockpuppets. Nonetheless, I am concerned that good-faith anons are being censored by this semi-protection. Furthermore, I wonder if a ban on users excessively discussing conspiracy theories and their IPs is a good idea or not. My POV is that a) conspiracy theories are relevant to discussing the cause of 9/11, b) the discussion of conspiracy theories often disintegrates badly into soapboxing and even "whining", c)blocking all anons from editing a TALK page over the edits of a few is ridiculous, and d) the situation needs sysop help. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Protection and Arbcom

I have unprotected the talk page for now. I don't think you can have permanent semi-protection on a talk page without some kind of intentional discussion; leaving it protected because it might be trolled again is not a good solution. It can be reprotected if necessary.

I'm not sure exactly what the intent of arbitration would be. If you have been having problems with anons and disposable accounts using the talk page to inappropriately promote conspiracy theories rather than discuss the article itself, the most you will get out of the arbitration committee is a finding that inappropriate talk can be reverted or archived. It would be easier if you could agree among yourselves to do that. (Such an agreement would have to include most significant editors and most "sides" of the issue, of course.) Note that whether you decide to remove inappropriate comments among yourselves or ask arbcom for a ruling, in the end it will come down to the editors here needing to agree on which comments should be removed, since arbcom won't do it for you.

If the problem is disruptive editing by regular editors then you can file an arbitration request, although the committee will expect you to show prior attempts at dispute resolution, such as an RFC. Good luck. Thatcher131 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected to keep harrassment of the editors out of here. I don't care if the conspiracy theorists post here, but if they are going to making false accusations or engaging in personal attacks by questioning individuals about their editing, then that needs to go.--MONGO 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want to have it permanently semi-protected (or at least long-term, say a month at a time) I think you should ask for consensus among the other regular editors. If most agree, I'll re-protect it. I'll also watch it for a while. Thatcher131 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I prefer for no protection, but again, if I see harassment by Cplot, I will immediately remove it and hope other editors will do the same.--MONGO 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would rather it be left unprotected. It might be best if people did not respond to trolling and soap-boxing, and just immediately removed it. If that can't be done, then long-term protection may be needed. Tom Harrison Talk 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I question what you call Soapboxing, I hope that we can instead take a poll to remove comments, if everyone agree's then it should be removed. Comments made in favor of conspiracy theories should not be removed, especially when asking for them to be included in the article. If this gets out of hand, I will have to ask for outside assistance. Deleting comments should only be done in extreme circumstances. --NuclearZer0 12:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:TALK: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Vandalism, trolling, etc are routinely removed from Wikipedia; irrelevant discussions can be similarly removed. I don't think conspiracy theory pages need different rules and polling drama. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; gunk that does not contribute towards that goes away. Weregerbil 13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please try to stay on topic, noone here is discussing vandalism or general conversation. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
<- shift left
@everyone: never mind DeepCover; already blocked as another cplot sock. @cplot and friends: thanks for your input. It is gratifying to know that my humble decrufting work on Wikipedia is so effective that it makes you to try to troll me. The best an anti-troller anti-vandal can hope for is to be so effective that trolls and vandals get all hot and bothered about him. Validation of my existence! Great success! Thank you! Weregerbil 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this thread serves as a good example of why this page does, in fact, need to be protected. --Action Jackson IV 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact (and judging by the recent history;), it would be far easier (and far more decent) if we would remove the cause of vandalism itself. Lovelight 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a reason this page is protected. That is because a substantial portion of the population disagree with its content. The 9/11 truth movement is not going away. I strongly suggest that you all research the events of that day in detail to find out why. Else, you can keep this page locked forever and leave it wallow in its own crapulence. That wouldn't be such a bad thing, as hopefully 9/11 truth sites will overtake this one as more and more people wake up. Incidentally, I am pleased to notice that a "911" or "9/11" google search yields five to six 9/11 truth sites on the first page (out of ten). Locking a talk page? That is absolutely absurd. People need to ask the question; why are things so bad that both the page and the talk page need to be locked? Maybe there are lots who have valid questions and points and want to see them reflected in the article. The truth will win out. At the end of the day the "official" version is like the valence-band of a small band-gap intrinsic semiconductor at room temperature: full of holes.Physicsellis 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is where to post requests for unprotection. Tom Harrison Talk 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Covering Text

The image of the lightpole on the cab it covering the text, I tried to fix it but I can't see the anything about the image when I click edit page...sorry I'm a bit of a wiki noob. Patmagroin1289 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Affiliated with al-Qaeda

I wish to bring up the issue of al-Qaeda taking part in attacks. There is no reference as to evidence of al-Qaeda being affiliated with the attacks. I believe that we should only have hijackers in the article and no mention of al-Qaeda actually doing it. There can be the theory of al-Qaeda doing it, but not saying that they actually did it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soten355 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Bin Laden said he picked the people, this is referenced in the article. --NuclearZer0 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright. That is sufficient evidence to back up "who dunnit". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soten355 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Provide other hypothesis in main article

I think it would be good to have in the main article other possible hypothesis than the ones expressed in the 9/11 Comission. For example in the case of the Madrid bombings of March 11, in the Spanish Wikipedia [30], there is room for different studies, backed up with sources. --165.138.169.33 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there going to be an attack this weekend in Salt Lake and San Antonio? 68.89.131.146 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[31]

=ARCHIVE NUMERO 28= {{Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 28}}

ARCHIVE NUMERO 29

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article ignores 'conspiracy theories'

This article provides no discussion of questions to the official story of the September the 11th attacks excepting a simple reference to their existence. It seems unwise to dismiss arguments that are shared by millions of Americans and huge portions of the international population. If wikipedia is to be the free and open forum of the people, it certainly should not engage in suppressing dissenting opinion. It seems reasonable that at least a brief overview of fundamental challenges to the veracity of the 9/11 account should be given in the main article.

Indeed. This article is constantly monitored to ensure that conspiracy theories do not get mentioned. Nothing that even slightly opposes the official point of view makes it into this article. This is despite the fact that a large and growing number of people are demanding a new investigation into the events. As an example, by reading the discussion pages you can see that even the mere suggestion that something be said about the activies of the top US officials during the attacks is deemed to be conspiracy theory and not relevant to this article. That is only a single example of many. Anything even close to hinting a possible conspiracy, whether it directly implies it or not, is relegated to a separate article. Wikipedia's goal is NPOV? Has it succeeded? Not in this article. Wikipedia is a great resource. However, this article is a testiment to its shortcomings. Kevin77v 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It makes one wonder, how fragile must your own point of view be if you will not begrudge even the suggestion that there is another point of view? Oneismany 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

911 Spoof in new sketch comedy show

I seen an episode of a new show on the FUSE netowkr called The Whitest Kids You Know. In a segment named Trevor talks to kids, there is a 15 second part where the character, 'Trevor', implies to the kids in a classroom that the 911 attacks was a conspiracy and that President Bush worships satan. I am very outraged that this was brought up being 911 is nothing to joke about. There was a news article mentioning about the segment and people upset and angry over it. This sketch comedy group is way over the top. I figured it would be a good addition to this article. Maybe help them get off the air. --gchsbus 13:42, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you raise the issue with the producers. Peter Grey 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If there's so much fuss about conspiracies now, imagine what it would be like for your children's generation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
So? That's an argumentum ad populum "a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." Mieciu K 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion into info box?

Wondering if at the bottom of the article we include any links or info to David Hicks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.138.170 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Off topic. Peter Grey 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
uh, no.--Beguiled 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


The Request for Correction

"NIST's implication that total and complete structural collapse and the destruction of the entire building following "collapse initiation" is unsupported by the laws of physics, logic, history, data, calculations, science of any kind, computer models, or physical models."

The Request for Correction --Lovelight 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • So? Do not use this page as a discussion forum. Each time a group of "researchers" publishes it's opinion we have to add that opinion to the September 11, 2001 attacks article? Mieciu K 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What are you mumbling about? Isn't this the place to discuss the improvement of the most biased article in whole wikipedia? Where should one point to current events related to 911 attacks, here? Please, I'd like to discuss implementation of these new facts, I'd also like to discuss that new information made available through FOIA, you know, the one which describes why is the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA. One thing at the time though. So please either provide a decent input, or don't provide anything at all. Oh, and do spare us all of the usual talk from the "usual suspects". No, these references are not better suited in the conspiracy theories article, no there are no other (valid and reputable) sources because mainstream media doesn’t dare to touch these issues. Anyway, we are living in the time when "official conspiracy" is challenged by everyone, time to recognize that fact? Or? Please, do share your opinions. 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing "researchers" opinions with facts. Opinions are like, well you know...everyones got one. These opinions are better suited in the conspiracy theories article if they belong anywhere (which they don't really). RxS 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So, to put it as vaguely as possible, those obviously misleading and deliberately misconstrued opinions of "researches" (whose work is in doubt) are OK, while the opinions of those who are asking for clarification are not. Have you read through the Request? It deserves a section you know, not to say that it goes along with that other "newly acquired" data, that is, those blueprints which leaked earlier this month. All of this is related, there is a whole wealth of new information. So, why wouldn’t we, for a change, start to improve this article? Anyway, I'm not sure why it needs to be pointed out, but you are confusing the issue here, "facts" are challenged (for a very long time now), so let's recognize that challenge, with regards to the NPOV and all that. Lovelight 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This could find its way into Collapse of WTC article, but I doubt it will reach consensus. If NIST responds to this (hell they should), then it automatically gets there. Anyway, it's amazing how some give infinite belief to "opinions" by NIST researches and give no credence to other scientists who investigated the issue (those would be: [..]This Request for Correction (the “Request”) is being submitted by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.). Their words are more than "opinions". Appeal to authority fallacy at work. Anyone to point exactly where is something wrong with the discussed document? SalvNaut 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Has it been published by a neutral third party source? Didn't Steven Jones get removed from his teaching position due to his unsubstantiated allegations?--MONGO 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
First, let's get this clear: Steven Jones did not get removed because of his scientific work. Secondly, this document can be attributed to a group of respectable scientists, some with great scientific account. This document could serve as a representation of the fact that not all scientists agree (a few does) with NIST report on scientific background. I doubt it will on Wikipedia. SalvNaut 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how you define respectable, in any case this represents a tiny minority of opinion (much of which is held by people working outside their field of expertise) and is not mainstream nor notible enough for inclusion here. The conspiracy theories article is a good spot maybe. RxS 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, could you point me to a paragraph, where you do not agree with this document? Because if you find one, I can at least be sure that you have looked into it and have think about it. Then, we could discuss why do you call this type of document "opinion". SalvNaut 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Woohoo muchacho, some folks should ease down on that Occam, heavy stuff ;)… I'd suggest you use good old Organon instead. Say, RxS, SalvNaut already pointed to expertise, read it… I'm interested, this tiny minority of opinions? You are well aware of public polls, check the history of this talk page if you are uncertain, not to talk about petitions, there are countless petitions out there, would you like to see some? As for your point, we may move this to the controlled demolition article, but it won't end up in conspiracy. Decent folks who are asking serious and disturbing questions are not conspiracy theorists. We are talking about the concerned citizens here. The official take on events is disputed questioned & challenged. It's time for this article to reflect that fact. Lovelight 21:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This document says two things 1)that only 1% of the steel was examined so conclusions cannot be reached from this and 2)the previous report was incorrect because estimated the temperatures reached to make them fit with the computer models. The logical conclusion to whoever has a respect for the coherence of the reality is that the gathering of steel for test was defective. This document says that 700 degrees would have been enough but that there is not physical evidence of such temperature having been reached. It is clear for everybody who applies the Ockam knife that the temperature was reached and that was the cause of the failure because the probability of the steel reaching 700 degrees is several orders of magnitude bigger than any other explanation. So is the typical document saying that we cannot be sure that the infinitely most probable thing was what happened, and that speculates that if we had had more physical evidence perhaps it would have pointed to near imposible things. Conspirationsim always ask for the benefit of doubt after rejecting tones of logical conclusions that deserve the benefit of evidence.

Whereever this document is placed, it must be as a footnote of the main report to make its conclusions slightly less conclusives but no much, since this one is not stating anything alternative thus the only logical conclusion stands unscathed--Igor21 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we agree that gathering of the evidence was defective. What is exactly the basis for your conclusion that temperature and fire was the main cause for the collapse? "Ockam knife"? You have a random sample from a distribution you have no idea about and you claim that through Ockham razor you are able to identify its peak?? SalvNaut 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The fallacy of your reasoning comes from the fact that you attribute infinitely low probability to an event (collapse because of some other factors than plane hit and fire) without any justification (apart from the one in your head, in your beliefs, of course). SalvNaut 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not going to engage. It was only an statement. --Igor21 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The request itself is not encyclopedic (except in the pop culture sense within the context of the conspiracy theories article), although new conclusions from NIST or third parties could be. Peter Grey 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased Article

Can someone please explain why the article fails to mention that some of the 'terrorists' have turned up in some middle eastern countries alive and well?

Can someone also explain why opinion is stated as fact. Scientific evidence is mounting up which suggests that a form of nuclear device was used to demolish the buildings?

There is also testimony to state that a shadow government had something to do with 9/11 and is infact merely an event used to gain control, in a similar way the Nazis plotted the Reichstag fire and gained control of Germany.

Please watch this video, open your mind and find the real truth for the sake of the people that died: [32].

If an encyclopedia and a propaganda video contradict each other, why do people suggest the encyclopedia is the one that's wrong? Peter Grey 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You're at the wrong article, the one you want is 9/11 conspiracy theories--Mbc362 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Come back when you learn the meaning of the terms "reliable source of information" and "photomontage". Mieciu K 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the article doesn't represent the fact that there are serious questions about the 9/11 story. No one knows the truth, all we have been told is a carefully crafted story(possibly). It is also wrong to put these doubts under a seperate conspiracy section, when there is more proof to say it was a set up than not.

It doesn't? It has a large conspiracy theory section with a large number of attendant articles. It has more than enough 'representation'. No, there's no proof whatsoever that there's a setup. There might be circumstantial evidence, but so far, the only proof I have is that some planes flew into some buildings and then they fell down. --Golbez 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There are both serious and frivolous questions regarding the September 11 attacks. The serious questions are important, but none of them challenge the fundamentals of the narrative. Peter Grey 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

US Goverment Investigations

1. In the "Investigations" section, should not the paragraph about the 9/11 Commission precede the material about NIST and the collapse of the buildings? The latter is a more specific area of interest than the general investigation conducted by the 9/11 Commission, the lead investigative body appointed by the president and Congress. 2. I've added the review conducted by the CIA's IG (see talk page above). 3. There was also a FEMA investigation, which I think should be briefly mentioned and linked to here. --NYCJosh 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

TV shows handling of the attacks

How about a section or article on how different TV shows(e.g. The Daily Show) handled the attacks, because I always wondered did they ignore it, did they make fun of the President, what did they say and maybe what changed in the format of the shows, for example did they pause to remember the dead or did different advertisers stop showing ads on shows related to 9/11 because of fear that they would get associated with the negative stuff. I think this could make a good and worthy article. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

==FBI Web page does not list Usama bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 Attacks++

Someone mentioned this to me and I didn't believe. However I checked the FBI's web page and they only list him as responisble for attacks against a U.S. Facility in the Middle East in 1998. Is there any particular reason he isn't listed as responsible for the 9/11 attack? Zachariahskylab 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to new public domain documentary

1.5 hour documentary convincingly arguing that the towers were demolished - worth watching (maybe :) http://educatedearth.net/video.php?id=2834

Well, yes, the towers were demolished. By planes. I just took a quick gander through that and it doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever. A convincing argument? Sure, if you're convinced by nothing. Like the bit at .. 28:10. The plane hit high, but the glass shattered low. Does that mean the controlled demolition was already happening? What? If it was, then why did the tower stand for another hour? Really, people, think. You've seen it, so please tell me the timestamp where it explains who installed explosives in 280 stories of office tower, and when it was performed. --Golbez 12:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok - convincingly is not the right word - anyway here is the critique to that film : http://www.911mysteriesguide.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Ubik (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Don't know where, but I think there is a virus somewhere under those links. Peter Grey 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
There is not - plz remove the warning (which is very vague indeed) The Ubik 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No way to argue the logic of a relevant piece of material? Just add some FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and hope that scares most people away. Honestly Peter, somehow I expected better. I guess I should lower my expectations. Shame on you. (If I'm wrong, please provide a specific link) 65.94.183.246 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

9/11: Press for Truth

I'd like to interlink 9/11: Press for Truth to see also section, apparently there are some issues with such contribution. Please, state your concerns. Lovelight 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the Sept 11 attacks. Just as Flat Earth Society isn't a "See Also" link on Ferdinand Magellan's page. Feel free to add it to a conspiracy theorytruther page. --Tbeatty 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"9/11: Press for Truth is a 2006 documentary film about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, directed by the American filmmaker Ray Nowosielski." There is not a single word about conspiracy there. So why would you won't to construct the conspiracy where there is none? I'm sorry but your allegory is extremely misplaced. Lovelight 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The flat earthers "document" the fallacy of the mainstream account of the round earth theory. It's just not relevant. I replaced conspiracy with truther if that's objectionable. --Tbeatty 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just realized, we are actually experiencing déjà vu… Well, I'd say that movie speaks of 9/11 attacks as well as of "Monitoring and criticising the 9/11 Commission", therefore it belongs here; it definitely doesn’t belong to the article about conspiracies. Decent people who are questioning 911 events are not conspiracy theorists (or truthers). If you would kindly point to this fallacy you've recognized with regards to the documentary? What exactly is wrong with asking questions and demanding factual answers? Not to say that the articles are already interlinked, just not on both sides. Please, elaborate your reasons with focus on this dispute, let's leave these notions about "flat earth" out of this. Lovelight 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that it's a "truther" movie. Entertaining and interesting as a sideshow but not relevant to the 9/11 attacks. --Tbeatty 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"Entertaining and interesting as a sideshow"? Perhaps you meant disturbing and relevant? "Truther"? That one is a bit new, at least to me… do we have an article about these truthers? Perhaps you have a valid point? Would you define a truther? Lovelight 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 9/11: Press for Truth is not about the attacks themselves, neither is it the usual conspiracy theory nonsense, it's about the obstruction of subsequent investigations. It would be relevant under the 9/11 Commission article. Peter Grey 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Its already there, we have a section on commission right here; I'm not certain why would one object to such tiny contribution? Especially so if you take a look at see also section as whole. What would be the reasoning behind the inclusion of Path to 9/11 or Freedom Tower or that Twin Towers stub? The link is applicable here and there, it serves as a descriptor of "mentioned" criticism, and we definitely need some balance here. btw, among other subjects, movie questions NORAD's performance as well as the fall of the towers, and I'm glad that you don’t see these issues as "usual conspiracy nonsense." Lovelight 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain why would one object[s]: the part about "9/11: Press for Truth is not about the attacks". More clutter will not benefit the article. Peter Grey 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please, do provide some finer arguments, of course that press for truth is closely related to attacks, much closer than half of the links already provided in that section. We won't clutter anything with such itsy bitsy addition, if this is the reason for dispute, how are we to deal with more serious issues? Lovelight 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Golbez, did you ravage through talk page once again? Why are you removing valid edits? Why are you removing edits from new contributors? Get a grip, control yourself. Lovelight 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you should be careful with these allegations of vandalism, you've pointed to archived discussion which validates my contribution. Would you like to add something to our previous debate? There is no room (or need) for misleading sentences (or blatant lies) in our encyclopedia. I've clarified that claim, citing exactly what's been stated in pointed references. I'm sorry if you find these facts disturbing, but facts are facts… Please, share any suggestions to improve that fallacy in some other fashion. Once again, restrain from silly and unfounded accusations. Please, don't revert without valid argument. Lovelight 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Little surprise that the frequently-discredited "Lovelight" is still trolling these pages. Wikipedia Admin should be ashamed that they continue to allow such an intellectual eunuch such unfettered ability to control this article. It discredits the Wiki concept. Carthago delenda est 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapse hypotheses

Golbez, I'm really not sure what's on your mind, but if we are to serve any purpose, any purpose at all; then we have to say it as it is. You know, what bothers me the most is this ridiculous tension? Have I ever contributed with anything but the facts? I'm assuming a good faith Peter (for a long, long time), but this is a bit weird. We're just citing the "reputable source", there is nothing beyond that, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'll revert to one of the yesterday's versions; it will be in plural, since the source speaks in plural (hypothes[e]s). I'd suggest you folks take a breath & relax. Again, there is nothing wrong with citing the source properly (however, it's clearly wrong to construct false statements), Golbez, try to understand, at this moment you are actually acting against consensus. Thanks. Lovelight 11:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't feign ignorance: you are the one knowingly opposing consensus, not to mention the NPOV policy and reality. The remaining hypotheses (because there was no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition) are identical at this level of detail. Peter Grey 11:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
…another thought on that consensus, because it seemed yesterday that Tom, you yourself as well as SalvNaut endorsed and/or improved proposed change… guess that looks can be deceiving and all that… I'm honestly puzzled about your concerns over this? & I'm patiently waiting. Lovelight 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter, during our somewhat fiery discussions we tend to say things that we don’t really mean… or things we soon regret… it's somewhat natural, but not necessary. There are more than few edits where I've responded inappropriately and I'd like to apologize for those. Now, would you kindly look at the source?
Here:
"Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007."
It also states:
"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."
We are talking about citing of a source (properly), we are talking about building 7. Do say, who exactly is suggesting controlled demolition? As for this consensus, deliberately or not, we cannot have a consensus on lie. You know, NIST is quite clear about all this, more decent and honest than we are. Let me remind you what you already know: "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7". Now, what is wrong with stating these facts, these are known facts, already referenced, already cited elsewhere. Misinterpretation? You've said it vaguely there… Lovelight 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Second, what part of The remaining hypotheses... are identical at this level of detail. is confusing you? If you want to say there is more than one hypothesis, you have to indicate range of possibilities under consideration. That level of detail is better suited to the sub-articles. That's why consensus supports the original version, which is much clearer than the partial information you attempted to introduce. Peter Grey 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Back to step one, by omitting the word hypothesis, we are clearly implying that the building collapsed: "after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell." That is not what the source states, source states that this hypothesis is being examined along with others (blasts, included). So why are you talking about selections and pov? That said, we've already been through this, let me repeat, my only concern is word hypothesis, because we are talking about hypotheses. Do you understand how difficult it is to constantly restrain while you are accusing me of soap boxing, vandalism, ignorance… Do you? Please, recall our previous discussions… Please stick to the topic. Lovelight 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
One source not using the exact wording of the article is not proof that the statement is incorrect. You are the one trying to introduce a tangent on hypotheses. The previous discussion revealed that you did understand the meaning of hypothesis in context. Peter Grey 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

International charities

I believe we should a section dealing specifically with the charities ,esspecially international ones, should be added, such as Canadad Helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.131.241.8 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Cause of the collapse of WTC 7

I've looked through archive discussion and found no clear consensus on this topic. Since NIST is indicating that their scenario is only a hypothesis and they're investigating "hypothetical blast scenarios" (those not necessairly being blasts from controlled demolition), and since NIST is the strongest and most recent source on the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, the version proposed by Lovelight seems most appropriate. This version is also in agreement with section of Collapse of the World Trade Center. SalvNaut 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

John Kerry about WTC 7: "...they did it in a controlled fashion".

YouTube video:

"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things - that they did it in a controlled fashion."

I don't know how to approach this. It is a very disturbing statement from a known politician. However, he is not an expert. And the statement is secured with "I think" clause. SalvNaut 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus he was responding to a hypothetical; he did not acknowledge that demolition was actually what happened. Peter Grey 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought he meant they handled the evacuation of the building and the area around it in a controlled fashion. But that makes me some kind of crazy person. --Golbez 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
He said: "let me find out about it, I don't know enough about it" Lovelight 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So it means nothing at all? Thanks for bringing this to our attention then, SalvNaut! --Golbez 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it means whole lot of things… for example; it means that people need to be better informed, especially some senators, it appears there is huge gap in knowledge… imo it’s a bit early to jump on this one, but as that quote suggest there is a high probability that we'll discuss this in future. Fact is, he thinks that building was brought down in "controlled fashion" (clear statement and popular opinion these days); but we need to wait since he says he'll need to find out about it, he doesn't know enough about it"… it's a bit like NIST's progress report, actually;)… Lovelight 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
he thinks that building was brought down in "controlled fashion" Wrong. He said that if there had been a deliberate demolition, that it would have been a responsible action since the building was already in danger of collapse. He was asked a hypothetical question, his answer is therefore an opinion without factual basis. He also explicitly repudiated the premise of the question. All it means is that John Kerry responded gracefully and non-commitally to a dishonest question. Peter Grey 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, again, he said: "let me find out about it, I don't know enough about it"; please, don't mistake a comment (as imo) for argument. Lovelight 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
don't mistake a comment...for argument Obviously this is comment - hence it does not contribute to the article. Peter Grey 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lovelight. I'd like if some people would endorse or respond to this. --Golbez 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To simply say that WTC7 was in danger of collapse must be verifeid by evidence showing a building in a state of near collapse. There is none. There is no evidence at all showing this building was in a state of near collapse. Therefore the statement appears to have been made to deliberately mislead. The building (WTC7) collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance at free fall speed. There has never been a plausible explanation to this event other than controlled demolition. Any person knowing that the controlled demolition was about to be initiated would say "the building is in danger of collapsing" knowing full well that demolition would soon follow. 203.97.127.35 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Kiwi9/11researcher
Wrong. Video shows that a large part of the penthouse of WTC7 collapsed into the building about 20 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed. The building also had fires on several, if not every floor. There was heavy structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. The reason the article does not mention any of the things you write is because they are not true. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream

The truth is now mainstream according to Michael Chertoff. --Striver - talk 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The truth that "we" are at war with al-Qaeda? I see nothing "conspiratorist" in that article. There's an implication that Brzezinski stated that the US government used the attacks to promote totalitarianism, but there is no implication that the government was aware of the attacks beforehand. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's great Chertoff has clued in. It's been mainstream for everyone else since 11 September 2001. Peter Grey 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like nothing more than Chertoff trying to smear Brzezinski by attempting to link him to conspiracy theorists. Nothing that Brzezinski has ever said has ever been remotely close to such conspiracies. "There's an implication that Brzezinski stated that the US government used the attacks to promote totalitarianism, but there is no implication that the government was aware of the attacks beforehand" yep.--Jersey Devil 04:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Easily Refuted

I want to thank my friend Lovelight for one very important thing -- he is an excellent source for citations to refute the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I say, give credit where credit is due -- thanks for this NIST site which easily dispels some of the common CT theories. Cheers.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where?

Where is the article about President Bush and other adminstrations actions on 9/11? (like President Bush sitting in the schoolroom and flying around, and VP Cheney) There must be 100 links in this article, and I couldn't see one. Why is this info so hard to find? Thank you kindly. Babalooo 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See 9/11 conspiracy theories for pet goats and more.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Morton is expressing a consensus view. A number of interesting facts about the day of 9/11 (such as the response of GWB and his flights around the country) have come to be associated with "conspiracy theories" and relegated to articles that deal with "myths". It's too bad, and some of us are working on it. You can always try to include a section on the movements of Airforce One or the role of Dick Cheney on that day and see what happens. I'm afraid it will be difficult. Some of us are trying to change that, but we have not been very successful so far.--Thomas Basboll 06:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The actions of President Bush and VP Cheney on 9/11 were part of a bad conspiracy Mr. Devonshire? Is that what you say? You and others must think so since you are trying to hide what they did and not did on 9/11 and 9/12 by without having an article. I think they were only incompetent, not part of a plot so I am a better American and supporter than you and I'm not even American! The truth will set you free Mr. Devonshire. Don't hide what they did and not did on 9/11 and 9/12 under the rug. Babalooo 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen this Mr. Devonshire? It's all documented. [33] What about President Bush saying he watches the plane hit the tower on TV? What about him sitting in the chair for so long while America was being attacked? Mr. Baseball, could I start an article about 'Actions of top US officials on 9/11 and the next few days'? Babalooo 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on the car that Atta rentaled but not on the actions of top US officials on 9/11! [34] That is funny. Babalooo 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the article you propose is in order. Like I say, be prepared for some rather tough (to my mind excessive) opposition. I think the title better read "Defense operations on 9/11" or something of that order. If that gets to be too big, we can always spin articles out later. You may want to start something in your sandbox (drop me a link and I'll gladly have a look at it). The facts you mention can, as far as I know, easily be documented in accordance with WP policy. Because of the tone here, I'm staying out of article space these days. BTW, it's Basboll but, yes, I get that all the time. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not defense operations, but actions of top USA officials on 9/11 and the difference between what happened and what they say that happened. Do you know Mr. Andy Card and others said that President Bush left the room as soon as they told him about the attack? He said this too many times. The teacher said that too. Why would they lie like that? They must not have knew that there was the videotape of President Bush sitting in the chair for ever and longer while his country was being attacked. It's like Pat Tillman. Too many lies. Babalooo 07:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be related to conspiracy theories; if Bush wasn't ready, then he clearly wasn't part of any conspiracy. And certainly there's no ignoring Bush's wholesale inability to cope with the single most fundamental responsibility of his job. Peter Grey 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the government response to 9/11 (including Bush's first moments) doesn't belong in a "conspiracy theory" article, that just makes no sense. However, don't we have a timeline article with this information in detail? --Golbez 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Some of the relevant facts are mentioned in the time line in passing. But that doesn't mean we can't write a bit of prose to explain the issue to a reader that doesn't have time to read through the whole thing.--Thomas Basboll 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to request that User:Babalooo stop inserting this material into the leads of articles related to this topic. Not only is it disruptive, and violates WP:NPOV to insert such material into the lead, but virtually all of your mainspace edits have consisted of this. We understand you have an opinion, but this is not the place to be pushing it. --Haemo 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I will start an article as soon, but these things are too important to not be in the article on 9/11 attacks, like President Bush reading and talking and making pictures for 12 to 18 minutes while people were dying and jumping 100 floors and burning to death. And then the lies by top administrations one year later lying that he left the room right away as soon as they told him. These are lies. Proved lies. He sat and talked and made pictures for 12 to 18 minutes. These lies are a conspiracy to make him seem better. Calling this proofs "nonsense" and I think you are a conspiracy theorist for President Bush and his partners. Where should these proofs go until I make the article? Thank you to not insult me again. Babalooo 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be two extreme viewpoints which both strike me as excessive. The introduction is clearly not appropriate for this item, and editorial comment is really not necessary. However, the major actions taken (or inacation in this case), which are mostly spelled out at September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks, are maybe a little too understated in this article. Little George's deer-in-the-headlights moment (I know 7 minutes is confirmed, there may be sources supporting a longer duration) certainly qualifies as notable reaction. Peter Grey 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He didn't insult you in the first place, and what article will you be making? As for where it goes, I don't know, find a place, but certainly not the intro. --Golbez 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You claim that it took Bush took 12-18 minutes to leave the room. That's wrong, it took seven minutes. If the people who claim Bush left the room right away are liars, what does that make you? Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong too. Look here. It has all the proofs. [35] President Bush after the reading about the goats talked to many children also the teacher and the headmistress and reporters more before going to the room with the other top officials. I will make my own article. You may not worry about this one. Babalooo 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If you make an article containing the information on that page to which you linked I will just edit the page so that it contains none of that garbage. Remember, we should be providing facts. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is super - first of all, it's good that you're going to start an article about this, and put this material there; perhaps some of the other, already existing, articles might welcome it. However, that still doesn't excuse adding this material to the lead of other articles - that violates WP:NPOV, and is disruptive. Furthermore, I would ask that you restrain yourself and cease the name-calling. First of all, I never called what you said "nonsense", nor did I insult you. I have been entirely civil here, and I don't appreciate being accused of things I didn't do. On the other hand, you have leveled baseless charges of being uncivil at me, and proceeded to call me a "conspiracy theorist for President Bush", despite having no evidence of that. That's not civil, nor it is it in good faith, and so, I would like you to cease this name-calling entirely. If you're not willing to discuss this reasonably, I don't think we can work together on this topic. --Haemo 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I will make my own article on 'actions and lies of top USA officials on 9/11 and later'. You may not worry from me with this on this attack article for now. I am sorry if you were not the person who called me nonsense. It was maybe one of the others who called me it. I am sorry if you are not a conspiracy theorist and coverup for President Bush like the others. Babalooo 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your apology - I would be happy to help you with your article, when you make it. Just post here to tell us about it. --Haemo 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Supressed information Alert

How do we as a wiki-comunity deal with the fact that groups and/or individuals systematically are:

  • Trying to supress and delete information about alternativ point of views (APOV)
  • Trying to promote one point of view as the only and real truth

Just look at the September 11, 2001 attacks-article in the light of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and this becomes clear. I know there's a 9/11 conspiracy theories-article, but as a main page the September 11, 2001 attacks-article is not meeting the standard at any point.

  • It would help to state (briefly) what alternative points of view you're referring to. There are several. Peter Grey 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Briefly: From serious questions about the US defences handling of the attacks, to a belife that the attacks were an US inside job promoting an hidden agenda. --Geir 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Extract from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--Geir 07:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Implications of NPOV for the article

9/11 conspiracies have no basis in fact, which is why they are largely excluded from articles such as this one. The only fact associated with the "Truth" Movement is the fact that it exists. Any extensive inclusion into this article is giving undue weight to the CTers. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically I could say the same about the official story, but that's not my point. My point is that the 911-article totally lacks a neutral point of view and the information necessary for the readers to form their own opinion.--Geir 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have this stuff inserted into the article, find me well-respected structural engineers and well-respected demolitions experts that support the "Truth Movement." That will be quite a task, as those people don't exist. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it won't fit in your pre-securing definition of "well-respected", but you may want to have a look at these: [36] [37] SalvNaut 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about historical facts, not viewpoints. NPOV does not mean balancing reality with fantasy. Now, many people are very emotional about the topic (a reflection of people, not the subject matter), and there are viewpoints that are hard to separate from the historical narrative, and of course the article, like every article in Wikipedia, could probably be better. But some people holding a view does not make it encyclopedic - some people are simply (and demonstrably) wrong. Peter Grey 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV does not mean balancing reality with fantasy." Well said. --Haemo 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Terrible (lack of) response by Air Force, completely irrational behavior of the president and special forces protecting him, confusion of traffic controllers somehow causing the sophisticated scrambling system to fail, surveillance of the terrorists that failed to stop them ("Able Danger"), very poorly explained (if at all) collapse of WTC1&2, to this day not explained collapse of WTC 7 - this is not fantasy. SalvNaut 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And your evidence is...? Physical, please. Show me who and when 280 stories of office tower were wired for controlled demolition. As for the lack of response, do you think they keep fighter jets at combat-ready status 24/7? Failure to stop does not mean they were involved, so that's out. Traffic controllers got confused? So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? It is very much fantasy, because for all your words, you can't back a single one up with a concrete fact. --Golbez 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking about conspiracy theories but these facts exactly - a major defence failure, and a failure in investigating the case properly. This could be documented in this article.
Then why did you bring up the "poorly explained" collapses? C'mon, don't change your story halfway through. --Golbez 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't. They are poorly explained and few non-conspiracy theories exist as well as conspiracy ones.[38][39] [40] NIST report is based on circular reasoning and disproves itself with few real-world experiments that were made. Most important computer simulations were not released to public domain.[41] If you are aware of any good explanation of the WTC 7 collapse, preferably a one that does not include phrases "low probability of occurrence" or "working hypothesis", please give me a link. SalvNaut 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Before supplying a set of links as source, consider the fact that someone is probably going to check them. Cherepanov's article is about the progress of the collapse after it had started - it's only concerned with how, not why, a level of detail not addressed in this article, and basically only makes the unremarkable observation that the speed of sound in steel is faster than free fall acceleration over the distances in question. Results of the (identical) Google searches support the conventional storyline or consider the fires in isolation from the structural damage of the aircraft impacts, and the request for correction only states opinions on administrative procedures. Peter Grey 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is great that you've checked them. I don't know why are you attacking my position. My point was clearly to show that although there are few theories those are contesting theories (Cherepanov vs Bazant, Torero vs NIST, and petition to NIST) and WTC exact collapse cause and mechanism is far from scientific consensus. Cherepanov makes the observation: The collapse in the regime of progressive failure is shown to occur at an acceleration, which is several times less than the gravitational acceleration and, hence, this theory contradicts to the observed free fall. and he proposes different theory to explain it than Bazant. One of them has to be wrong. There was a discussion about this under Talk:Collapse of WTC and I think you've taken part in it. There were attempts to add this information about engineers dissent once to Collapse of WTC article but this sparkled latest argument between Mongo and Thomas Basboll.
Petition to NIST questions scientific soundness of the NIST report. I can't see how could you interpret that as "opinions in administrative procedures". Bad science is no science. SalvNaut 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Then, since you've begun an argument: the "preparation" because neither me, nor you (i suppose) have prepared something like this. The technology to remotely detonate is there. There was "unprecedented" major power outage during the weekend before 9/11 (witness interview), and strange constructions occurring in the towers before.[42] Yes, they do keep some fighter jets ready 24/7. There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002).[43] Strange coincidence that "war games" were conducted on 9/11 that involved planes being flown away, radar blips inserted. Controllers got confused - exactly: so what? NORAD has their own ability to track planes even with their transponders turned off (coast track). Amazingly, controllers' confusion was enough to disturb the whole air security chain and allow a plane to fly for 40min and struck Pentagon. This itself might not prove a conspiracy, but it shows very incompetence, and this could be documented. Then, there is more to it. I wonder if you can back up every of your beliefs regarding that day. SalvNaut 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, traffic controllers were confused. Fighters were scrambled to intecept Flight 11 about a half-hour after it had already crashed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The technology to do a lot of things exists, that doesn't say they were used. And by the way - to scramble an aircraft, based on what I know (I could be wrong) takes an hour. How long did it take in this situation? You're right, none of this is either proof nor evidence of a conspiracy, and I have no problem with you mentioning it - but you keep wanting to bundle it with conspiracy stuff. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The facts of that day have never been proven or even shown false; the conspiracy theories of that day have never been proven or even shown true. All you have is vague circumstantial evidence, complete non-sequitors (the 'existence of the technology' must mean it was used, right?), and eyewitness similes. --Golbez 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
".right?" No. I do not want to bundle conspiracy stuff here. Only facts, like those gathered in Paul Thompson's 9/11 Complete Timeline. However, for some reason, unknown to me, this common effort of many journalists was decided to be an "unreliable" source. Anyway, further discussion is pointless, without an edit proposed. SalvNaut 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: How are we as a community to handle:
Topics where one persons facts is another persons fictions, and the other persons facts are the first persons fictions?
As I see it, this is the case here.. --Geir 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts versus conspiracy theories

It's important to distinguish actual facts from disinformation and conclusions. Clearly there was a defence failure, at least one official (Condoleeza Rice) is known to have been at least negligent, and Bush and Cheney did obstruct subsequent investigations. The problem is the leap to implicating Little George and/or others in spectacular crimes defying logic, common sense, the evidence, physics, and the alleged motives. Facts may or may not be suitable in the article, hysterical superstition definitely is not. Peter Grey 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's important to distinguish facts from their interpretations. In my post I felt entitled to defend my stance, when attacked. I feel uncomfortable with my post serving here as an example, so I'll move it back on it's place. SalvNaut 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a (slightly) longer paragraph on conspiracy theories

Hi. A discussion elsewhere has raised the possibility that this article could and should have a slightly better summary of the conspiracy theories surrounding the event. I am interested in the possibility of drafting such. Of course, I know how controversial this will be, and so I am putting it up here so we can discuss it. Depending on the reaction I may work on a suggested draft in the section below. Meantime if anyone else feels they can come up with a form of words that will satisfy policy and consensus, please feel free to suggest. --Guinnog 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft

So, here's my suggested draft, combining what we have with the lead of the CT article:

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account.[1]

The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis.[2] U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.[3]

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Final scientific reports by structural engineers regarding the collapse of WTC 7 are still pending, though an interim report [1] and updates have been published.[2]
  3. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).

Comments - draft conspiracy theories paragraph

Comments? --Guinnog 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. Looks good to me. I thought that section was too short. --Haemo 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Disagree. The article is about a broad, complex subject matter, and from time to time substantially more important topics are suggested as deserving of greater treatment. The treatment of conspiracy folklore is adequate for the level of detail of the main article. Peter Grey 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Works for me. Covers the conspiracy theories but hints that they are total crap. I might also add that controlled demolitions experts don't agree with the Contolled Demolition Hypothesis. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Change :"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge. Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis.[2] U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.[3]" to "Conspiracy theories surrounding the events suggest that the U.S. Government was involved in some way and that controlled demolition destroyed all or some of the buildings. However, the evidence clearly indicates that the responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3], and that civil engineers have found no evidence of a controlled demolition.[2]"--MONGO 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. I like MONGO's version better. It correctly stresses that these conspiracy theories are baseless. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Pablo and Mongo, that is a good idea if you want to stress that your point of view (POV) is the correct one. If you want to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV), I would have choosen other words. --Geir 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no objective analysis of facts that leads to anything other than the official version. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I checked your userpage Pablo -it looks like you hava an agenda against alternativ points of view (APOV) on this subjeckt. Right? Geir 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My userpage doesn't say anything about conspiracy theories. The only "agenda" I have is that I like to keep people from inserting cruft into articles. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I miss these links in the conspiracy theories section: The wiki-pages 9/11 Truth Movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Could we have: "Se also.."? Geir 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. no rewirte that includes details of the various conspiracy theories should be in the article. It is the camels nose in the tent. The paragraph should be about the phenomonenon of conspiracy theories surrounding the event, not the theories themselves. Something like 'A few people continue to believe that the attacks were not carried out by the 19 terrorist murderers hijacking 4 jetliners. Those people are wrong.' only with more references and flowery language. --Tbeatty 09:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much my sentiments overall...I figure once they have an inch, they'll want a mile. If it is mentioned in more detail, it needs to be made pretty clear that the issues have zero basis in facts.--MONGO 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your "camels nose in the tent"-consern. But until the editors here comprehend that the people questioning the mainstream-version are not few, this articel will fail to provide balanced information for the readers. Geir 10:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Then let us hope after reading this article, they'll become better educated.--MONGO 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised draft

I take Guinnog's citations of his sources as true, though I will verify them later.

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account, which typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks.[1] These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.[2]

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers reject this hypothesis.[3]

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  3. ^ Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology[3] and updates[4]

Thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing about this version is it is alluding to the LIHOP (Let it happen theory)...but some conspiracy theorists believe in that the MIHOP (Make it happen) theory...so I tried to eliminate both and just say that the government was involved according to CTer's. I didn't mention shawdoy figures in association with the government since we are still talking about the governement having foreknowledge or involvement in some way or another as a central believe of the majority of the CTer's...few if any CTer's believe that there wasn't government involvement at some level. I prefer to see no more than what we have since I think once we start adding more about this, then that won't be enough...in time the article will have more and more CT stuff. The daughter articles is the best place to put all but a short intro about that stuff.--MONGO 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Review my most recent change, which presents the fact that conspiracy theorists believe in both Let and Made it happen, but actually shortens the paragraph. I would oppose any addition past this "see also" section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup...better...maybe simply..."that the government of the United States knew of or planned the attacks."--MONGO 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think this is the best suggestion, though I'd want to tweak it a little. May I suggest this?

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals within the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks.[1] Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.[2][3]
--Mbc362 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, aside from the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement...I see no reason to give THAT group more publicity over other CTer's.--MONGO 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was a specific group, I thought it was the movement as a whole - I've removed it from my draft.--Mbc362 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Truth-movment is not a specific group [44] Geir 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Too long in my view, but more importantly, solely is a very strong statement that is probably excessive. A lot of conspiracy theory 'logic' is based on the leap from 'someone could have done better' to 'US government 100% responsible'. Plus it seems the meaning is carried out by Al Qaeda operatives, a little different from responsibility. Peter Grey 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your moving in a good direction for attaing a more NPOV here. Geir 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good Mr. Mongo. Qué Chévere! 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer my suggested "concluded" in place of "determined", as I think it sounds more scientific, rather than the legalistic sound of "determined", which makes me think of the health warning on tobacco products in the U.S. Overall though, I am very pleased with the progress here, and I thank Hipocrite, both for suggesting this improvement and for implementing a reasonably NPOV and consensus version of it. The article is incrementally improved by the work done. Thanks to all who contributed. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, nice improvements. Though I still miss the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement-article, which is a broad aproach to this phenomenon. And I agree with the "concluded" choice above. Geir 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are journalists part of the political community? Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Would you and Tbeatty be able to discuss your changes here, as I think a consensus was reached on the wording of that paragraph? Thanks. --Guinnog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Did that above. Got consensus to change it. --Tbeatty 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? Where? --Guinnog 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see the removal of "Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition.", but I am struggling to see the consensus for the removal. --Guinnog 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think my edit reflects the consensus above, which is heavily qualified. I think too that my comment about journalists was not addressed before the change was made to the article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've got no problem with Tom's edit, but Tbeatty's is unacceptable in my opinion.--Mbc362 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The only difference was Tom's addition of the U.S. government knowledge. This doesn't take into account conspiracy theories that accuse Israel of carrying out the attacks. Here's the diff [45] --Tbeatty 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, but I am well aware of the differences. Your version introduced the section with "Various conspiracy theories have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks. Typically they suggest that various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks," which is basically stating the obvious - of course various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks, 9/11 didn't happen by accident. That's the problem I have with your edit; you made it so broad that even Al Qaida would fit in the definition.--Mbc362 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My concern was limiting to U.S. government as there are conspiracy theories involving most western coutries as well as Israel. --Tbeatty 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You have (again) made the opening sentence so broad that not only is it useless, but its logically incorrect. If the official story is that Al Qaida planned and carried out the attacks, every theory that someone else was behind it or allowed it to happen would be a conspiracy theory. Therefore, its pointless to say "various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of or planned the attacks." The word "typically" was included originally so that the reader would know that not all CTs involved the US gov. Its illogical to say that the CTs typically involve other groups than Al Qaida, as every CT must involve other groups than Al Qaida. The CT that the US gov. was being the attack was included because it is by far the most prevalent theory; CTs about Israel are far less common, and CTs about other governments are practically nonexistent.--Mbc362 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
In the ME, most of the conspiracy theories center on Israel. There is certainly one of those that was popular here when it was circulated that a numer of jewish people called in sick. No conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other so discounting some or favoring others shouln't happen in this article. Put it in the conspiracy article. --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You know very little about these particular conspiracy theories, and you speak with such confidence about them - it is not polite, nor it is wise. The story you mention is soo old and was since then debunked mostly by people from the Truth Movemnt. Maybe you should do some research on the topic before? Here, please read this article published in a Jewish magazine - it might give you some introduction. Also take a look at this Muslim-Jewish-Christian organization. And your statement is quite nutty: no conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other - well in very definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. SalvNaut 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not going to be a messageboard for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that there are numerous conspiracy theories regarding these events is well established.--MONGO 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
All of the theories have been debunked. Heck, half of the theorists accuse the other theorists of being involved in the conspiracy asa false flag operation. If we are only going to list the non-debunked Conspiracy Theories, we would have no section at all. But the reality is that if you ask the people of the world whose primary source of news is Al Jazeera, they will implicate Israel in the attacks. That conspiracy theory belief is probably held by more total persons than any of the U.S. centric theories. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discounting any theory, I'm simply saying what theory seems to be the most prevalent. You have (yet again) changed the opening sentence to one that says basically nothing. You might as well just write "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks." since the rest of the sentence gives no useful information beyond stating the obvious. As far as "Put it in the conspiracy article" goes, I'm not even sure what you mean. Put what in the conspiracy article?--Mbc362 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a poor edit, a really silly thing to say, and I still don't see the consensus you said you established for it. --Guinnog 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Most prevalent in what sense? There are no experts that hold the views of any conspiracy theories so "most prevalent" is without meaning. There is a whole article that explores the various conspiracy theories. There is no reason to single any of them out. Controlled Demolition isn't any more likely or scientific than energy weapons or alien attack. The theories implicating the U.S. government aren't any more credible than the theories that implicate France or Israel. Therefore the statement in this article should be short and without prejudice. You can explore the U.S. Government theories as well as the controlled demolition theories in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the appropriate place to explore who holds what beliefs and why. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty, please do not edit the comments of other users. Where was that consensus you said you had established? --Guinnog 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. If you cannot see the consensus, then no answer I provide can help you. --Tbeatty 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty, you have been asked not to edit the comments of other users, please heed this request. Furthermore, as the comment was directed solely at your edit, not at you personally, it does not constitute a personal attack. If you refuse to show us where the consensus is for your edit, I see no reason why I should let it stand.--Mbc362 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tbeatty I think, there are lot's of different theories, there's no reason to imply that there is only one group that CT'ers single out...RxS 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A new section

  1. What you say they think is true. Proof is the secret paper President Bush read in Texas. The USA Government knew some attacks were on the way soon with airplanes maybe. Is there an article on that paper? It was on Aug 6? Is that paper told about in this article? Qué Chévere! 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude, this isn't the place for this. We're talking about this section - how does your comment have any relevance to this, at all? --Haemo 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" [46] "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" They did know. That is why. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits in this section. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing I write is disruptive. You just change one word and the proof is true. The words are bad. " individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and forgot to act on that knowledge." He should change that part. Qué Chévere! 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to let people know, Que Chevere is Babalooo. --Golbez 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I said so. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you kindly not do this? It's very disruptive, and doesn't help at all. --Haemo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you writing of? The words are not so good to me Qué Chévere! 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. We are talking about writing a new paragraph for this section. You are talking about unrelated matters, which don't have to do with the paragraph, or how it is written. This is disruptive, since it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Now, do you have anything to say about the paragraph? --Haemo 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people had some information - that much has been known for a long time independently of conspiracy theory speculation. It takes more than isolated bits of truth slipping out to validate the whole conspiracy theory phenomenon. Note "forgot" is really hard to prove but is included under negligence. Peter Grey 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we're not discussing this, nor are we trying to "discredit" anyone. We're talking about adding a short paragraph to flesh out this section. However, some people appear to have taken this as an invitation to air whatever views they think even remotely relate to this topic. It's not helping, and it's not productive. Please stop, or get back on topic. This isn't an "aside" since we're not arguing about this. I'm not arguing about this, and no one else is - only some people have decided to bring this up. This isn't relevant, and I'm not going to be drawn into this. I also object to refactoring this talk page discussion in this way. --Haemo 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I think is better. "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew exactly all the plans of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge in a plot". I write this for "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" is perfectly all true not a conspiracy theory so it should not be written into the conspiracy theory. When it is others can think this "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew nothing at all of the impending attacks" Qué Chévere! 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is more relevant - but you're pushing a particular point of view, which should be argued on the linked article, not here. We're just trying to give a brief summary of the other article's lead here - we leave the serious content discussion for the other article's talk page. --Haemo 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this in it's own special section. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you move what I write. They were about Guinnogs words. Qué Chévere! 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand this either. This is a discussion about the new section - it's not a new section, and we've been able to get back on track here, after a short disagreement. It's just confusing to move it like this. --Haemo 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

molten metal

im sure someone somewhere has explained this, it may even be in the article, but im a busy man and dont have time to read it 18 times (every time its changed). what was the explanation for the pools of molten metal that stayed super-hot for days or weeks after the attacks underground? i thought that the steel wouldnt melt in the fires, due to the fact that the burning temperature of the jet fuel/ paper was not hot enough to melt steel, let alone keep it melted and very hot for weeks afterwards...one more thing - the largest support beams, according to some people should not have been wasted all the way to the ground...they should have been still standing, at least partially, from what i understand. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have questions like this, they probably belong at the reference desk WP:RD. RxS 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we're not really all that good at fielding questions, because that would be really, really time consuming and take away from our editing. But there are resources for it, if you want to ask. --Haemo 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

proof

its useless to try and get anything that is not "official" on to wikipedia. if it is not produced by the government, it isnt "official". if we can only get "official" information from the government, how can we ever show an alternative view? one that does not coincide with the governments or directly implicates the government? i dont know how to express this without being blasted with hate mails.....10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that's why we have a dozen conspiracy pages - because they aren't approved by the government. --Golbez 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We have lots of stuff that isn't official. For instance, 9/11 conspiracy theories is pretty much entirely about non-official theories. Using only official theories kind of defeats the purpose of this encyclopedia. --Haemo 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That was my point. I don't know if you were responding to the original statement, or if you missed my sarcasm. --Golbez 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I was replying to the original. --Haemo 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to convince us? Find notable scientists and engineers that have published these alternative theories in peer reviewed journals. --Tbeatty 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add on to Tbeatty's comments. Find a structural engineer. There are plenty of misguided electrical engineers and such that attempt to pass themselves off as experts who believe in conspiracy theories. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There are at least a few structural engineers that have doubts [47]. Yes there are many "misguided" PhD's, like Swiss structural engineer, who concluded that the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished. Here is interesting few words about structural engineers involved in the collapse analysis. That's not to say that a publication by a structural engineer wouldn't be a breakthrough. SalvNaut 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I should have been more clear. I meant find a structural engineer who has provided a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed journal article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, guys.. i dont understand...your giving me references to this stuff (thanks), but none of it is in the article. if you found it, why is it up to me to put it on there? or you dont consider this good enough or what? i dunnah, man this place is pretty f*cked up 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, and the scientists have all failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals because their beliefs don't hold up against scientific rigor. These types of theories that are largely discredited by experts are detailed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center--Dcooper 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
They aren't in this article because they don't belong to it. They're in the many other articles specifically on the conspiracy theories. --Golbez 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

when you say that these theories are largely discredited by experts....which experts? government experts? how long will this circle-jerk go on for? your becoming redundant; popular mechanics etc. are a part of almost every theory, tools of the government...i quit 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you consider all experts you disagree with to me tools of the government, then you'll never be happy with this, or probably any other, article on this topic. --Haemo 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, in this section alone you have said it's "useless to try", you expect us to "blast you with mails", you call this place "pretty f*cked up", and you now call it a "circle-jerk". It seems you're just in this to insult Wikipedia and its editors; is that all? --Golbez 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh don't be so harsh. This place is to be seen by many as pretty f****d up, still it is one of the best places on the Internet. If I understand, 10 bucks is making a point, in his language (which happens not to be used on Wikipedia, and that's good), that many before him were making. That this article does not reflect true feelings of quite significant amount of people, and not only common people but also journalists, scholars, some politicians. There are many journalist sources from which balancing phrases could be taken. There is a book by Bob Woodward "State of Denial" in which there is clearly shown that Bush administration ignored (at least) many highest level warnings about 9/11 coming, there is a Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson, there are many articles in smaller newspapers.
I would actually propose an edit but I am quite busy recently, and I see what is happening when a cosmetic change to Conspiracy Theories section is proposed, I just don't feel it's worth the time.
By the way, how about using this article as a source to the conspiracy theories section: 22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance. SalvNaut 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean [....and not only (a minority of) common people but also (a tiny minority of) journalists, (a tiny minority of) scholars, some (a tiny minority of) politicians]. RxS 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article still an embarrasment to wikipedia

Contrary to all wikipedia precdents, wikipedia rules and basic logic, the word 'terrorist' still appears in the lead-in. Given that the term has no universally agreed upon definition, its nothing more than an insult. You may as well be calling al qaeda "pooh pooh heads".

Furthermore, the official story is given almost universal coverage whilst alternative theories are deliberately sidelined. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong from the perspective of wikipedia - in fact determining such would be original research. The fact is that very significant minority (and in some countries, a majority) consider the official explaination to be wrong. Despite the opinions of the US conservatives camping on this article, these views deserve more than a paragraphs recognition.

Drop your opinions. Look at other articles related to 'terrorism' and I think you will understand how horrificly slanted this article is. Damburger 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't just have a paragraph (and are not deliberately sidelined), they have whole articles devoted to them. And re: US conservatives, you couldn't be any more wrong. I for one am quite liberal and view the Bush administration with comtempt. But unlike other POV pushers that want to push crap into these articles, I (and others) resist attempts by those with thinly veiled political agendas that try to dilute articles with nonsense. And the word terrorist is used by media outlets all over the world...RxS 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
To the original statement, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many media outlets call it a terrorist attack - the word is simply too ill-defined to be used in the lead-in. How is removing contentious language from the lead-in, using wikipedia as a soapbox? I am simply arguing for removing the opinionated language and letting the facts speak for themselves. You are the one advocating a position by labelling the attacks 'terrorist'.

Regarding the 'conspiracy theories' - the term is meaningless in the context because the official story is also a conspiracy theory, as are all the explainations for this event. So the only meaning of that label is to try and dismiss such theories.

Damburger 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually quite agree with the removal of "terrorist" into just "attacks" however the problem is that you are here to promote a viewpoint not to try and make the article more encyclopedic. If you want to promote a view, please consider doing so on other websites. Again, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not here to promote a political agenda. I'm here to promote a little objectivity and sanity that is sadly lacking in most of the people editing this article. Damburger 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is clear from your original statement that you want to promote an "inside job" theory. That is all fine and good, however Wikipedia talk pages are to discuss content with regards to their respective articles not to promote views. Please refrain from doing so if you wish for your opinions to be taken seriously with regards to the article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you did not assume things about my intentions. Your reaction is typical of the problem around here - anybody asking for an objective treatment of the incident is seen as pushing an alternative theory, or supporting terrorism somehow. Damburger 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree that the hijackers were enagaged in acts of terrorism.--MONGO 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Damburger's claim that we objectively analyze the "incident." However, an objective analysis of the facts leads to only one conclusion--the so-called "official version." Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks on other editors. --Haemo 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly Amusing

This must be some form of black humor, as I can't believe so many people are so convinced that 9/11 was anything except for what is presented in this article. If it wasn't so horibly morbid, it could pass as halarious. I'm going to assume this will be deleted, but I just HAD to mention something after spending so much of my time reading these theories. Hate makes the heart grow fonder... Tarage 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll find that the official Wikipedia position is four-square on the side of the nuttier conspiracy theorists: when I tried to revert CT'er vandalism to this page, the Admins sided with the CT'ers and banned me from editing for a good deal of time. It is apparently OFFICIAL Wikipedia doctrine and policy that the conspiracy theorists are correct no matter what claims they make, period. Sad indeed. Carthago delenda est 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you revert-warred to get a valid (in terms of 'about improving the article', not in terms of 'correct') entry on a talk page. It had nothing to do with the validity of the theory. --Golbez 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so amusing and ludicrous. Perhaps if there was evidence that was clear and could 100% tell anyone in the world that it wasn't an inside job then yes it would be. But there are "conspiracy theories" out there because the "facts" published by this government are the biggest joke that I have ever seen. They claim that the towers fell due to extreme fires and structural damage, yet never before in this history of the world has a STEEL BUILDING been collapsed by way of fire. Never. The 9/11 report say the same thing about WTC7, when in fact that building only had minimal damge from fire and debris and was taken down by controlled demolitions in the same manor as the towers. Furthermore, if the government isn't lying, then why was anyone important to the WTC called and told not to go to work that day?

minor format edit reqd.

i noticed that the box "Attacks by al-Qaeda" is on the right hand side (near top of the page). Can someone move to the bottom of the page, as is the usual norm. Else, i can also do the same unless some has an objection for the same. Kalyan 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we talk about bias, again?

We should talk about bias at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. I read through NPOV and bias in Wikipedia and I really think the article of "September 11, 2001 attacks" violates the rule or guideline of Wikipedia.--Shoons 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, do you feel it does that? --Haemo 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He says that because we don't mention the falsehood that the hijackers are still alive, it's a biased article. In which case, he's correct - we're biased against incorrect statements. But I don't think the CSB project really considers that a problem. --Golbez 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the systemic bias against lies is really hurting Wikipedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
When we discuss about bias here, many people do not seem to understand NPOV of Wikipedia. We should straight this thing up at different place to hear different opinions instead of discussing among the same regular people.Not only about hijacker. There are many of them. --Shoons 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because you have an opinion that the hijackers are alive doesn't make it true. No, we do not have to report on your different opinion. If you have specific complaints, please say them; but saying "this article is biased" with a woefully poor example really isn't going to help anything. --Golbez 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the link was broken when I first replied. The first line: It is not about the conspiracy theory is not systematically biased. Why? Because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the (false) example he makes there. --Haemo
"Theory" part can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described here.--Shoons 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, and the fact is, they died. So ... again, please explain your complaint. The theory article handles this quite expertly because it is a theory that they lived, and the facts are they did not - therefore, it belongs in the theory article. This article is about facts; that one is about dealing with the hypotheses and theories that are not factual. --Golbez 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the facts all point to the conclusion that all the hijackers died rather unpleasantly on 9/11. --Haemo 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory article includes the fact that BBC reported this - and the fact that the BBC was wrong in its assertion. Are you actually reading what we write? Have you looked at the arguments against any of the hijackers being alive? (like the fact that they flew planes into things) As for Atta's father, that's dealt with on the Mohamed Atta article rather well - was he telling the truth? who knows. But the evidence shows Mohamed Atta walked on to a plane in Boston on that Tuesday morning, and that's more evidence than Papa Atta is supplying. --Golbez 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you check the date on that BBC article? Guess what? A lot of things have been learned since 9-23-01. Those people have the same names as the hijackers, but they are not the same people. Atta's father presents no evidence to conclude that his son is still alive. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks--Shoons 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 Collapse?

This article hangs on every word from government sources regarding 9/11 and fails to mention any information that contradicts those sources, no matter how reliable. For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources. Now, why should the mere suggestion that one building was brought down by a deliberate act be threatening to the integrity of the article? How is the uncertainty regarding the collapse of WTC7 not relevant to this article? Oneismany 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts.--MONGO 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The articles belong to conspiracy theory are branched out to individual articles such as 7 World Trade Center. We should fix those articles first. To fix this problem properly, we should approach it from NPOV. That's why I'm trying to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. Otherwise they would not listen to you. I think we should approach from the central authority.--Shoons 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I see a "problem" that needs to be fixed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death. SalvNaut 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have anything serious to add, because that's not a very civil comment. --Haemo 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If the one-eyed man was trying to insert garbage into encyclopedia articles, then he probably deserved it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts." Ahh, very illuminating. And what are the known facts? Wikipedia policy is bases on verifiability, not truth. There is widespread video evidence (see http://www.wtc7.net) that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. The official sources are not more or less verifiable than other sources. The hypothesis that WTC7 was brought down in a fire is disputable and the building's collapse can be accounted for by more than one hypothesis. Therefore it garners mention in this article. Dismissing it as "conspiracy theory" is no argument at all and only calls into question the intentions of those who do so. Oneismany 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but these sources are minor, disputed, and not popular. Including them on this page would constitute undue weight. We do, however, give them an entire page at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. --Haemo 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Define "minor." The official story is also disputed. Since when is popularity a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Anyway at last count 36% of US citizens believe the US government is partly to blame for the attacks and 85% doubt the official story, which makes it pretty popular. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Minor - as in, not supported by very many credible experts; widely disputed by credible experts; a fringe theory, not widely supported, and in a great deal of dispute. Furthermore, 85% of people doubting a given theory does not automatically give credence to any given alternative. Some people believe that Hitler escaped from Germany, to live in Argentina. However, this is a minor, or fringe theory - it is not widely supported, and should probably not be mentioned on Hitler, but maybe of Death of Hitler. --Haemo
"For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources." So is the case that it was brought down because a tower fell on it. The difference is, my version is backed up by other facts - namely, a tower fell on it. Your version requires that 70 to 280 floors of office tower were somehow covertly wired for professional destruction. Why do you people keep trying? Can't you go troll another encyclopedia or something? The fact that Wikipedia is editable doesn't give you people the right to constantly attempt to shove this drivel down our throats. Sometimes, a cigar is nineteen Arabs in airplanes. Nothing more, nothing less. --Golbez 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WTC7 was across the street from the towers and there was no known significant damage to it besides random fires. The official story is that fires burned it down, not that a tower fell on it. Video shows it falling vertically into its footprint. It fell six hours after the twin towers and the official story is that the towers pancaked vertically, so which tower are you referring to that fell on WTC7? Oneismany 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's simply untrue. Anyone who does more than 10 seconds of research (this does not include conspiracy theorists, evidently) knows that there were huge gouges in the side of WTC7. The collapse of the Twin Towers did a ton of damage to WTC7. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
NIST reports there were huge gouges from the fall of the twin towers, but the FEMA contends that diesel in the basement contributed to fires that brought WTC7 down. Either way, the building falls vertically in 6.5 seconds in every video of the collapse and it happened 6 hours after the twin towers imploded. No building "fell on it," as described above, and even if that is a reference to the structural damage, the building held together after that damage. Then it descended vertically rather than toppling over as might be expected if a huge chunk of it was gouged out. In any case the cause is unknown and the fact that the cause is unknown deserves mention in this article because it is relevant to the subject. Oneismany 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually there's also video and photographs of large gouges. Like how you cite video and photographic evidence to say there weren't any. It doesn't deserve any more mention in this article as it already has. --Golbez 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The gouges do not show up in the videos. In any case whether there were huge gouges or not that does not begin to explain why the building would fall 6 hours after the damage or why it would collapse vertically, without crashing into nearby buildings. I do not know why the building collapsed and I am not positing any theory. I am only pointing out that the observation has been made by more than one verifiable source that the manner of the collapse resembles a controlled demolition, and the lack of an adequate explanation is relevant to the subject of this article. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this video. The collapse starts at :05 and ends at :19. So that's about 14 seconds. I agree that saying the building fell on it might be a bit misleading though. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The video shows part of the rooftop descending at 00:05 which is probably the penthouse. Then the rest of the building collapses from 00:12 to 00:19. Whether you count 14 seconds or 6.5 seconds the collapse does not resemble a building toppling over due to gouges at its base or pancaking due to fire damage. I am not positing any theory as to why this happened. I am just saying that the vertical descent of the building 6 hours after any alleged damage that might have contributed to its collapse requires more than cursory scrutiny and it might support more than one hypothesis for its fall. Controlled demolition is one hypothesis that might account for its fall and multiple verifiable sources have offered this hypothesis. The strange manner of its destruction and lack of adequate explanation are relevant to this article and deserve to be mentioned. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're verging on WP:SOAP now. RxS 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I invite you to study the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If this article were NPOV, it would do the same. Oneismany 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If editors were to study evidence (primary sources) and write their conclusions, Wikipedia would be a secondary source, such as a journal or commentary. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source—an encyclopedia—we can only look at secondary sources, and other tertiary sources, to decide what goes into an article. And the policy on Wikipedia is to only use reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals or other publications at a comparable level of reputation. It is not appropriate to discuss studying evidence on this talk page; please try to restrict the discussion to citation of reputable secondary and tertiary sources. --dreish~talk 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does this article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on this page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the 19 hijackers conspired to hijack those airliners and crash them into buildings does not mean that a belief in that version is a conspiracy theory. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? It's a theory about a conspiracy, which makes it a conspiracy theory. Oneismany 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A conspiracy theory implies some sort of secretive, behind-the-scenes plot. Al-Qaeda hasn't been secretive in claiming that they hijacked those planes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-US media sources such as Al-Jazeera have reported that Osama bin Laden denied he was involved in the attacks. Anyway however it was done it was secretive and behind the scenes even if it were the 19 hijackers because nobody else knew about it before it happened, which makes it a conspiracy. Hence it is a theory about a conspiracy, no less a conspiracy theory than the theory that the government was involved somehow, or that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved somehow. There is no evidence that I am aware of that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved. However, there is evidence that the US government was involved, or at least incompetent, such as the NORAD defense failure. Furthermore the evidence that 19 hijackers were responsible comes primarily from a single source, the US government. Oneismany 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's because, as has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page, the controlled demolition hypothesis is a fringe theory. It is not supported by very many credible sources, and is in fact roundly contradicted by many other credible sources. In the narrative of the event, it constitutes a very minor hypothesis, and to give it any significant mention on this page would constitute undue weight. There is already an entire article on this subject at Controlled demolition hypothesis, and a section is 9/11 conspiracy theories - which is where consensus has determined it belongs. Adding a {{neutrality}} tag to this article is totally unwarranted, given that consensus has repeatedly supported the current articles revision about conspiracy theories. --Haemo 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Referring to one conspiracy theory as preferred and not mentioning other conspiracy theories is POV. What about being a theory about a conspiracy or not being a theory about a conspiracy makes a theory more or less verifiable? Oneismany 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not the case. This is not a verifiability issue, and if you seriously believe that the whole and heart of neutral point of view is whether or not you can verify a viewpoint exists, you have a serious misunderstanding. The controlled demolition hypothesis is not widely supported by credible experts. It constitutes a fringe conspiracy theory, and you have not advanced any evidence that it is anything but that. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How are experts more or less credible than video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean, how are experts on demolition, video analysis, and structural engineering less credible than interpretation of video recording? Let me put it this way - you look at a video recording of the collapse, and see a demolition. Experts look at the footage and see something different. Video footage is not prima facie evidence for anything - it has to be analyszed and interpreted. Experts have reviewed this footage, and come to conclusions which do not support controlled demolition. --Haemo 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Experts who are not editors on Wikipedia are not part of consensus on Wikipedia. It is up to Wikipedia editors to reach a consensus among themselves about the available verifiable sources. Some third-party published analyses agree with the official theory and some do not. Some of these sources are only very recently published. Multiple witnesses testify that there were explosions inside the buildings. Multiple news sources reported on the day of the event that the collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition. The NIST is considering controlled demolition as one hypothesis of the collapse of WTC7. None of this is significant enough or relevant enough to garner a brief mention in this article? Oneismany 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they reported that it resembled a controlled demolition. That does not mean it was a controlled demolition. But that's besides the point. Are news reporters experts? Did they publish anything? No, they're not experts and they haven't published anything. Also, explosions and bombs are not the same thing. There were huge fuel tanks in WTC7, and numerous sources have reported those as the cause of many of the explosions. There is a consensus of Wikipedia editors who don't want conspiracy kookiness in the articles. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean that there is no consensus, and it also doesn't mean that you can just slap a neutrality tag on the article. Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda, which is why we should carefully qualify all of the information from official sources. The available verifiable information about the destruction on that day supports more than one hypothesis, and one conspiracy theory is not more or less neutral than another conspiracy theory. A neutral point of view would carefully consider every possibility that is supported by evidence. Some of the official theory is not supported by any evidence besides the word of the US government. So, to be neutral this article should identify the source of the information and not prefer the official theory. Oneismany 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is totally not true - the overwhelming majority of credible experts have judged that the evidence supports the so-called "official" account of the events. A small minority of people, very few (if any) of whom are credible, endorse a different account. Neutral point of view does not enjoin us to treat these two accounts as having equal merit - in fact, it specifically tells us not to. The controlled demolition hypothesis is mentioned on 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition hypothesis - which is where it should be. To include it on this page in fact violates neutrality, and give it undue weight. --Haemo 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is. The official account contains much that is not verifiable, for example, the identities of the hijackers and their activities prior to the attacks. For some of this information, the only source we have to rely on is the word of the US government or affiliated parties. To be neutral, the information presented in this page should carefully identify the source of the information. On the other hand there is also verifiable information that is not included in the official account or only mentioned briefly, such as the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Imagine if Wikipedia presented the Reichstag fire with only the information that the Nazis gave the German people in order to manipulate them. If Wikipedia existed in 1933 then unfortunately I imagine the Reichstag Fire article would look very much like this article on the September 11 attacks, at least until the Nazis were out of power. But we have the benefit of history and so we should know better than to take our government at its word. Oneismany 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Of course truth is not - otherwise we wouldn't have pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories or controlled demolition hypothesis. Again, you misunderstand the arguement - you think, that because it's verifiable that some people believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and that they base this belief on video footage, that it should be included in the article. This violates neutral point of view. As I will explained, again, that the overwhelming view of experts, both inside, and outside the US government is that the evidence does not support a controlled demolition. A fringe minority believe that it does. As neutral point of view enjoins us, we should not give these two claims equal merit - to do so constitutes undue weight.
You seem to hold the opinion that any view which can be verified to exist, should be included in order to meet neutral point of view. This is definitively not the case. Furthermore, you seem to believe that anyone who agrees with the general interpretation of the "official" account is somehow "government-related" or sponsored. This is also not the case. Your assertions have no merit - and if you would simply just read the archived talk pages, you would see that they have been dealt with again, and again. This is exceedinly tiresome to retread once again. --Haemo 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that the NPOV tag is removed prior to a consensus being reached. I will not turn this dispute into a revert war. Oneismany 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is not to be added without some serious understanding of the concensus reached on this page. It's apparent from your comments, that you do not understand what neutral point of view means, not have you read the archives of this page to understand that this has been discussed, and concensus reached. Literally all of your comments have been previously addressed. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Which part of "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" means sticking to government sources or government-sponsored sources that are challenged by video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No one has done this. Experts, both inside and outside the government have examined the evidence - including the footage in question - and come to the conclusion that the controlled demolition hypothesis is not supported by evidence. --Haemo 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
While there may be many points of view, not all are meanigful or carry the same weight (or any for that matter). Most experts in their field give credence to roughly the official version and most are not government and government-sponsored sources. RxS 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Know what I love about all this? The second someone dissagrees with these theories, they are automatically labled government or government-suponcored. It can't be just some sane person saying "Uh... that theory is stupid. We have so many bits of evidence backing up one idea(I use the term lightly), that it is as close to fact as we are going to get. Stop whining.".--Tarage 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You started the edit war. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumper estimates

  • This article says that "An estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers" while The Falling Man claims over 250. --Cravendekere 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 200 is an estimate of 250?--Tarage 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The number on this page is sourced; the number on The Falling Man is unsourced. I'd stay with 200 people. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

--Tarage 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of this artcle

I'm sure this article has gone through many naming discussions, but wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME suggest this article be titled "September 11 attacks." I've never seen it referred to with the year, or at least very rarely, and I don't think any of the references do either. This article uses it only once in the article (in the intro). September 11 attacks appears a bit more often and is most likely the more common name. ~ UBeR 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon, that specifying 2001 precludes any other attack on September 11. --Haemo 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any others. ~ UBeR 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is a hybrid of many styles and naming conventions. There doesn't seem to be a perfect name that suits everyone. Peter Grey 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
After all it is not even "attacks", we should change it to "crimes" or "accidents" at least.--Shoons 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
uhm... accidents? Those poor folks didn't mean to fly their airliners into the towers? What? --Golbez 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry I was wrong. It should be "Case", "Occurrence" or "event" at least, shouldn’t it? At least, "attacks" is not appropriate for the event or because the title of this article states "attacks", this article can be like this and can have bias. Then it would make sence. --Shoons 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it not an attack? A recognized militant group used weapons to cause dammage to, at the very least, buildings and people. That sounds like very definition as defined by Wikipedia: "Attack is a word meaning to strike out at an opponent, among other definitions." Unless this is a backdoor way of trying to premote yet another conspiricy theory, which I'm betting it is...--Tarage 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right! From POV of so called "conspiricy theory", they were not attacks. "Attack"="to strike out at an opponent...". If it was internal job, it was not "attack"(, though "heart attack" does not have any opponet). Anyway what I am saying is this article can be with bias because the title tells so. It concludes that my arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks does not make sense because of this title, thus it can have bias, first of all.--Shoons 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this article has a strong bias towards the consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources, while giving fair room to far fetched theories to be known thus giving them the chance of being investigated and substantiated to become at some point in the future the new consensus. If you wish these theories to have the main room here, take them and work on until they reach consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources. Then come back and you will be welcome (and in the process you will probably earn a Pulitzer prize).--Igor21 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Anyway we should make another article with title of "September 11, 2001 crimes". I just want to have articles dedicated to facts, not to fiction or to theories.--Shoons 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly what you would be doing by renaming it to crimes. Regardless of you who believe was behind it, they're still attacks. ~ UBeR 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! "they're still attacks" made me clear. This page should not have bias, then. This article shows only one side and it is against Wikipedia guideline.--Shoons 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it shows any side. To not show any side, the article would just have to present the facts as they're stated by reliable sources in a neutral manner. We obviously shouldn't give the attacking any sympathy. Likewise, we should not give the attacked side any sympathy. Value judgments should be made by the reader, not the writer. ~ UBeR 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I did not mean to disturb your initial question. Now I am making a comment regarding "I'm not aware of any others. " There is 1973 Chilean coup d'état. I heard that, in Latin America, it is know as 9/11 attacks by CIA of USA. It was even worse terrorism.

ARCHIVE NUMERO 30

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

September 11, 2001 attacks (Moved from WP:CSB talk page)

It is not about the conspiracy theory. The articles of September 11, 2001 attacks is highly against NPOV. Most of articles ignore the facts, statements or scientific proofs and are by only one side.
1.For instance, many hijackers are found and alive but not mentioned at all. Again, I am not talking about theories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC). Sorry! I forgot to sign. So is this right place to discuss about this issue? Since I am new here, I just want to make sure how I am supposed to do.--Shoons 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss it on the article's talk page, which you've never edited before now. --Golbez 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus, It is not about the conspiracy theory because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the example you give above. --Haemo
"Theory" parts can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described at September 11, 2001 attacks. From point of view of NPOV, I think it is violating the guideline or rule of Wikipedia.--Shoons 05:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have an incorrect view of NPOV; please tell me how including falsehoods in an article makes it less biased. --Golbez 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. "--Shoons 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss this on the talk page of the article please, instead of you pasting the same things in two locations? And who exactly are you quoting? (answer there) --Golbez 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
We should talk about this issue here instead of the article. You have already discussed about this bias issue there. I need opinions by neutral people who know about NPOV very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Okey dokey - but one should point out, as it is made on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Mohammed Atta that these claims are not supported. In fact, the BBC later retracted that story. NPOV does not oblige anyone to present points of view which are extremely fringe, and not supported by evidence. --Haemo 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Now we are talking. Thanks. I can not find your sentence "NPOV does not ... evidence". Help me to find it.--Shoons 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It exists in what he wrote. He wasn't quoting anything. Are you just attempting to troll here? You have been completely unwilling to actually respond to anything we say, and seem to have a deliberately incorrect notion as to what NPOV means. --Golbez 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, his user page says he's Japanese, so benefit of a doubt. And, yes, I wasn't quoting anything there - I was just explaining what neutral point of view means, and what it doesn't mean. --Haemo 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please quote. I am trying to make a real Wikipedia article. If you think the article is NPOV, convince me. I cannot find any articles about BBC declined Hijackers were found. Could you tell me where I can find it, please? --Shoons 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link, plain as day. --Golbez 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have found Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks#Claims of stolen identity. Sorry I did not know it is mentioned here. The case is closed for me about this issue. So this is what I want. Isn't it fair and square? People at the Japanese Wikipedia are trying to conceal or they just do not know anything and many facts are missing. I need your help. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

2. Video or Audio tape of Osama bin Ladin can be fake

A lot of things can be fake, this being one of them; in fact, some people even think the footage of planes hitting the towers was faked. However, since Osama later made other, undispited (so far as I know) tapes that claim responsibility, the truthiness of the December 2001 tape is ultimately irrelevant with regard to responsibility for the attacks. It's handled in the article Videos of Osama bin Laden, though not very well. --Golbez 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! So can we upgrade "The authenticity of the tape has been questioned." and add citation of IDIAP? If this first step works out, I do not need to stay here. I can go back and talk at the article of "9/11". --Shoons 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3.Intelligence failure

  • In late August 2001, when aggressive presidential action might have changed the course of U.S. history, CIA Director George Tenet made a special trip to Crawford, Texas, to get George W. Bush to focus on an imminent threat of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack only to have the conversation descend into meaningless small talk.[48] Similar to president Bush' reaction has been described in Woodward's book State of Denial when Condoleezza Rice in July 2001 dismissed high-alert warning of incoming attacks from CIA directors.
  • CIA Director George Tenet and J. Cofer Black met with then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001 to warn her about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and were disappointed Rice wasn't alarmed enough by the warning, although Rice's friend Philip D. Zelikow (also executive director of the 9/11 Commission) also says in the book that the warning wasn't specific enough to enable the government to take a specific action to counter it (pages 49-52 of "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward).[4]
  • Able Danger: CIA conducted surveillance program which included observation of several key hijackers including Mohhamed Atta.
  • I'm not proposing this video as a source (though it is compiled mainly from news sources), but this might give an idea of what I think we should deal with.

My question is: shouldn't at least an overview of those issues, if not the issues themselves, be presented in the main article? SalvNaut 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just search and see in what context words "foreknowledge" and "intelligence" only do occur in the article. Is that NPOV? SalvNaut 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an entire article., Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks here, which is to address those issues. --Haemo 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find this, or any related, information there but my question is shouldn't at least an overview of those issues be given in the main article.SalvNaut 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? This is a question of responsibility for the attacks - and any argument which could be made that government action was too slow, or inadequate, is extremely distant from the proximate cause of a handful of terrorists. If you're going to apportion blame for the attacks, suggestions of government inaction - which are roundly denied by many - would play such a small part that giving them any mention on the page about the attacks would constitute undue weight. --Haemo 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, why are we discussing this here? Does this have anything to do with systematic bias - because I haven't seen anyone argue that. Why is this not being discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question? --Haemo 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it has. But I must admit that I bring this up here because, firstly, there is an opportunity, secondly, because of lack of belief in discussing on the talk page. I might be prejudiced, I'd like to hope that this is only it. SalvNaut 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What? I don't understand - the talk page appears to be full of discussion, and I have discussed there too. My question is, why is this a systematic bias issue, rather than just an attempt to move discussion away from a page where interested editors can participate in it? --Haemo 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does the September 11, 2001 attacks article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on that page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an entire article devoted to fringe theories about what happened, and a section in the article. The underlying narrative of the events is not seriously questioned by many credible sources, government-based or otherwise. --Haemo 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"tiny-minority"

While I was away from home, this place has been very wild. Mr. Oneismany, calm down, please. Many people have been fighting like this for many years. I feel the same way as you do. But Wikipedia does not work that way at this point. We have to approach different way. I am asking them to show facts at least. Theories can be described at 9/11 conspiracy theory at this point. We should add facts gradually and let's build up right articles. Mr. Haemo, I am still waiting for the quote regarding "NPOV does not oblige anyone to present points of view which are extremely fringe, and not supported by evidence." --Shoons 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking - as I said, that's an interpretation of neutral point of view - specifically, undue weight. ---07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. I need a citation. Thta's the Wikipedia way. That's what makes Wikipedia reliable source for other people. I still do not know if the statement is NPOV or not. It can be merely your opinion. --Shoons 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm being charitable, because your English isn't your first language - but it is totally acceptable to paraphrase policy in such a way. If you want a quote that says essentially the same thing - here's a quote from undue weight.
Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.
Do you understand how that says essentially the same thing I said above? --Haemo 21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Now let's talk about "tiny-minority". How do you define "tiny-minority" or "minority"

  • Is half of New York "tiny-minority"?

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

  • Is 1/3 of American "tiny-minority"?
  • Do you think 6,000,000 people is "tiny-minority"?

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll --Shoons 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these surveys support your assertion - these surveys do not point out what they believe happened. The article does mention that some people believe the US government was involved in the attacks, which is totally in line with neutral point of view. --Haemo 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just asking you the/your definition of "tiny-minority". I just showed you some examples. --Shoons 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

surveys required?

Since you are saying "Neither of these surveys support your assertion", I am asking the next question. Do we need to have surveys for every single item to determine "tiny-minority"?--Shoons 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No? I honestly don't even know what you're looking for here. This is totally confused, and I don't understand what's going on here. --Haemo 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just trying to clarify what you are talking about. Because you are accusing us as "tiny-minority", I bet you have some good proofs that show us we are "tiny-minority". Please answer the question above regarding "tiny-minority", too. I need your/the definition of "tiny-minority".
I'm not accusing you of anything - and "definition" has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia's guidelines are not written in code - it's plain English. The onus is not on me to provide some kind of evidence of unpopularity here - I don't even know how one would do such a thing - especially since I'm not even sure what you're advocating to be included. --Haemo 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to understand what is your definition of the words that you are telling us, because other people disagree with you, too. I just want to play fair by Wikipedia's guideline.

If the guideline says you are right, there is no argue here.--Shoons 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC) This entire "article" consists of 100% Bush administration invented fairy tales. Not a shred of it is supported by objective evidence. All of the actual objective evidence proves that the fairy tale told by this article is definitely untrue. And the vast majority of the public, even in the USA, knows this. There is something desperately wrong with Wikipedia when a tiny majority of gullibe, brainwashed fools is able to 100% dominate the content. See article: "Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story" here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3553

That poll doesn't come close to suggesting what you think it suggests. Also, please read WP:NPA. On top of that, get an account and sign your posts using four tildes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cast your mind back to the awful moments when you were perhaps watching the events of 9/11 unfold live on TV, or in real life on the streets of NY. There's the horror and disbelief of the planes hitting the towers, but the disbelief associated with the falling of the towers is something else....The thought arises...from the gut...."No, that's not possible. How is that possible?"

If it were a disaster movie the film would loose all credibility at that point because we have an innate sense of how things operate in the physical world which FX people are paid to get right. But that thought dissolves quite quickly in the realization that this is really happening, that the buildings and the aeroplanes have real people in them. We let the anguish and anger create a momentum which allows us to be led up the garden path and that gut sense is forgotten. Even the equivocation and brazen subterfuge demonstrated by the US government passes unnoticed because our eyes are fixed on the ‘baddies’ roughly framed on our behalf.

Not even scientific research ascertains facts, it only gathers evidence towards a theory; and most scientists will admit that their intuition plays a big part in knowing where to look and what to look for. Please remember that moment of disbelief and approach this page with an intuition rather than the cold, calculated denial that is evident as it stands. I’m not talking here of the denial of alternative theories, I’m talking of the denial of bias that this page shows towards so called accepted version of events. It doesn’t even say…”The accepted version of the events are…” which would be in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. --Iwanbrioc 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

fringe theories

How do you know a theory is fringe or not? Since you do not show unpopularity. Obviously many people are trying to add the facts and you keep denying. I'd like to know the/your defeinition of "fringe theory". How do we know if it is fringe or not when you do not provide any evidence of unpopularity. --Shoons 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fringe - as in, not widely supported by experts on the subject. It's not a trick phrase or something. --Haemo 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So called "9/11 conspiracy theory" is widely supported by experts on the subject.--Shoons 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they're not? I don't know what else to tell you. What you are saying is not the case, and you have no evidence to support it. This has been explained repeatedly on the talk page for 9/11, yet you insist dragging it on our there. --Haemo 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You do not have any evidence to support either because you already have mentioned above that you will not provide it. If you do, show us. --Shoons 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You seriously don't understand the problem with asking me to show you that something doesn't exist, do you? --Haemo 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say "something doesn't exist"? If something doesn't exist, no argue before or now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
You're asking me to advance evidence that a given theory is not popular. I.e. that the popularity of a given theory does not exist. --Haemo 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible to explain about twin tower collapse with pancake theory. So are you talking about pancake theory?--Shoons 02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how this even constitutes a reply to my last statement. No? --Haemo 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I skipped the logic. I am not saying the popularity of a given theory does not exist. I am just saying pancake theory can exist but we consider it is one of the theory. So are the other thories. It is impossible to explain about twin tower collapse with pancake theory. But is panckae theory fringe thory?--Shoons 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is much scientific evidence suggesting insider (Govt) actions leading to the deaths caused at 9/11 (one specific paper just written this past month by Dr. Steven E. Jones -> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf ) along with many other professionals papers at the website www.journalof911studies.com... also a great site is www.vt911.org where vermonters had successfully petitioned to start an independent forensic investigation of the 911 events.. external from the govt who seems to be covering up what they likely have done and still will not answer questions regarding. read up and learn about everything that did happen and make a real judgement on the way things DID happen
If your "pancakce theory" is the mainstream account, then no. --Haemo 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Another theory can be shown because you can not show that another theory is fringe. But I do not think 1/3 of American is fringe.--Shoons 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not true, and I pointed out why above. Your numbers do not say what you think they say. --Haemo 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For example, in Japan 0.8% of population is Christian. I say it is fringe. But we mention these small tiny cult groups. So should we eliminate them according to your logic?--Shoons 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
We mention it in Japan and Demographics of Japan, not Asia. --Haemo 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just telling you an example. Religion in Japan tells about Christian. 0.8% of Japanese is Christian so we should delete them. Is it what you are saying?--Shoons 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

science vs. pseudoscience

according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Common objections and clarifications

  • Giving "equal validity"
I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
I would like to know how you understand this.--Shoons 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? That's just a statement of someone's belief - I don't hold that belief. --Haemo 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As you know, this statemetn came from the guideline. What I am saying is that science is what so called "9/11 conspracy theory" is and pseudoscience is what US government or related people are saying. That's how I see regarding this statement. So I wonder how you see this statement.--Shoons 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that statement is a question posed as a frequently asked question. It is then answered below. In fact, considering that it's explicitly explained as a mistaken impression, your endorsement of the argument implies that you don't really understand neutral point of view. --Haemo 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I do not understand. That's why I am asking. Please explain. When you say neutral point of view, please quote so that I know what you are exactly talking about. And which part is wrong with science:pseudoscience=sphear earth:flat earth=so called "9/11 conspiracy theory":"government theory"? --Shoons 03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Read the section that follows what you quoted above. --Haemo 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity states "we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them." Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete, too!--Shoons 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the section which follows it:
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. --Haemo 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is

Writing for the "enemy" I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?

the answer is "It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view."

It still does not say what you are talking about. I am sorry but I can not find what you are talking about. --Shoons 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the statement which follows your original quote. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, but I am frankly getting very tired of this. --Haemo 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this statement is the following statement of Giving "equal validity". Or am I seeing a wrong quote? If you just copy the statement and show me, it would be quicker. I simply can not find what you are talking about.--Shoons 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't quote the entire of "giving equal validity". You quoted the incorrect presumption, and not the answer to it! Furthermore, you agreed with that that incorrect presumption. --Haemo 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did. I did not chagne any words at all. I just added "blockquote". It is correct presumption. relation between flat earth and government theory is correct.--Shoons 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's walk through this, because you appear to have a great deal of problems with this topic.
YOU QUOTED THIS:I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
I said to post the next section of text, which is this: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
The thing you posted is a frequent objection to WP:NPOV. What I posted is the response to the objection. Do you understand now? You "agree" with the objection - and haven't read the clarification for some reason. You also are attempting to read in some vacuous analogy into the objection, which not only doesn't fit, but also doesn't matter, since the objection is incorrect in the first place. Does this make sense to you now? --Haemo 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I see. Thanks. But does it mean that you can eliminate the another opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
It depends on the context. --Haemo 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

structural failure

I see you do not see what I see. Let's talk about this.

  • "Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. "

I think this is pseudoscience. All three building collapsed to its footprint. What a coincident! If so, could you explain more detail and could you describe articles that showing somebody sued the building engineer or builders, etc? If you explain with controlled demolition theory, it would make sense. I thought those building were called "indestructible building" when they had a fire on February 13, 1975 and a bombing on February 26, 1993. Since we do have both Collapse of the World Trade Center and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, can you mention at the main article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

That's super. However, as Collapse of the World Trade Center will show you, this view is not widely held by experts. We, as editors, are not here to make judgment calls about what did, or did not happen. As the section above notes, even if we believe something to be "pseudoscience" we are enjoined to report about it nonetheless. --Haemo 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
When the logic widely held is pseudoscience, what would you do with it?--Shoons 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow neutral point of view? --Haemo 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why don't you follow it?--Shoons 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am - you're the one who is trying to give undue weight to a fringe theory. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page for 9/11, but you refuse to accept that, or even read the archived discussion. Instead, you've decided to bring it to this page, with no clear justification for why it is a "systematic bias" issue, and have proceeded to essentially interrogate me over this. Use the talk page if you have anything more to say, because I'm done here. --Haemo 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It was stated by eyewitnesses (fire fighters mostly) on the day of the attack that their were explosive devices in cars in the basement and planted in the lobby, it's been proven by many scientists that these were the causing of the structure. Because if the structures colapse began at the top it would have taken roughly 45 seconds to fall completley because of the resistance from the impact on each floor, however it fell to the ground at 15 seconds (they both did roughly) which tells us either the floors were already broken (caused by bombs) or that the initial collapse started at the bottom of the tower. Also it should be noted that these 2 were the first and only steel beam structures in history to collapse do to "fire damage" and it is a large coincidence that both of the towers could fall from this.
On the other hand, there is video evidence that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were struck by airliners. Peter Grey 23:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

notes

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  3. ^ Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology[5] and updates[6]
  4. ^ [7]Frum, David, "David Frum's Diary" on the National Review Online Web site, October 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. post "Blogging Woodward (4)", accessed same day

The collapsing time

Due to the spam prootection, I am posting the answer for Haemo here.

The falling speed is stated here.
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside ........."（commission report page 305/pdf page)

Not amateur, the official report said so. You are saying your calculation but you are daring Newton physics is wrong. Newton physics is correct unless you try to figure out extremely small things or large things. Now when you calculate it, if you can, the value is very close to ten seconds. If you can not calculate it, please go back to school and learn real math, please. Then we can talk each other. The value is based without air resistence. With air resistence it can be 10 seconds or more depend on th density and shape, etc. If the expert is real, he should consider resistence of the steel, concrete, glass, air and so on. Even air is important. That's why you see squibes.--Shoons 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no physics expert, but weren't the Twin Towers "extremely large things?" Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
weren't the Twin Towers "extremely large things?" In physics terms, no. Although the geometry of the towers is the reason they fell straight. Peter Grey 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
We already know the connection between gravity and things falling down. he should consider resist[a]nce of the steel, concrete, glass, air. Exactly. Calculate the behaviour of the remaining part of the building under impact loading and show that the times are appreciably different. And do remember that the part of the building we're interested in was behind the dust cloud. Peter Grey 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The building was collapsing ahead of cloud, if you have not seen it, please take a look at it. And again ten seconds according to official story and this ten second is equivalent to duration of free fall. --Shoons 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The last question

Thank you for your answers. I guess Systemic bias was useless and this place's discuss regarding NPOV will not go anywhere. I just give up for now. I have a question. This is not about bias. Can you solve this? I am just curios.

  • \int_0^t gtdt=417\,
g=9.8

What is t? --Shoons 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This board really isn't for that, so you know. Try the reference desk. --Haemo 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I expected. This is a very easy basic calculation. If you can answer the question above right away, then here is no argument. I am sorry I forgot to tell you about constant value g=9.8.--Shoons 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know, gravity is constant acceleration, not constant velocity. Peter Grey 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. That's good point but I was just asking as general math calculation not as physics so it really did not matter. --Shoons 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Like you said, this was a pretty easy calculation (t is about 9.23). I know you're trying to make the point that the towers fell at free fall speed, but this is the most easily debunked argument of all CT arguments. If the towers fell at free fall speed, then why did the debris fall much more quickly? Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.[49] Pretty close to free fall, isn't it? No scientist in truth movement argues exact free fall time, however most debunkers stick to arguments like yours. This won't lead anywhere (isn't that what debunkers hope for?). I'd prefer to see debunking of Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method, or another study that confirms, or not, soundness of NIST report because as it is shown in this petition the report was not scientific with regard to NIST's own rules. SalvNaut 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

the debris did not fall much more quickly. only slightly quicker. the debris didnt have a building under it. the debris was blasted OUT. if the demolitions had been fired slightly quicker, the building would have fallen at the same speed as the debris. 69.11.120.151 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And what does all of this have to do with the article? Wow, an equation. And supposed video evidence of something that has yet to be substantially backed up. Yeah, can we get back to talking about the article rather than the incident? --Golbez 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hey! look everyone! its doublethink - lets forget about the incident because the incident isnt important...only the article is! the article! how can you forget the incident and not the article? the article is based on the incident...redundancies! 142.165.95.83 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Amateur, qualitative analyses of the incident are not relevant to the article, and the various deliberate hoaxes are related only tangentally. And would everyone convinced that 1 WTC and 2 WTC ressemble demolitions please get a video of a real controlled demolition rather than just blindly believing some folklore you heard? Peter Grey 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to finish this discussion but it seems to be going on so I am making a comment. When somebody posts something at high school textbook level, would you reject it? This topic is about very basic high school level math or physics (at least in Japan). We should not consider this Amateur, qualitative analyses. This is just like 1+1=2. Would you blame people as Amateur, qualitative analyses when we are discussing 1+1=2 or not.
Now debris should not drop fast as free fall speed because of air resistance. When you see the building, building is collapsing ahead of the frying debris. If somebody jumps off from the roof of twin tower when it started to collapse, he would see the roof all the way down. Isn’t it amazing?--Shoons 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is, that your calculation is based on amateur analysis of videotape, which has been roundly rejected by experts in the field, who are actually qualified to analyze this material. Yes, I can do basic calculus too - that doesn't make me an expert on building collapses, or videotape analysis. --Haemo 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is amateur, qualitative analyses, and it is not as simple as 1+1=2....but it doesn't matter. Please stop the WP:SOAP-ing. If you keep arguing facts I'm going to move all this to the reference desk. RxS 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This section used to be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks so that this section should no belong here anyway. So if you can move to the place where other people without bias can see, please do so. This is not even an analysis. It's just a simple math equation like 1+1=2, maybe depend on his/her education. You would fix English grammars or spells when they are wrong in the article. What I am talking about is as basic as grammar/spell.--Shoons 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Any "systemic" (or other) bias is yours. The facade fell may have fallen at near-free-fall speed, but we have no idea whether the interior of the building had already collapsed, because of the dust clouds.
Considering the number of people associated with movie industry who (claim to) disagree with the official findings, it would be very surprising if no one with the ability and interest to "fake" a home video of the collapse had appeared. Videos should be ignored until authenticated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you read official report? The official report says in ten seconds. "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside ........." If you are on offical side, you should read the official story at least. --Shoons 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why all this talk of free fall speeds? I think the NIST report says it was free fall speeds. As an analogy, think of a bowling ball falling through a houseof cards. Arguing that the resistance of the air and the cards would somehow alter the characteristics of the fall misses the entire magnitude of the falling bowling ball. The dynamic forces of the falling floors greatly exceeded the static forces designed to support the strcuture. The building was never designed to withstand falling floors. --Tbeatty 03:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because a basic grammar of physics is wrong. Once you consider air resistance it is not high school level in Japan however everybody should know even air resistance greatly reduce the speed of objects. Now, when you consder resistance of the steel, even if it was weaken or what ever, and concrete which has higher yield to heat, it is simply impossible to fall down as fast as free fall speed without air resistance. Furthermore NIST told it was "free fall speeds" and the commission report says it was 10 seconds so what I am saying is not my own analysis anymore. How you understand is very wrong.--Shoons 14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Nearly as fast as free fall is certainly possible and indeed likely. A bowling ball would fall indistinguishably as fast as free fall from that height as it would not reach Terminal velocity until very near the ground if at all. This is tentch of a second difference in fall times. We are only talking about 1000 ft or so which isn't enough distance to obtain substantial velocity that air resistance would be significant. From my calculation, a free fall object from 1000 ft would reach 252 ft/sec. That's 170 mph. I estimate the terminal velocity for the mass of that building to be upward of 600 mph. --Tbeatty 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Shoons: stop avoiding the question. You need to estimate the performance of the collapsing tower and show it doesn't fit the facts. Your intuition that it "had to be longer" doesn't count. How much extra time? 30 seconds? 1 second? 0.4 seconds? Peter Grey 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As a mathematician who has worked with structural engineers, I can say it's possible that a building can collapse in less time than the normal fall time of debris from the top of the building, as the collapsing building can pull air with it, thereby reducing the effect of air resistance. (Of course, if someone powered up an powerful electromagnet in the subbasement, and the steel hadn't softened[1], it could fall faster than free fall. I suspect someone would have noticed metal objects flying toward the building, however.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is called "squibe". I can see all over these buildings.No major damage to WTC7, anyway.--Shoons 16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if you spelled it correctly, that is not relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 'Squib'. Have you ever seen the videos of WTC1&2 falling down? You see explosions everywhere I though they are called squibs. They seem to pulling down the buildings so you are correct. The building fell down faster than free fall speed. Now terminal speed in the air really does not matter in this case. The resistance is not the air, they are steel and concrete, etc.--Shoons 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

notes

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  3. ^ Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology[5] and updates[6]
  4. ^ [7]Frum, David, "David Frum's Diary" on the National Review Online Web site, October 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. post "Blogging Woodward (4)", accessed same day

Calculation of building collapse

I was going to fish this discussion but you cannot admit your incapability of math and physics. Building is 417 m and 110 stories. I do not know the distance from the floor to the ceiling. But let’s assume 3.5 m unless somebody knows it. It makes the thickness of the floor 29cm. I do not consder any resistance so basically the floors are in the air. It is not realistic but it would be the fastest it can go. I will not consider the squibs. If you want me to consider, it is fine but you just admit they were controlled demolitions. So this discussion would be over.

The first drop is \int_0^t gtdt=3.5\,
t=0.84(s)
v=gt=8.28(m/s)
The second drop is
8.28*10m=11mv (10 floors are droping in this case)
v=7.52(m/s)
\int_0^t (v+gt)dt=3.5\,
t=0.37(s)
v=7.52+g*0.37=11.146(m/s)
The third drop is
11.146*11m=12mv (10 floors are droping in this case)

(continues) If you think values are wrong, I will fix them.

You're not impressing anyone with your knowledge of elementary calculus and elementary physics. We know how to calculate integrals. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the business of just making up the step with the 10 floors falling in unison, what you are really interested in is momentum, not velocity, and even that gives you an upper bound, not a lower bound. Peter Grey 04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of discussion should always go around sources here on Wikipedia. In this case the sources would be Mechanics of Progressive Collapse, Bazant & Verdue and its critique NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure, Gordon Ross, ME. This only applies to the mechanics of WTC1&2 collapse - progressive collapse style which has not been studied well at all (even Bazant states that). WTC7 collapse features, as far as I know, to this day has only been studied (and published) by the people from 9/11 Truth movement[50]. NIST only measured collapse times but none conclusions were drawn and their full study is quite delayed for unknown reasons. SalvNaut 07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Remind me again why we're performing basic calculus on an article talk page to verify facts? I thought we were supposed to write an article using reliable sources - but apparently I was mistaken. --Haemo 07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the very essence of original research. --Golbez 11:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just checking your education level. Do you think kindergarten kids should edit this page? If you do not have proper education to judge this matter, even if we show you sources, you cannot judge properly due to lack of basic education. People with Science or engineering degree should edit this page and I do have science degree. If you do not understand this kind of basic calculus, obviously, you are not even entitled to delete articles regarding scientific issues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoons (talk • contribs)
Anymore insulting commentary such as this will be removed in the future and I have explained why on your talkpage. This article is not a scientific one...it's a historical one.--MONGO 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think I am insulting, I am sorry. But it is true that somebody who is capable of understanding the calculation above have to judge it. And as I mentioned above, I was going to quit this useless discussion anyway. But I am just trying to explain my calculation since somebody told me to explain it. I know it would be useless. So long!--Shoons 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of engineering degrees and I am a Registered Professional Engineer and you are mistaken in your understanding, application and interpretation of the above equations as they relate to the dynamic and static building forces. Regardless, my view is not notable or verifiable and neither is yours and so neither will make it into the article. --Tbeatty 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel any compelling need to justify my academic credentials to you, because your assertion is patently untrue. As said, this article is a historical one - all that is really required is an ability to read secondary sources, and fairly explain their positions, and give them relative weights based on their authoritativeness. Some "test" of our ability to perform trivial calculations is absurd, and you need to stop this nonsense. --Haemo 02:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Grand Jury article?

There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view. Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations. The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia. But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation. On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history. Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies? Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy? None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.

In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy (http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html) regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001? The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'. It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding. Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading. In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place. Oneismany 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

lol "Chief Investigator Jim Hoffman"....I'm sorry, who exactly is the San Diego citizens Grand Jury? RxS 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Oneismany...if some articles don't cover things then feel free to write them.--MONGO 05:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Holy shit, I just read the "Citizens Grand Jury" article, and I got that bad ole feeling -- the same one I got when I first read about the Khmer Rouge's "Peoples Tribunals". The 9/11 CT'ers aren't just stupid, they're dangerous -- we haven't seen propaganda like that in the U.S. since the days of Uncle Joe. It's chilling.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they should also hire someone with more than a 3rd grade education in English to write up their next press release, too. --Golbez 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a court proceeding. This is a group of academics who put on a dog and pony show at the Student Council Chambers in the Aztec Center of San Diego State University, then wrote a press release about it. - Crockspot 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"For the First Time, New York Links a Death to 9/11 Dust"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24dust.html?ex=1337659200&en=871bd1f50af7df48&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

1. I cannot find 2749 or 2750 count anywhere in the article. According to the news article this is official.

2. The news article and the wikipedia article mentions James Zagroda. Perhaps a mention to Felicia Dunn-Jones is in order, since it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that her death was caused by wtc dust (unlike Zagroda's). 67.80.122.91 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3. ABC News reports: "The city said the Sept. 11 death toll at the trade center stands at 2,750." but later adds: "Dunn-Jones will be listed on the Sept. 11 memorial with the names of 2,973 people killed on Sept. 11 in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., memorial foundation spokeswoman Lynn Rasic said. " http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/national/main2845478.shtml?source=mostpop_story someone want to take care of this? Mcas 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From BBC: [51] 2,750 Jumping cheese Cont@ct 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC death toll

According to this CNN article, "the September 11 death toll at the World Trade Center now stands at 2,750." However, our article says "2,603 died and another 24 remain listed as missing." Which one is correct? Kaldari 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 Death Toll is all over the place in various wiki articles, going as high as 2997 in some places (other pages).

Anyway, the official toll is a bit higher now - "New York's chief medical examiner said he was certain the dust contributed to Felicia Dunn-Jones' death from a rare lung disease five months after 9/11" from this BBC news article. (Incidentally, this article puts the toll at 2,750 also). I can't wiki the wiki, so could someone with sufficient uberness please update the main article with a note about Felicia Dunn-Jones' death being attibuted to the dust and therefore the terrorists.

Steel

Is it worth mentioning that the steel recovered from the site (about 330,000t) was sold to other countries? some of it was used to make cutlery, some was used for pots and pans, car doors etc. my source is a documentary on recycling of steel. ∆ Algonquin 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why, considering that has little, if anything, to do with the actual attacks. --Haemo 12:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Many people believe it relates to the investigation following the attacks. For experts to adequately investigate the cause of the collapse, analysis of the steel is believed to be important. The designers considered it a major engineering feat, designed to withstand airplane collisions. The causes should be of interest to engineers, especially since the collapse is an apparent failure of the intent of the designers. Shipping the steel off before and adequate analysis could be made is believed to be a indication of the inadequacy of the investigation. Thus, if we can find reliable sources for the removal of the steel and the questions many are asking regarding that removal, I believe it should be included. Kevin77v 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it's probably better on on the main "investigation" page, Collapse of the World Trade Center, since it's a relatively unknown theory. --Haemo 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The red links on the page appear to all be broken. [These are not the blue links, obviously] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.102.160 (talk • contribs)

The links aren't broken, if you find a link which is in red it means there is no article about the subject on wikipedia yet, but an editor thinks there should be. You can help fix them by clicking on them and writting an article on the subject in the window that opens. Jackaranga 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Many statements incorrectly referenced as irrefutable facts.

This article and its architects are clearly only interested in the U. S. government's official conspiracy theory on the matter. The article states that it was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, a "fact" that has not ever been established with Imperical evidence. The perpetrators are listed as Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden, when no concrete evidence linking them to these dastardly crimes has ever been produced. Please remember that Osama Bin Laden has never been tried and convicted for any such involvement, so stating his certain guilt is misleading and wholly incorrect.

9/11 conspiracy theories are marginalized and even trivialized in this article, even though recent polls show that up to 75% of American citizens doubt the official story of 9/11 as presented by the U.S. government, and over 33% of Americans now believe the attacks were an inside job orchestrated by our own government.

Because of these facts, and many others, I request that all statements regarding the nature of the attacks and the identities of the perpetrators be edited to include appropriate wording, such as "alleged" and "thought to be."

Regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, they deserve more than irresponsible dismissal as baseless and irrelevant. The polls clearly show what people are coming to believe more and more about these awful crimes, and to trivialize the opinions of 75% of the U. S. populace in this way is nothing short of criminal.

Please read the archived discussion of this page, for previous debate addressing your concerns, and explaining why the article is in its current form. --Haemo 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources support the existing version of the article. And not every doubt about the so-called 'official story' (which is a different article anyway) is based on conspiracy theory folklore. Peter Grey 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The unsigned commentor, (as I'm sure has also been noticed by many would-be contributors to this page) is engaging in an effort of futility, as it is of little use putting anything forward here that sounds the slightest bit contrary to the official story of 9/11. This article accentuates that fact that Wikipedia is not necessarily a factual resource. It is to much greater degree a representation of the popular opinion using choice references to support the opinion. Wikipedia is a majority rules system. If the majority of people believe an incorrect theory, that theory is going tLet the reader decide what the facts are, not have Wikipedia decide for them. o be the prevalent theory shown in an article and probably presented as true. Majority rules not necessarily truth. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain Kevin77v 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article demonstrates the reverse - unscientific yet popular folklore is rejected in favour of verifiable facts. Peter Grey 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Precisely.--MONGO 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be a little more encyclopedic. Whether or not the official story is true or not is irrelavant. The information the article presents need to be stated for what it is: The mainstream or popular account. The article need not cave to conspiracy theories and claim them as fact, nor should it place doubt about the official story. It really should not state any account as fact. To me it's very simple. Why can we not just state what the government is puporting as just that: the account the government is purporting. This doesn't say it isn't true, nor does it say it is false. Simple statements like, "Immediately following the attacks, president Bush indicated government intelligence implicates Al Queada...." or "According to mainstream news outlets...", etc, etc, would not imply falsehood, yet not be stated as a certain fact. Instead, what happens in this article instead is that the government and mainstream account is stated as a set of facts. Anything outside the these accounts is ommitted. Why is this the case? Are all things that comes from these sources undoubtable facts? Are all sources outside of the mainstream automatically false? How is this encyclopedic? We should state everything in this article for what it is: the account that the popular publications and sources are purporting. The account may be true, but that is irrelevant. It is not our job to decide this for the reader. Kevin77v 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you want to continue to habitually ignore the facts, you'll have to accept that the so-called "official story" is the factually accurate one. You are calling for us to present the factually accurate story as something other than accurate, which is unencyclopedic. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You may well be correct about your point of view that the official account is factual, however, there are a significant amount of people who dispute that. My point is that the Wikipedia article should not have any stance at all. The article should state exactly what happened, the stuff that isn't in dispute: Four planes were hijacked and crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and one downed, etc, etc...Then instead of asserting who is responsible, state who makes the claims that these individuals are responsible, and what their claims are, and how the sources have described the events. In doing so, the article should clearly indicate that this is what the sources are saying, and which sources are saying it, as opposed to stating it as though they are factual. All stuff that is in dispute should be presented as a belief of the sources.
This is exactly how the JFK assassination article is presented. Even though, as with 9/11, the majority of people believe the government's account of the event, a significant number disagree. So the JFK article doesn't state the government's account as fact, rather it states the government's account as it should: as an account of the government. This article should do the same. Kevin77v 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a dispute simply because some people (pretend to) disagree. That would be like saying the Elvis Presley article should not assert whether or not he is still alive. If there is a genuine noteworthy dispute, identify the specific issue, and verify that its validity has not been properly rejected (yes, that means go through all the archived talk). New evidence would of course be welcome, but most objections to this article are not new issues and are not mere differences of opinion - they have already been demonstrated to be invalid. Peter Grey 05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think "the majority of people believe the government's account of the event"?. The Warren Commission report has been clearly shown to be not a factual account of the events. User:Pedant 07:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Attacks

This has probably already been said, but would it make more sense to change 'suicide' to homicide? Technically, suicide as defined by Wikipedia, "is the act of intentionally taking one's own life. The term "suicide" can also be used to refer to a person who has killed himself or herself."

Granted, these people did end up ending their own lives intentionally, but they did so by killing numerous others as well. I simply believe a better word could be chosen. Am I wrong?

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to sign. --Tarage 09:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the attacks were suicide attacks is an important tactical detail. Peter Grey 15:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Tactical yes, and I understand the importance of saying these people took their own lives as well as thousands of others, but suiside... seems to singular. Are there no verbavors out there who can provide a better one? --Tarage 09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "alleged" absolutely needs to be added, for accuracy and Neutral Point of View

The hijackers are only alleged hijackers. The perpetrators are only alleged to be Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, as well as truth, I request again that we come to a consensus to include words such as "alleged," "allegedly," "reportedly," etc., where appropriate, involving any of the accusations (allegations) that the article asserts. The people in question were not tried and convicted of the crimes accused (alleged). Therefore it is unfactual and inaccurate to state such things as fact.

I submit that Wikipedia's touted "Neutral Point of View" supports the addition of words such as "alleged" to every single instance where a person or group is accused of a crime in this article.

Regardless of what you believe or think you know, stating a person's guilt without a conviction upheld in a court of law is the equivalent of libel. Are you more interested in maintaining a libelous article, or one that presents a neutral point of view? Declaring someone's guilt where none has been proven is not a neutral point of view, and goes against everything Wikipedia is about. Ultimist 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed. In fact, you can see this exact same question being answered on this page, and numerous times in the archives. Read through those if you want to understand why this is inappropriate -- chiefly, read about undue weight. --Haemo 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policies, I am allowed to post my opinions regarding changes to an article, to try to gain consensus. In fact, Wikipedia's policies encourage such discussion. If you dispute Wikipedia encouraging this kind of exchange, take it up with the owners of the site. Every cited source's assertions about a person or group's guilt is nothing more than an allegation. The addition of "alleged" and similar language is supported by the fact that every cited source is full of implicit allegations. Any cited source that states "Osama bin Laden did this..." or "Al Qaeda did that..." is making an allegation. Ultimist 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not discouraging you -- I'm telling you that it's already been discussed ad nauseum, and you're not brining anything new to the table. All of your arguments, and concerns have already been discussed, and addressed -- unless you have some shocking new evidence published by reliable sources which is so stunning and definitive that it causes a total re-examination of the entire narrative, you're not going to get anywhere. Again, see about undue weight to understand why your interpretation of neutral point of view is misguided... or any of the numerous other explanations in the archives. --Haemo 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point, I think. Support for adding the word "alleged" is in every source cited within this article. Every single source makes allegations. Remember, the facts have not been proven in a court of law. In the United States, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not the other way around. I also repeat that the act of declaring someone's guilt in written form without a court conviction to back it up is libelous. Ultimist 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you're missing the point, and misapplying neutral point of view. Josef Mengele was never tried for his crime - yet look at his article. Again, see undue weight before commenting further. And please read the archives. I'm not going to comment further until you do both of those. --Haemo 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read undue weight numerous times and I've read pertinent portions of the archives, both today and before today. It seems to me that undue weight is given in this article to assertions that are not proven to be facts, quite frankly. Cited sources state bin Laden's involvement, do they not? Is such a statement not an allegation? I am not adding undue weight to this fact, nor am I misapplying NPOV. Support for rewording the stated crimes to alleged crimes is implicit in statements from cited sources. Cited sources allege bin Laden's involvement, simply by making reference to his involvement. Allegations are implicit to the cited sources. They "allege" his involvement. This is not difficult to understand. Ultimist 07:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


By the way, Josef Mengele's cited sources lead back to works and testimonials from people who were subjected to his crimes, and/or people who witnessed it. They lived it. No reasonable comparison can be drawn between that article and this, since there is no eyewitness testimony as to bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, why is Bush "not concerned" with bin Laden if he truly did orchestrate the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil in the history of the world? Please, in the future, try not to put this discussion off course by comparing apples and oranges. 9/11 and Mengele do not compare. Ultimist 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


BTW, The FBI does not list anything related to 9/11 in any of osama bin laden's crimes for which he is wanted. In their OWN WORDS, there is no evidence to connect Osama to 9/11. This doesn't mean that the alleged hijackers and alleged al Qaeda masterminding are not true, but it recognizes that these are just allegations, as yet unproved. Whether the FBI feels it's likely or not, they can't act without evidence (or at least, aren't supposed to). Wikipedia needs to remain neutral, but not claiming that one as yet unproven version of events is the only version of events, and by withholding words like "alleged" when all that exist are allegations. In the case of Mengele, there is overwhelming evidence, photographic, documentary, eyewitnesses, and so on. I'm not saying Osama didn't do it, I'm saying until some evidence is presented, it's merely the most likely theory of many. -- 28 Jun 2007

Why are the government sources assumed to be totally factual?

Why is it assumed that the US government sources, and their commissioned studies, constitute reliable sources. Perhaps the government sources are totally accurate, however, if it is true that the elements within government were responsible, negligent, or merely incompetent, it is reasonable to believe they would do anything to conceal these facts. This opens up the possibility that the government sources are not necessarily reliable. Indeed, there are many people who are critical of the their efforts at investigating the events and the results they've come up with (even non-conspiracy theorists). I'm not saying that there necessarily is a conspiracy, but if there is, we are using only perpetrator sources to determine what is fact. Then we are telling the reader that these are all established facts, rather than saying what are the sources of the story, truth or not. I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either. As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account. We should merely indicate what the source of the official account. Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At last, a voice of reason! I agree with your post 100%, Kevin77v. If we assume for the sake of argument that the government IS involved, then those who constitute the "consensus" on this article are inadvertently assisting the perpetrators in the cover-up of their crimes. One can assume that if they ARE involved, they will be very happy with the current state of this article. That is, if such assumptions are made. Ultimist 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, read the archives and you'll see reason doesn't go very far because everyone who believes the official story believes that the only reliable sources come from the government sources, their commissioned studies, and the mainstream media. I imagine that in the "world is flat" consensus of long ago, there were plenty of mainstream sources to confirm the "facts" about the earth. If conspiracy theorists are correct, it is even worse with 9/11 because the implications are immensly more frightening than terrorism, and far too disrupting to the citizens' beliefs regarding the government of the USA. No doubt, this is why even looking at the evidence is too hard for most people, who instead choose to dismiss it out of hand as ridiculous. Kevin77v 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not assumed that the mainstream account is correct. It is assumed that they are reliable sources, as they should be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not that the US government source are accepted without question, but that the conspiracy theory hoax is based on sources that are demonstrably unreliable if not fraudulent. And there are many valid questions about the so-called mainstream account, such as questions of negligence. Peter Grey 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the sum total of the entire history of the world considered a reliable source? No steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11 when three such buildings collapsed on the same day, in the same location. And what about building 7, which was not even hit by a plane? What about NORAD standing down? What about Cheney giving the order NOT to attack the "plane" or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon? What about members of the bin Laden family being escorted safely out of the country by air, when the rest of us couldn't even fly? What about PNAC's document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," stating the need for a "New Pearl Harbor" to allow them to meet their political goals? What about alleged hijackers' passports magically surviving temperatures that reportedly melted steel? What about people standing in the impact wounds of where the planes hit, waving at cameras and begging for help... while leaning with bare hands up against steel framework that was supposedly hot enough to be weakened?
I could go on and on. These are legitimate questions regarding 9/11 that this article in no way addresses. In fact, it pretends these legitimate questions don't even exist. 69.145.121.50 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't. When the towers were built, there was no steel fireproofing required. It was added years later and decades before the attacks when building codes for steel buildings changed. Why? Because steel is vulnerable to fire. You repeat the conspiracy cruft talking points with the same lack of understanding that it was created. The claim that steel buildings did not collapse due to fire prior to 9/11 is rubbish. Rosie O'Donnell is not a good source for information on bulding construction and codes. --Tbeatty 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
ZZZZZZZZZ--MONGO 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume your "ZZZZZZZZZ" to mean that you couldn't refute the legitimate questions I offered up. 69.145.121.50 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you simply put me to sleep with this nonsense.--MONGO 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
MONGO seems to say the above when he has no argument to give. I decided to investigate him after he completely ignored and deleted my comments on his talk page offering some genuine advice. It seems a recurring theme that MONGO is responsible for the abuse of conspiracy theorists. For the record ladies and gentlemen, I don't like conspiracies too much. I'd just rather both sides were allowed to be heard and that people like MONGO would give conflicting opinions a chance to speak. NOTE, MONGO's comments below about "you people" are not helpful. Can't everyone just get along!Doctor11 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
By all means, please elaborate on why you see it as nonsense. Did NORAD *not* stand down? Were people *not* in the impact wounds? Did PNAC's document *not* state the need for a "New Pearl Harbor"? Have any other steel buildings EVER collapsed due to fire, in all of history? Put your knowledge and reliable sources where your mouth is, or don't bother participating in this discussion. If you have reliable sources that refute what I am saying, then share them. Arguing that something is "nonsense" is a cop out. Back up your claims. 69.145.121.50 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • These aren't really legitimate questions, and they appear to be posed in bad faith. [W]hat about building 7 is hardly a specific question that anyone could provide an exact answer to. Others are equally lacking context and appear to be based on faulty assumptions about temperature distribution or steel framed design. Some questions can reasonably be asked but may not be relevant to this article. Peter Grey 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We have argued with you people for years about this, but you choose to not become educated and that is your fault, not mine. The article is there, it is referenced, so read it and get educated.--MONGO 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently it isn't me who lacks an education. 69.145.121.50 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't the "steel framework" against which people were leaning that was weakened; it was the steel core columns of the towers, at the center of the structures, that were weakened. Please check your facts before posting. Jpers36 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the contention is that the temperatures on the affected floors were sufficient to weaken the steel on those floors, yet miraculously those temps weren't sufficient to incinerate human beings. Whether we are talking about the frame or core, the fact is that human beings were alive and not being toasted on those floors. Please check all the facts before posting, rather than cherry-picking supposed facts that support your argument. The steel frame impact holes are where massive explosions occurred when the planes impacted. Yet, the frame was cool to the touch (evidenced by bare human hands touching it). Incidentally, the majority of the jet fuel was burned off in the initial explosions. Please check all the facts before posting, rather than cherry-picking supposed facts that support your argument. And what of NORAD standing down, and the rest? What supposed evidence will you use to sidestep those issues? Please check all the facts before posting, rather than cherry-picking supposed facts that support your argument. 69.145.121.50 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it ok if we cherry pick supposed facts before commenting? RxS 19:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is fine to do so, but not advisable if you wish to be taken seriously. 69.145.121.50 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to get repetitive. The contention is not that "the temperatures on the affected floors were sufficient to weaken the steel on those floors", but that the temperatures at the core of the buildings were sufficient to weaken steel. The temperatures in other sections of the towers ranged from somewhat hotter to much cooler. Those standing at the outer frame would have been at least 35 feet, and probably more than 65 feet, away from the core, and were additionally in open windows which were providing ventilation for the fires -- meaning, in many cases, that cooler air was being sucked into the tower.
What is your alternate explanation for the facts? The planes hit. Certain people survived the impact, as well as the fires. The towers then fell. I don't see valid or cogent explanation for these incidents other than that the planes, through a combination of impact damage and fire damage, weakened the structure of the towers to a point where they fell, while leaving pockets of survivability until the actual collapse point. Jpers36 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about the fact that drills were being held on the same day... drills that involved the exact scenario of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon? Coincidence? 69.145.121.50 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what you (69.145.121.50) are doing; the frame was not cool to the touch, steel is a good conductor of heat, so that the core temperature could easily exceed 600 even if the concrete was cool to the touch; it's possible (although I tend to doubt it) that the steel temperature could exceed the maximum flame temperature, due to convection effects — the errors are endless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The frame wasn't cool to the touch? How is it then, that human beings were touching the frame with their bare hands and not screaming in utter agony from 600 degree heat? Conclusion: The steel frame was cool enough to be touched by human hands without causing burns. Period. 69.145.121.50 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, none of your "proof" is of any relevance here anyway, as Wikipedia is not a place to PROVE anything about 9/11, pro or con. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize in a neutral manner facts reported by reputable sources. We are not a place to publish previously unpublished and undocumented "proofs."  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Cite? (And don't show me the edited videos.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Chew on this! and THIS! Bet you don't feel so smug NOW, do you Mr. Rubin? - Crockspot 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
OMG, he's a "Researcher". Give him his own Wikipedia article. Right now. I demand it!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
They got me there. Especially the picture where Kong stepped on the model to prove how strong it still was. No controlled demolition experiments though. I figure a could of well placed fircrackers and we'd see molten metal running out of the floors. --Tbeatty 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


LOL! How could I have forgotten?! A man with a rabbit cage and two cinder blocks will always find the truth faster and more accurately than hundreds of experts on architecture, physics, chemistry and explosives operating the most sophisticated modeling tools on the planet! Jpers36 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I'm done here for now. No reason to further feed the trolls. Jpers36 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
But the laugh factor here is still fun, though of course, we really should feed the trolls, you are correct.--MONGO 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
comment - I'm fast becoming confused here. The basics of this debate from what I can see are "is what the government says a good source".. NO, obviously not. Just the mere fact that their story is disputed should be enough to throw them out as sources. (Jpers36 by the way - It's not relevant to discuss whether sources are right or wrong, as said above). To be brutally honest - 9/11, I don't care who did it. It was an evil attack that killed thousands of innocent people. Mr Bush and Osama Bin Laden have both committed crimes that could see them locked away, the way I see it: anything is possible. We may never know what really happened but what we do know is that on 11th Sept. 2001, people were murdered by either a bomb, a plane or something else destroying the World Trade Centre. That's the fact. Debate over. --Doctor11 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your standard is disputted? If that were a standard there would still be a 9/11 article and none of the conspiracy nonsense. Heck, the conspiracy nutballs are even disputing each other. And no, Bush has not committed crimes and your comparison is somewhat repulsive. And no, it wasn't "either a bomb or a plane or something else." It was a plane. That is the fact of the matter. The conspiracy crap iscovered bcause it's notable, just as the Flat Earth Society is notable. But it's notablility does not give them credibility in the world of science and facts. --Tbeatty 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are reports independant of the government report as well as millions of eyewitnesses. The government also reports that the world is round and gives us GPS coordinates. We don't report these as "alleged" or any other qualifying word. --Tbeatty 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people simply want to discredit the storyline by pointing out that the US government agrees with it. That might actually be enough to raise some degree of suspicion, except that the account is corroborated by many independent sources. The US government is not even a particularly important source in this case. Peter Grey 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

please vote

To return to the original point being made in this section:

Kevin77v wr: I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either. As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account. We should merely indicate what the source of the official account. Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I move that we will not regard government sources as WP:RS in this matter, and in stead of indicating doubt, clearly indicate the source of the "facts" in the wording of the article. We cannot maintain that governments are reliable sources when they are caught lying all the time, can we? So please vote agree or disagree. — Xiutwel (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • agree — Xiutwel (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • disagree. Violation of our core principles to state that a government source is not a WP:RS. It's not necessarily a trusted source, but I see no evidence of that here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • comment: You are right: we could say government and mainstream media are RS but not necessarily trustworthy. Therefor wikipedia should not take a stance, and always indicate the source in the wording. — Xiutwel (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: The question is meaningless. "Government" does not represent a single source, and each source should be assessed on its individual merits. Some sources, like the 9/11 Commission, are vulnerable to political influence, others, like NIST, are less so. Peter Grey 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Peter. This poll is lame. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility

The start of this section dives right into the history of Al Qaeda, which is a subject that has its own section, and should go there. The article should begin with the fact that the main suspect ( bin Laden ) has not been charged with any crime relating to 9/11.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109 "..Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.."

Simply mentioning that he has been charged with other crimes is not enough information, specifically, it must be stated somewhere that he has not be formally charged with any crime related to 9/11, and he is a suspect. Any sentence placing the blame on bin Laden (without also mentioning that he is only a suspect) should be removed from wikipedia.--Bennyxbo 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question would be why is it so important to say that when he's already admitted responsibility? During a (rightly or wrongly) time of war I'm not sure civil courts have much input/relevance. RxS 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They have had ample opportunity to find evidence/hold trials, and indict him of something in the last 6 years. The more time that passes, the more interesting this fact will become. The reason why he hasn't been indicted is because " there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to the attacks" - Rex Tomb, FBI spokes person. I'm attempting to get Mr. Tomb on the record, we'll see if opinions change then.--Bennyxbo 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the date on that article? A lot has been learned since 9/27/01. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

" By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice "

Mr. Tomb was all too prophetic it would seem. I know you will say that the teamliberty/Muckraker quote is unreliable, that's why I am going to throw the mp3 down as the source.--Bennyxbo 12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page needs to allow for diversified perspectives so long as they offer justification.

I'm not very good at editing these wikipages, but I believe the following line to be unfairly representative of 9/11:

These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, or political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[118][119]

I believe that the problem with this is that mainstream is by definition apart from a conspiracy theory. If these mainstream people held the views of the conspiracy theory then they wouldn't be mainstream anymore.

There are, however, numerous people that either through a position of power or education are important to consider when discussing the events of 9/11 that are not credited on the main page. Many of these views can be found in "9/11 and American Empire" Volume 1, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, Olive Branch Press, 2007. To quote the book exactly,

"All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11. Ten of them had earned the Ph.D. Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one of them was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon. The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly." (Preface VIII)

They do offer very compelling arguments which I am not going to get into here. I feel it deserves to at least be mentioned that there are important and well educated people who offer strong evidence to the contrary of the "mainstream" belief. If wikipedia is going to be a scholarly source then it must acknowledge diversified opinions so long as they have their own justification.

74.135.161.163 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It rather depends what the 'evidence' is and whether or not it is considered reliable or noteworthy by others, not by the eleven contributors making their own claims of their self-importance. Peter Grey 01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But to simply discredit their evidence and not have it even included as an opposing theory seems unfair. Their 'evidence' is very well cited and/or backed up by their own experience in the field. To simply discredit it because it is theirs and is not held by mainstream people doesn't follow logic at all as it is circular reasoning. Moreover, with 42% of the US Public believing that there is a cover up (according to Wall Street Journal 29 September 2003) of some sort going on, I believe that this article deserves a little more than a couple of lines of text that those who disagree with the things stated on the page simply are accepted because they are mainstream. That would make about as much sense as saying that they must be wrong because they are mainstream. If this article is truly to address the issue, the arguments that are logically sound on both sides should be presented and the reader should be allowed to come to his/her own opinion. 74.135.161.163 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, to add to that, my argument is further justified by Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View wherein is stated:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

74.135.161.163 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Naploeon. Wikipedia actually awards medals to people who contantly edit-out any thought provoking 9/11 info in articles. I've simply tried to add that bin Laden is still only a suspect, but it gets yanked for POV pushing. These people who think that government never lies makes me want to puke, they take everything the government says as fact. We attacked Afghanistan to get Binny, a mere suspect?, because the government said to... now its out that bin Laden may have personally chartered a jet in the U.S. a few days after the attacks ! http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml Why didn't the bin Laden family get thrown into Gitmo? --Bennyxbo 11:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The US government is not exactly approaching this as a matter of criminal justice. It may be appropriate, however, to underline that bin Laden's role is not known exactly, although it does seem to be clear that he is a co-conspirator. Peter Grey 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Did the Defenses Fail?

Should this article discuss what the operating procedures of NORAD and the FAA were and some of the associated theories regarding why there was a failure of the US defenses? This article addresses what happened, but very little about the causes of the failures that lead to the events. I'm not sure of what are all the details that should be addressed, but I feel this general topic is very relavant. Is it addressed in any related articles? Kevin77v 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably because no one was expecting our planes to be crashed into buildings on purpose. I don't believe it needs to be elaborated on.--Tarage 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's surely a good thing the tax payers put in trillions of dollars for this system. Perhaps they didn't spend enough because apparently the potential of using the planes as projectiles escaped NORAD's thoughts. But seriously though, do you not all think this needs more than just a passing thought? Kevin77v 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
KAL007 it didn't fail. Ooops. This is why there isn't a shoot first policy. It's also why that even today, when airspaces are breached (and htere have been thousands) we have no shootdowns. And we've also have not had a terrorist attack. Your presumption of failure is misplaced. --Tbeatty 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You people must be joking. You DO realize that on 9/11 NORAD was holding drills involving the exact scenario of planes crashing into the WTC towers and Pentagon, don't you? Do some research. NORAD failed to intercept the allegedly hijacked planes because NORAD was ordered to STAND DOWN. Neither bin Laden nor al CIAda could have accomplished such a thing. 'Twas Cheney. 69.145.121.50 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Got a link proving that? --Golbez 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Global dimming?

One aspect of "trivia" related to this article was that the subsequent grounding of all aircraft in the ensuing days gave scientists a rare opportunity to research the effects of airborne smoke on the theory of Global dimming. Should this be linked under "trivia"?

Actually I think it could be mentioned in the article itself, not in a little "trivia" section. Perhaps under the economic impact section. This is actually a notable thing, the few days without contrails was a unique forbidden experiment. --Golbez 07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline link

Would the following link be an acceptable link to put into the external links section: Complete 911 Timeline? EPM 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


AA 77 black box data

According to Yahoo! News, black box data examined by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, several independent scholars, and fifteen airline pilots with military experience suggests AA 77 may not have crashed into the Pentagon. Thoughts? 70.187.214.119 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cite? Verification it's not not a P911T press release?
I'm sorry to be so curt, but I've seen a number of "news" articles recently which were recycled press releases, and your description looks like a press release summary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

It'll probably earn me some FBI surveilance, but I tagged it anyway. Morganfitzp 14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes... because your oppinion voids out everyone else's. We've been over this so many times, yet people like you never seem to get it. Don't add these things unless there is a general concensus on the issue. Otherwise, you are just trolling. --Tarage 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I get it. Thee's no need to be mean. Morganfitzp 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. Yes, the September 11, 2001 attacks-article is definitly a POV-article (though not tagged as one), and yes, there has to be some sort of concensus before putting the tag on the article. Geir 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well put. Morganfitzp 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is only POV if you have decided to avoid the facts of the incident.--MONGO 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree there is a POV problem. The conspiracy theories are given too much Undue Weight. If you have any good suggestions on how to reduce this Undue Weight, please propose it. We've been fighting this for a long time and we appear to be at a standstill so the POV tag won't stand but proposing reductions might be supported on the talk page. --Tbeatty 07:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That is actually a good argument as to why this article is almost perfect. Both sides, the conspiricy theorists and the anti conspiricy theorists both don't like it. Ballanced. --Tarage 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no POV tag here? 202.124.176.4 05:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the article is neutral. Why do you want one? --Golbez 06:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reactions and Aftermath

Referring to the Reactions sub-section, i find the current layout of the article problematic.

there is no separation between "immediate reactions" and "aftermath reactions", no proper mentions examinations of events such as the "MEMRI 9/11 5 years later in Arab and Iranian media" document or the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks either. and there's definitely too much information in that segment in stuff which should be on separate articles and reffered to with {{main|}} templates. Jaakobou 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Selective fact picking?

I think we should be careful not to leave out certain facts which are at odds with the mainstream view which was propelled by the White House. I would like Wikipedia to be a trustworthy soure of information, and *not* some propaganda letout. We're not in the Sovjet Union, folks!

I fully agree that we should keep the main article FREE of conspiracy theories - there are zillions of them. But neither should we distort reality, and we should not portait things as certain facts when they are mere opinions — regardless whether these opionions may be right or wrong.

— Xiutwel (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Vandalism to this page will be promptly removed. Consider helping instead of damaging other people's hard work."
I agree, reverting my edits is not helping... — Xiutwel (talk)
  • 06:36, 5 July 2007 Pablothegreat85 (Talk | contribs) (107,634 bytes) (we've talked about these kind of edits, and you are editing against consensus. revert to my last version.)
I presume you are confusing concensus with majority opinion. My edits are according to wikipedia guidelines, do not revert them please. — Xiutwel (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that you might be confused. WP:OR says no original research; that means that you can't add your own thoughts. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not hold this article hostage with neutrality tags, when your opinion is against consensus. The core of this article is reliable sources and verifiability. You haven't presented any rationale behind your argument when hasn't been extensively dealt with in the archives of this talk page, and we are not bound to report extreme minority opinions with no expert validity in any sort of an equal way. Propose something here, rather than just slapping a neutrality tag on this article -- better yet, read the archives, and you'll see that dollars to donuts it's been dealt with, and rejected, before. --Haemo 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it has been dealt with and rejected, but not in accordance with guidelines.

There seems to be some groupthink in which only certain guidelines apply to only unwelcome edits. Edits of contention: — Xiutwel (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1

presumably by Islamic extremists

There are two theories:

  • the mainstream theory is that Osama bin Laden hated our freedoms so much that he inspired 19 young men to hijack 4 planes, evade the best defence system in the world, make the President sit and do nothing, and destroy WTC7 as a bonus.
  • the underground theory is that a group of criminals infiltrated the government and gave some help.

Since in the real world, the debate is ongoing, and has not been decided upon by any neutral party, there cannot be any reliable source which definitely has a conclusion. Therefore wikipedia cannot take sides either, as this would be OR. — Xiutwel (talk)

    • The main theory is that OBL despised U.S. foreign policy and resented U.S. troops in Saudia Arabia and throughout the years attacked the U.S. interests numerous times. I doubt he cared about U.S. freedoms. Rather that is a rhetorical device used to highlight the differences between Western secular society and the Taliban model that OBL strived for. Secondly, you make the mistake of assuming the underground theory has wide enough acceptance to be stated here as an alternate explanation of events. It is not. Rather it is notable for it's fringeness but not for it's account. It is very much like the JFK conspiracy theories that warrant mention as conspiracy theories but not in the actual factual accounting of history. --Tbeatty 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

2

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed, presumably due to structural failure, on the day of the attack.

Building seven was announced collapsed 25 minutes before the fact; its demolition was announced on radio; experts are baffeled by its collapse. How could wikipedia attest it was not demolished? — Xiutwel (talk)

Prove it was. --Golbez 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing my point: if we leave out "presumably" we would consider it proven that it was NOT demolished. I do not need or want to prove that it was demolished, I just want wikipedia to reflect the facts fairly. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. The controlled demolition theory is not based on facts; it's based on its adherents making things up. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that the building collapsed due to damage suffered from the collapsed of 1 WTC. That its collapse was announced 25 minutes before the fact has zero established bearing; maybe you'd like to express complete thoughts in the future rather than supposed factoids. --Golbez 07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually we don't even need presumably since everyone agrees that it collapsed from structural failure. Controlled demolition theorists, NIST, or directed energy weapon theorists all agree that the structure failed. The cause of structural failure my be disputed but I have not heard a conspiracy theory alleging the buildings are still standing. --Tbeatty 08:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

3

Is anyone disputing this? — Xiutwel (talk)

  • Al Qaeda literally means: "the database" (of warriors and agents).

Is anyone disputing this? — Xiutwel (talk)

What do either of these have to do with anything? I'm not disputing or confirming, I'm just trying to understand why you even bring these two things up... --Tarage 06:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Al qaeda didn't get "massive" support from the U.S. Native afghani tribes and Pakistani's received aid. They spent as they saw fit including on Arab fighters, but it would have upset the tribal sensibilities if the U.S. gave lots of money to Arab "foreigners" fighting in Afghanistan. --Tbeatty 08:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

4

  • His suspected involvement in the September, 11 attacks, however, is not even mentioned on his FBI-most-wanted page.[2]

Is this untrue? — Xiutwel (talk)

Does it matter to this article? --Tarage 06:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

5

  • This lasted several days and provided climate researchers with an unique opportunity to measure the Global dimming effect.

What's wrong with this? People may feel it's inappropriate to combine the issues, but they are connected, and Climate change can be a deadly tragedy also. — Xiutwel (talk)

It isn't neccary. --Tarage 06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the 1 day datapoint provided significant scientific information. Just like one sunny day doesn't prove or disprove global warming. --Tbeatty 08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

6

  • As it is standard procedure to quickly intercept any commercial plane which deviates from course, September 11 is unprecedented in that these four jets flew without being intercepted for so long. Had the hijackers not succeeded in evading interception, their plan might have failed.

Is this not correct? — Xiutwel (talk)

These edits are not productive. --Haemo
I thank you for your effort to discuss this. You are more eloquent than I am. — Xiutwel (talk)
For (1), the consensus theory that is by and large agreed on is the one presented in the article. To give any other runs into undue weight issues, which is why they are explained on other subpages. Try adding your view there. --Haemo
Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. — I agree, but a single word to avoid an unwarrented stance is not "too much"? — Xiutwel (talk)
You completly miss the point of 'tiny-minority'. We do NOT have to add even a single word to playcate such a tiny minority.--Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Your (2) claim also has its own page, Controlled demolition hypothesis, and is has been moved there instead, given that an overwhelming majority of experts do not agree with it. Any treatment of it requires more space than we can give it, hence its own article. --Haemo
Agree that treatment should be in the sub-article, but the main article cannot take a stance without providing a source for that stance. Agree? — Xiutwel

(talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not when the source tends to be every shread of evidence NOT from a fringe orginization. --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
(3) is half false (Al Queda meaning 'The base', not 'The database') and is already explained on Al Queda; we don't need it here. --Haemo
Agree with you that we don't need it here! The first part however, needs mentioning: the USA supported Al Qaeda for years. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Again... why? It is mentioned on the Al Queda page, why does it need redundancy here? --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
(4) is immaterial, and the reference has no apparent relation to this, other than as opinionated original research.--Haemo
I do not understand what you are saying at all? What's OR about citing an FBI poster? — Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Its a POSTER. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill. --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
(5) and (6) are totally uncited and also OR. --Haemo
Let's begin by agreeing that it's true. Then we can find the RS, if you need them. Agree? — Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's begin by agreeing you CAN find RS, THEN we will talk about it. Not before. --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
All of these edits, or similar ones, have been extensively discussed, and rejected. Read the archives, and look at the subpages. This is very tiresome. --Haemo 07:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very tiresome for all concerned. Thank you for your effort, though! — Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Concidering your 'kind' don't seem to want to listen to the general consensus, yes it is... --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I will point to you that we have other article, many quite large, which deal with minority views. We also link to them, which does far more for those views than adding words which, given the lack of any explanatory context on this page, will help readers instead of confusing them. If you think the article has sourcing problems, then point them out specifically -- note, however, that it's considered un-necessary to source certain types of "topical" claims if they are discussed on a closely linked page. Claims like "The US previously supported Al Queda" are unnecessary, because they are orphaned -- we need to explain the context of this, which cannot be done in any meaningful fashion on this page; hence the links. With respect to (4), it is original research because the implication is that the poster has some bearing on 9/11; it does not, it merely is an FBI document. There is no source explaining why omitting 9/11 is important, or relevant; it could be for any number of reasons. With respect to (5) and (6), that's not exactly how it works -- especially in a high-profile, and high-quality, article like this. --Haemo 07:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I issue a warning to anyone else, we have to understand that many of these people are ignorant by choice. They know there's evidence and indeed proof of many of the "official" stories, but they deliberately avoid them, so as to keep their own theories. There is no hope in arguing with them; you can only educate the willing. So just smile and wave, boys, smile and wave. They all go away eventually, and the article has never been long-term compromised by them. --Golbez 07:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for smiling and waving, Golbez. The truth will not go away however, whatever it is. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep claiming your fringe theories are the truth and we will continue to sigh and move along. Until you have actual credible proof, stay out. --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Golbez never said with which finger he's waving. As far as the truth goes, you're correct - the truth will not go away. The lies (which is what you're trying to give credibility to) will eventually go away. We will not allow you to compromise the credibility of the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They know there's evidence and indeed proof

Golbez, if you are so certain about the innocence of the White House officials, why do you object to mentioning the failure to intercept? — Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

lies (which is what you're trying to give credibility to)

George W. will thank you for you loyal support. I am not trying to give credibility to lies, I am trying to make the article balanced, so that visitors can make up their own mind. How can it be that facts which you do not dispute "are giving credibility to lies"? — Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, because everyone who supports the mainstream view on this is obviously a Bush supporter. Slipery slope tactics are a sign of futility. We do NOT need to give balance to views that are a fringe minority that have very little to no actual substance to back them up. Please stop trying to force this on the rest of us when we have pages upon pages of your 'kind' arguing the EXACT SAME THING! Its monotinous. --Tarage 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

--Tarage 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)===consensus=== WP:CONSENSUS

  • Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.

Where in the archives do people agree to abide by the outcome? I think all that has ever been reached is people walking out on wikipedia, which I feel is a shame. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good riddence to bad rubbish.
  • That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds.

I would say there is a supermajority on wikipedia which tends to believe the mainstream account. But why be so bold and take it as certain? Why leave out all facts that place doubt on that view? — Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because your 'facts' aren't facts at all. They are wild speculation with little to back it up. We've been down this road so many times it isn't even funny anymore. --Tarage 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I'm the one making the bold claims here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
We tend not to "leave out facts", but rather shuffle them off to subpages, where we don't run into undue weight problems. --Haemo 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. I disagree with this, is there no better solution? It makes the main article very biased. I feel we should either include facts in a more balanced matter, or if we choose not to, express more caution in the wording. As it is now, neither is the case and I feel the article deserves a NPOV tag. — Xiutwel (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't CARE if you think it is biased or not. Everything in this world has some sort of bias on it. The key here is that the 'bias' here is the 'bias' of the VAST majority. I may not be as eloquent as the rest, but I like to think that I can point out the sane side of things. --Tarage 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is, that the facts are balanced -- "balanced" in the context of an encyclopedia means neutral point of view, and that implies that we weight different views on questions according to their acceptance and verifiability in reliable sources. Often, this means they they slide entirely off the page, and into subpages. Think of it like this -- Wikipedia is like a series of nested levels of information. This article is like the "big picture" -- it gives the most general overview of the event; if someone asked the everyman to explain, in two minutes, what happened on 9/11, they would say something very similar to this article. However, if you dig deeper into any part of the story, some minor opinions begin to get noticed -- these are like zooming into the picture, or opening those deeper nests. The fact that these views exist should not, however, distract from the big picture here -- they're too small to catch the eye of the viewer at first glance. --Haemo
if someone asked the everyman to explain, in two minutes, ...
I agree, but, we don't want our article on Quantum mechanics to reflect the knowledge of the everyman, do we?
I feel there is enough credibility in the minority view that "the official story doesn't fit together", to allow *some* mention of that in the main article, and to use *some* caution in wording the (mainstream) view. The view as it is worded in this main article could hardly be *more* biased than it is now, could it? The links to other articles are all that remains from irregular facts. I feel it's a poor job, and we can do better and fairer. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
We do give some mention to this "minority" view in the main article here. That's more than sufficient. I think it gives to much weight and this section should be cut out. But, it's still in there. --Aude (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting again (— Xiutwel (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)):

Kevin77v wr: I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either. As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account. We should merely indicate what the source of the official account. Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

if you folks have any decency, then place the appropriate tag and point the people to this discussions, i'm sorry, but at this point in time the article does look ridiculous and so does the wikipedia. best wishes. 78.1.107.157 01:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cry about it... --Tarage 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this article looks pretty good. For an encylopedia that anyone can edit this article is pretty solid: factual, credible and mostly free from fringe POV's. I think you'll find that the editors that attempt to add fringe theories to these types of articles edit here only to push those POVs. On the other hand, I think you'll find that the editors that try and keep this article (and others like it) factual and credible work on a broad range of articles and care about Wikipedia's greater good. I think it's fair to question the motives of an editor (or a group of editors) that edit here only to push a single POV. RxS 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is worth distinguishing fringe theories from disproven theories. A fringe theory is probably but not necessarily inappropriate. Also, the mainstream account is not a single monolithic narrative beyond challenge. Just because the conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean there are no legitimate questions - for example the possibility of negligence by Bush, Cheney and/or Rice. Peter Grey 03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a time and place for both, and neither are here and now. --Tarage 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There are legitimate questions, and sadly more by the day. The problem is keeping the focus on those legitimate questions and resisting attempts to make the illogical leap from those questions to nutjob controlled demo theories etc. RxS 03:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to say for sure that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. However, suppose you were to create a video showing a sequence of demolitions and include the collapse of WTC7 in that sequence. Now show it someone who did not know the building's collapse occurred on 9/11 (there are many such people). They would probably not think it was the odd one out of the sequence. With the possible exception that it was quite a bit neater a destruction than most demolitions. Now, that doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition, but it is not as obvious as you think. You automatically dismiss everyone who would be skeptical as nutjobs. It is not straight forward that WTC7 is not controlled demolition. Now, I imagine most people will then respond that the majority of the experts disagree with the controlled demolition theories. Fine, they may well be accurate. However, when you consider that if any of the relatively few experts on the subject decide to object, they risk their careers, social status, being ostracized as a conspiracy theorist, and probably wouldn't be listened to anyhow by the mainstream, it's easy to see why they would stay silent. To distrust the government sanctioned studies isn't a stretch either, because it's very unlikely experts in a study will produce a result critical of their funders. You see this in any study, which is why you should always see who funds a study before you trust their results. What it comes down to is what sources you consider reliable. I'm not saying I agree with the conspiracy theorist necessarily, however, I can see why they may come to their conclusions. It is not as obvious as you think. Kevin77v 05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
What part of 'origional research' do you not understand? This isn't the place for theories. Come back with cold hard proof, and none of the things that litter the archives with holes so big you can drive jumbo jets through them. Bad taste yes, but if it quiets this, I'll accept it. --Tarage 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting their inclusion in this page. I was merely commenting on Strangelove's post, pointing out that while the theories mentioned may be false, the theories are not nutjob theories because they are not obviously false. It seems to be a common attitude possessed by editors of this page and does not promote NPOV. Kevin77v 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I suspect they would look pretty similar as the underlying mechanism (gravity) is the same in both. What would be different is the amount of windows blown out in the blast radius of a controlled demolition. I guess we could show sequences of windows one block from the building. --Tbeatty 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever actually witnessed a controlled demolition? Do you know really what they look like? what they sound like? the WTC7 videos sure do not sound the same as a controlled demolition. I have seen a couple actual demolitions in person. Here's video of a real controlled demolition - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8639504156862456165 which sounds very different than the way WTC7 collapsed. It also looks a bit different. --Aude (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I've have seen many demolitions. An observation about controlled demolitions is that they are all different, but they all have similar features. If WTC7 is a controlled demolition it would be no exception and WTC7, I believe, does have many similar features, although, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a controlled demolition. Regarding the noise of WTC7's collapse, I agree with your observation that the noise is different than with demolitions. Instead of the noise of many explosions you hear a loud rush noise. This may well be a strong reason to disbelieve the controlled demolition theory. However, a possible explanation is that the demolition uses a much larger amount of explosives at once creating so many rapid explosion noises that it sounds like a continuous noise instead of many single pop noises. This could explain why the destruction seems much finer than other demolitions. This is just speculation and I'm not sure entirely what the case is for WTC7, however, as it seems to be the trend of many people on here to treat anyone who opposes the official story as a lunatic and that seems to influence what shows in this article, I succumbed to the temptation to point out that the truth isn't as obvious as many people want to think -- my apologies, we can end the controlled demolition discussion, as it is discussed elsewhere. Kevin77v 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The emergency personnel on the scene detected the failure of the structure long before the actual collapse. Unless you contemplate someone intentionally demolishing a building which was already on the brink of collapse, the truth seems pretty obvious. Peter Grey 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 31

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

...beliefs or facts?

Right now, the article reflects the opinion of an estimated 2/3 majority of Americans, that Al Qaeda did not get any inside help. Personally, I feel this opinion leaves out some important questions to ask, such as: why would George W. Bush not testify under oath, why not without Cheney present; how could Al Qaeda evade NORAD intercepts for 80 minutes? Any American wishing to avoid a similar tragedy should be wanting to ask these questions. Wikipedia is *not* the one to ask them. But we should not bury the facts leading to such questions under a Minitrue version of reality, either. So let's agree to disagree, and at least put the { { neutral } } flag up. Then, we can make the article NPOV and telling the tale of more sides than one. Wikipedia is not censorship.WP:NOT#CENSOR — Xiutwel (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion directly below this one; namely that by your own admittance 'a 2/3 majority of Americans' don't believe in the ideas you want to incorporate. In fact you vastly under-estimate the percentage, and seem to ignore the fact that Wikipedia is browsed by people the world over. In fact that percentage of people who think it wasn't 'an inside job' is probably at least 95%, and such a view has not been substantiated anywhere, therefore undue weight policy clearly applies as far as their inclusion here. See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories —Harmonica 07:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of the words 'mainstream' and 'fringe' to describe the complete set of people with opinions on how the history of 9-11 should be written is misleading, biased and in my opinion, politically motivated. 'Mainstream' refers to a large majority of people; 'fringe' refers to a small minority of people whose beliefs are unsound and unpopular. 'Fringe' is a loaded term when compared to 'mainstream'. Considering the vast history of naive, misinformed, ignorant and malevolent mainstream opinions, an accurate history should not give weight to mainstream opinion of non-experts. 95% of people believing one thing or the other has absolutely no impact on what has happened in the past. It does have a major impact on what happens in the future, which is why these opinions become so politicized. This article on 9-11 gives all of it's faith to the 9-11 commission and none to the multitude of members of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Congress, US Military, and many other experts with detailed sources, information and experience who disagree with the 'mainstream' opinion. Another major problem with this article and discussion is the leaning towards the opinion that anyone who disagrees with a single finding of the 9-11 commission is someone who believes that the WTC were bombed with planted explosives and that the Bush administration masterminded the entire operation. This is a very convenient assumption for someone who is convinced that their 'mainstream' history is the factual history. This attitude prevents any serious discussion or history but it does insure the tranquility and wholeheartedness of one's political beliefs, regardless of the facts. The 9-11 article is biased, disingenuous, and falls almost completely short of a broad and academic history of this enormous event. So much information is missing that the only conclusion one can make after reading this article is that Wikipedia's editors are scared that their world is not as simple as they want it to be. There is no grand conspiracy-theory that explains 9-11, whether the theory is that Osama bin Laden is responsible or George Bush.----profg 15:07, 6 August 2007

Absurd. President's don't testify under oath because it is a liability, it has long been a practice to catch political figures in perjury traps.. they ask you a deluge of questions over a span of a week, you give your answers, and then they go back over them waiting for a contradiction, then they indict you for perjury. I suggest you read the May issue of Popular Mechanics, in which they disprove all the conspiracy theories. You just can't expect the majority of the US population to give you any credibility when there hasn't been a single conspiracy theory in US history proven to be correct in fact... it's all just conjecture. ----Pyrex238 19:09, 15 August 2007


Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Communications (one of Americas largest Media corporations) and should definitely not be considered as a foundation for disproving or proving any facts re: the Sept 11th attacks. Now, finally that people are finally starting to truly question this administration's motives for getting into Iraq, more and more people are doing the investigation that they were too afraid to do. To many, such a possibility, that our own government would do something was hard to conceive without giving up many previous beliefs. But as time goes by, and more facts come out, and more lies are proven as such, the American People are starting to come together against this regime. If you interested in learning more, there are websites such as PatriotsQuestion911.com * [52] that have hundred of accounts told by well respected professions re: how the governments account of 911 does not add up. The are professors, pilots, engineers, doctors, and scientists, who are willing to put their careers on the line in order to get the truth out there. Read the articles and do the research and decide for yourself. But don't just repeat a sound bite the government released in a press release out of laziness. Thats what they want you to do. Instead, do the research from non-biased sources, and then decide. No matter what you believe currently, you can not deny that the government did not tell us the whole truth. That is fact. The real question is why. I am a patriotic American, and I fully support our troops. However, I do not support the death of any American for a war based on lies and greed, hidden under the veil of "a war on terror." For further research, I have 2 words for you to look up: Project Northwoods. TheAverageAmerican 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put, the people here trying to support the official, mainstream story, which is a "conspiracy theory", reek of ignorance.Bofors7715 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
By definition, these attacks are the result of a conspiracy.
Who the conspirators are, what their exact methods and goals were, is still unproven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Many people believe the official story. Many find that the official story has inconsistencies and inaccuracies which they would like investigated.
Belief is not proof. In fact, belief by a large majority of people in something which they have no direct knowledge, is a very poor indicator that their belief is based in fact.
The percentage of people believing any particular chain of events involved is thus irrelevant. The numbers quoted (without reference) are, unless whole manufactured, the result of polls conducted using questions and selection methods unknown to us, and thus are immediately suspect.
Any fool can quote numbers--and usually does.
The last numbers I saw indicated that only about 40% of US citizens believed the official story. But 5%, 40%, or 95%, the fact that there remain questions in a great many people's minds is indicative that there is perhaps more to the story than the official word states.
There are, basically, two major conspiracy theories involved in this series of events:
1) (The official version,) states that the attacks are the result of the planning and actions taken by an Arab terrorist group.
2) States that there are a large number of events which cannot be explained by this theory, but can be explained by postulating a group of
persons within the United States, possibly with direct ties to the White House and/or Wall Street.
To my mind, there are a number of problems with the official story, the most glaring of which begins with the collapse of the buildings in the World Trade Center Complex.
There are many other inconsistencies in the official version.
The fact that major inconsistencies exist suffices to ruin any "beyond reasonable doubt," claims made for the official story.
At this time, I do not believe that any particular assignment of motive or causation can be made for the majority of events of the day.
That being the case, the article should stick to the directly observable facts, whether explained or not. Discussion of causative agents for these events deserve their own pages, one set for the official version, others for plausible alternative explanations.
For instance: Three buildings collapsed within hours of catching fire within the complex. All three collapsed within their own footprint--something which several demolition companies will be willing to attempt, given large amounts of money and time, but which has never before happened in the history of iron and steel framed buildings without such assistance.
This is a fact.
That the collapse was caused by the fires, is highly debatable _simply_ because_such_an_event_is_unprecedented_in_history. Add to it the fact that _three_ such unprecedented events happened in one incident, on one day, and it becomes a _major_ engineering event--the kind studied in detail for hundreds or thousands of days afterward, and then used to illustrate design flaws for the next several generations of architects and engineers.
Given the lack of intense, open, study of the remains of the collapse--to the point that within a few weeks nearly ALL of the rubble had been cleaned up and the framework sold as scrap, raises questions--big questions.
Insurance companies do not like to pay out money in any amount, and they REALLY don't like to pay off billion dollar claims. Insurers are usually the first and loudest in calling for a thorough investigation--at taxpayer expense--into any engineering failure which would lead to paying out such a huge chunk of profits.
There are, hundreds of such questions raised in the investigation of this event.
This alone makes it mandatory that an encyclopedia stick to the observable facts in reporting the events, resigning causative explanations to ::other, separate sections. Wizodd 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"to the point that within a few weeks nearly ALL of the rubble had been cleaned up and the framework sold as scrap,"
Living in New York City, I know 100% beyond any doubt whatsoever that this is not true. If you are going to attempt to prove to people that your far-fetched theory is believable, you should start by not spouting out things which are demonstrably untrue. It damages your credibility. They didn't even have "nearly all" of the rubble cleaned up by the end of the year, let alone within a few weeks. (Unless by "nearly all" you mean "not even close to half".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.95.27.5 (talk) 21:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
When I first heard these alternative theories, I was too shocked and frightened to even contemplate their full scope. But the more research I do, the more it looks like we were lied to. At the very least, the commission report was rushed, is inaccurate, and was doctored. Even the 911 hero, William Rodriguez, who personally saved 15 people and went back into the buildings 3 more times and was then trapped the wreckage had his testimony regarding "hearing explosions before the collapse" stricken from the commission report. He now is personally advocating the reopening of the investigation. Now that more and more people question the events of that terrible day, the real question is now among us: "What do we do now?" The answer is to speak your mind, and not be afraid to make your voice heard. When discussing this topic, remain polite, as we are all Americans after the same goal. Answers. This is a core belief issue, and many people simply refuse to even contemplate it. If you are one of those people, ask yourself why you feel that way? The other things you can do are to do your own research. Find out how you can get involved in pursuing the answers. We don't know what the level of corruption was, but there was definitely a great deal of it going on. If the worst of these possibilities is true: The highest of our government planned/enabled the attacks for political/financial reasons, then we as responsible Americans MUST NOT turn the other cheek. We MUST hold them accountable, even if it means America goes down in the history books as having one of the most corrupt governments in modern times. But the fact that the people questioned it, and were able to make change, and bring the corrupt group to justice will show we are a strong country and a patriotic people, who also care for the world, not just ourselves. We are a government of, by, and for the people, not the other way around. Do not fear this issue, but rather question it. Just like our troops have a duty to protect our country, so do we as a people, have a duty to protect our troops, and our way of life. To learn more, visit any number of sites on the subject, and decide for yourself. But while you are deciding, keep an open mind. Keep in mind, that the Government issues sound bites for the average American to repeat in their basic attempt to justify their viewpoint. And they do not want you to do any of your own investigation. They know that many Americans are busy with their lives, and frankly, many are lazy in keeping up with current affairs. They count on it, in fact. If you watch a state of the union speech... you can see just how many times a specific phrase is worked in, because they know the average citizen will be looking for guidance and someone to make up their mind. It was the first speech after 911 when Bush linked terror to bin laden to Iraq to Saddam Hussein. This was no coincidence. Free you minds people, and take responsibility for your citizenship. Be a proud American... remember, our country is based on the ideas of freedom of thought and speech. They would have you believe otherwise, by trying to make us feel "unpatriotic" by questioning our government. In fact, telling us we are "unpatriotic" is actually unpatriotic. TheAverageAmerican 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your post sounds dangerously close to soapboxing. Can you please summarize how your post above is aimed at improving the subject article? --StuffOfInterest 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Post not meant as SoapBoxing. It is further support for the growing percentage of Americans questioning what we were told. Especially since that is a primary issue with the Sept 11th Attacks page as well as the discussion page herein. Many places throughout the articles here, numbers of polls are referred to as fact and they are inaccurate and misleading. By suggesting people to do their own research and make up their own minds, that is in no way soapboxing. This improves the subject by adding credibility towards the possibility of alternate theories and directly ties into the subject of "beliefs or facts?" TheAverageAmerican 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss the editing the article and not general opinions about the article's subject. This is not a forum. --Haemo 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Haemo. There is a very thin line between "suggesting that people do their own research and make up their own minds" and directing them towards questionable sources, which is unacceptable. And there is a big difference between "adding credibility towards the possibility of alternate theories" and presenting all notable views neutrally and with due weight. It is not the job of wikipedia to add credibility to any viewpoint - even the viewpoint that people should think for themselves. Suggesting that readers should be given a more sympathetic presentation of one's own views is indeed soapboxing. Please try to keep your contributions brief, to the point, and aimed towards improving the article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

first paragraph

No proof exists that the trade center was destroyed by Islamic extremists, I've heard other versions of the story all supplying limited evidence just like the official story. Some people I know even think it was the Bush administration itself that coordinated the attacks. The first paragraph of this article states that the WTC was destroyed by terrorists which is not necesarily true.--Dominik92 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All other explanations are fringe theories with very little support. Giving any credence to the, especially in the lead paragraph leads to undue weight problems. These explanations are, instead, linked in the articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. You will also find that they, too, are less than partial to such theories. --Haemo 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course you're right, I didn't see the links to the two articles you provided a link to, although I still think it is worth mentioning in the first paragraph that the Islamic terrorist theory isn't certainly 100% true.--Dominik92 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Very few things are 100% certainly true -- however, in the interests of encyclopedia merit, we explain the one which has a super-majority of support from experts, and leave the speculation and less-popular theories for more indepth analysis. Think of it like this; if someone said to Joe Everyman "what happened on 9/11", he'd say "Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC and the Pentagon". The rest is a footnote; that's what we're trying to get at here. --Haemo 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize that remains of the hijackers were found at all three locations?
There will always be some coincidences with events like these, but the evidence is nearly 100% consistent with the mainstream account. No reason to give any additional undue weight to fringe theories in the main article. --Aude (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, as long as the article provides a link to the controversies and similar it's fine.--Dominik92 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Why can't phrases like "thought to be" or "most evidence sugguests" be used more? Both sides of the argument would be happy.
That would kind of be like "Pearl Harbor was 'thought to be' bombed by the Japanese on..."... Gtadoc 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The theory that the hijackers were not on the planes is not widely held in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The universal view in this minority group is that responsibility for the attacks lies with the US Government. How about (as a third paragraph in the opening): "Although official investigations placed responsibility for the attacks solely with Al-Quaida, there is a minority of people who believe that the US Government are responsible." Corleonebrother 19:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, a "conspiracy theories need more weight" suggestion that could actually make sense. Still, I think that would still give too much weight to it. It's handled ably in the conspiracy section and articles. An example I used before is petroleum - A minority of people think that it has an abiogenic origin, and we mention that in the petroleum article - but not in the lead. It would also, I think, give undue weight to the 9/11 Truth Movement, as if they are the only group of people who believe this. --Golbez 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The petroleum article lists abiogenic theory as if it is a possibility, but just not a widely-held belief. Using the petroleum article as an example then, we should split the Responsibility section of this article into two - first the 'official/mainstream theory,' then the 'inside-job theory,' noting that the latter is not the widely-held belief. Corleonebrother 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The sum total of the mention of abiogenic origin is a small section linking to a larger sub-article. The sum total of our mention of conspiracy theories is a small section, linking to a larger sub-article. This is how it should be, or else we fall into problems of undue weight. --Haemo 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to the size of the section, just its placement within the article. The 'reaction' section contains the immediate reaction of various groups. I think its unfair to suggest the alternative views are just part of the reactions (after all, they have grown in prevalence over the years). The more natural place would be under 'Responsibility' since that is what the issue is about and currently the Responsibility section presents that it is Al Quaida without question. Corleonebrother 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Conspiracy theories emerged as a reaction to the events. While many of the theories involve who was responsible, they do not all do so. By a similar token, not all significant conspiracy theories deal directly with responsibility; for instance, many deal with negligence or prior knowledge of the attacks, or with specific details of the attacks. It's fair, I think, to say they were a reaction to the attacks, and it really only makes sense for the article to be in that section, given the diverse views expressed in it. --Haemo 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Corleonebrother that the article would improve by splitting the Responsibility section into two parts. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories did not emerged as a "reaction" to the events, many of the 9/11 Truth documentaries are based on the originally newscasts which called out the appearance of demolitions and the lack of aircraft wreckage.Bofors7715 05:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

Since we seem to field the same questions over, and over, again (and the archives are getting huge) it might be a sensible idea to write a FAQ for this page, like the one at Talk:Evolution. Anyone agree? --Haemo 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the FAQ really help there? do people actually read it? or do they still get the same questions time and again? --Aude (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask them! --Haemo 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I share Aude's concern, but I think that if we write an FAQ then we can dismiss the endless questions by responding, "Read the FAQ." I think that writing an FAQ is an awesome idea. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea. Some organization to the archives, perhaps in the form of a faq as suggested, would make it easier to see what are the reasons for all the conclusions regarding the outcomes of this article. Place some note at the top of the page recommending people read the faq before posing new questions. Kevin77v 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
They seem to agree with this idea, in general, and have found it to be useful. I guess the hard part will be finding some definitive discussions in the archives to put in it. Perhaps, if anyone can remember them off, they could link them below? --Haemo 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to pitch in, you can check out my current revision here: User:Haemo/Examples. Feel free to edit it. --Haemo 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a FAQ is basically a good idea, but it will be just as contentious as the article itsself, and that would not be helping. In stead of writing an "encyclopedic" FAQ I would recommend just quoting the main/best arguments from either side, referencing these to the archives, and giving the outcome of the debate. Sadly, there seldom was any consensus; the minority just had to walk out and since then the quality of the article seems to be deteriorating, getting more POV by the month.— Xiutwel (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to address the problems raised, it might be a good idea to follow the pattern established at Talk:Intelligent design: have an archive where topics are filed by category. The "FAQ" then becomes an index into the archive, and if someone raises question X, you can look at (or direct them to) the page labelled X in the archives. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin laden

According to the US government, there is clear and irrefutable evidence to link Al Qaeda and bin laden to the semptember 11 attacks, but there doesn't seem to be an explanation for why he hasn't been indited for his involvement, despite his common perception as the head master of the event, and even so-called confession tapes of him decribing his involvement.

The article says little about the why this is so, and it seems to only leave the door open for conspiracy theories,especially when bin laden initially denied involvement. Rodrigue 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indictment is a legal proceeding. Often, specific indictments for crimes cannot be handed down with the suspect being in custody, because jurisdictional problems prevent bringing specific types of evidence to bear. To be quite frank, the FBI hasn't charged him because they don't feel it is of any benefit to charge him until they have him in custody. This is a very common tactic, especially for high-value and elusive targets, since it betrays less information about what the FBI knows about him. Any conspiracy theory which relies on this is prima facie hopeless, since if the US government had the gall to set him up, then why on earth would they stop short of indicting him? --Haemo 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not that I believe in any this, but one could argue that the point was just to make him a despised and hated man in the western world,because commonly, people say the government would perpetrate the attacks so people would support an invasion of middle eastern countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) as retaliation for what happened.

And I don't know about the FBI wanting to wait until he is caught, since he was charged with two separate offenses in 1998 with ought his capture, according to his main page in wikipedia. Rodrigue 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what to what end? Any conspiracy theory which used this fact would have to not only overlook standard procedure, but would be forced to apply schitzophrenic rationales to the US government. They are willing to, what, fake his involvement in the most notable terrorist attack in history but are not willing to use indict him for that involvement? That doesn't make any sense; it seems to follow the typical "you always find the right crumbs" logic for poor theories. --Haemo 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So the suggested evidence is that the US government behaved differently when Bill Clinton was president than when George Bush was president? That alone proves a conspiracy for some people? Wow. Just... wow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.95.27.5 (talk)

The fact remains that the current version of the Wikipedia article reads: ... In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks.[77] .... That is a blatant falsehood. First of all, Osama bin Laden does not appear in this video tape. The imposter on the tape is wearing the same kind of hat Osama wears in other videos. However, Osama has a convex "semitic" nose, whereas the imposter has a turned-up nose. The hair color at the top of the beard, under the lower lip, is a different color from Osama's. Osama's beard hair is relatively straight. The imposter's is kinky. Osama has a pattern of baldness around the corners of his mouth, but the imposter's beard goes straight across. Osama has an irregular patch of gray/white hair in the center of the beard, just above the chin. The imposter's beard --- and this is most telling -- has obviously been bleached in a thorough, symmetrical manner in this same area in a deliberate attempt to make this actor resemble Osama from a distance. NOT ONLY THAT, but various experts have attacked the audio content of the tape. According to someone who had translated authentic Osama tapes, the voice on the tape is not Osama's, the objections Osama raises concerning American actions in the middle East are missing and the rhetoric the speaker uses is completely dissimilar to Osama's. Additionally, according to various experts, the official U.S. government translation of the tape takes unacceptable liberties. A word is added to one sentence to suggest foreknowledge of the attacks, and an entire sentence is also added. Although the text was obviously written by American agents, they did such a sloppy job of it that it doesn't even CONTAIN a confession. It was obviously not FOUND in Afghanistan by Americans, but PLANTED there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 03:40, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The lead is made up of beliefs rather than facts, not a good way to write an encyclopaedic article.
The reason bin Laden has not been indicted is, according to the FBI themselves, because there is no evidence linking him to 9/11. None, nada, zip. That the hijackers were linked to al Qaeda is also supposition as the identities of the hijackers are unknown because they used alias's. I believe al Qaeda is responsible but without evidence I can't say that and neither should the article without qualifying the claims. Is it any wonder there are CT's around when the facts are omitted because they dont mesh with the popular belief? Wayne 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know if there were people on the observation deck at the time?

The observation desk opened at 9:30 a.m., so there were no tourists. However, some employees were likely there. --Aude (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for not being on topic, i didn't know where else to ask this question.

Off topic rant removed

diff

re: 9/11 was executed prophetically

I would like to avoid such reactions (above) to our article, and am proposing we make it more balanced, as we will not agree on the final truth. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV guideline violation / and proposal to move forward

A lot of wikipedians above are, unawares, violating the Neutral Point of View consensus directive. I quote from it:

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

One can do so: As "conspiracy views" on 911 have been repeatedly uttered, and never revoked, by former Ministers of Britain and Germany — both economic superpowers — Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow, I do not feel it is fair to refer to such theories as 'fringe'. They may be wrong, but they are not fringe.

As I assume there is about a 1/3 - 2/3 distribution on critics versus believers in the official version which is currently portrayed in the article, I propose we will agree to adopt a 20-80 percentage for giving weight WP:NPOV#Undue weight to facts and views regarding this debate, hoping to reach consensus on this; and change the article accordingly. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How many structural engineers can you name that support those theories? what portion of reliable sources adhere to those theories. The way the article is currently, with a section provided for those theories and link to the subarticle, more than suffices, given how those theories are viewed by the nearly all majority of reliable sources, structural engineers, etc. I think it may even violate undue weight by giving too much space to those theories. Just a link in the "see also" section in the bottom would be sufficient. --Aude (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Since you ask, I'll INSERT this into the discussion.

Here is a list of 149 professional architects and structural engineers who dispute the Official Bush Regime Conspiracy Theory:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Wowest 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT

O.K. HERE is a list including

  110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement,

and Government Officials

  190+ Engineers and Architects
   50+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
  150+ Professors Question 9/11
  180+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
   90+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

There is probably some overlap with the other list in the Engineer and Architect section. Of course, many people in all of these categories haven't given it a thought. They just believed what Corporate Mainstream Media broadcast. This is no "fringe" phenomenon.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Wowest 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Comment How many structural engineers I can name is not relevant; it suffices to name any prominent adherents to make the minority view worth describing in the article. Your opinion is that we should treat the minority views in sub-articles only, AND refer to those articles as less as possible. I disagree with both.
I am not really into the subject, but I can point you to a physics professor, Steven Jones, previously not controversial; and the leading demolitions expert in the Netherlands, when interviewed on TV, immediately assumed controlled demolition from the sight of the WTC7-collapse. I do not know about the sound. But again, I'm not debating whether these people are right or wrong, I am just debating the allocation of space. And we should definitely mention these views proportionally in the article, or else we need to throw-away or overhaul our guidelines on NPOV. — Xiutwel (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we do mention those views in this article, in an appropriate amount of detail per WP:SUMMARY and link to the subarticle. There are numerous articles about various aspects of the attacks, but we can only have small sections about some of these aspects in the main article (e.g. only two sentences about the 9/11 Commission, short section on rescue and recovery, etc). Given that those conspiracy theory views are by and large rejected by reliable sources (with good fact checking), there is no reason to give them undue weight here. The section we have suffices and is consistent with how we handle subarticles. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Aude. There are plenty of other articles which document conspiracy theories and other notions regarding this event.MONGO 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Most of the dissenting "viewpoints" are demonstrably incorrect. Peter Grey 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So, uh, who wants to help out on the FAQ, so we can just say "See the FAQ" ;) --Haemo 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Haemo, I feel a FAQ would be more useful when there is consensus. Consensus is defined as: editors may still disagree, but all abide by a compromise which best serves everybody's needs. There is, to my knowledge, no such compromise. In stead there is a majority viewpoint, defended succesfully by means of edit warring, not by debate(Editors who have debated well, excluded ofcourse). — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll have to coin the phrase "there is no debating with the insane." The only ones who edit war are you and the minority. The majority are quite satisfied with this article. --Tarage 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of evidence of Osama/hijackers doing 9/11

According to CIA/FBI there would not be enough evidence to hold up a court case against Osama Bin Laden and the other hijackers.

The alledged confession videos were proven outright fakes, the guy in the videos didn't look anything like Osama, he wore a ring on the wrong finger and wrote with his other hand, did I forget to mention that the real Osama denied his involvement... --otester (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He denied it, before he accepted it. Kind of like John Kerry's voting record. As for "according to the CIA" you're making a logical fallacy. Just because I did not go to the store today does not mean I am incapable of it. --Golbez 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree the "according to the CIA" is a logical fallacy: Appeal to authority, but so is "according to mainstream accounts", "according to the official report" etc. How about "it makes no sense to state what happened on 9/11 because we don't even know what aircraft hit the WTC or the Pentagon". There is no reliable source that is capable of stating authoritatively what happened on 9/11. Pretty funny that 'the believable version' is that a fireball hot enough to melt steel and pulverise concrete didn't even singe the passport that one of the hijackers was conveniently carrying (on an interstate flight within the US), and it landed, completely intact on top of a pile of rubble. "I call shenanigans!" User:Pedant 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And I call yet another conspiricy pusher who needs to read the archives to understand we have been over this over and over and over and over and over again, and that unless Pedant can read through the entirity of the logs, and STILL come up with something new, this debate is dead. --Tarage 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The towers collapsed due to core failing, sign of controlled demolition with the use of Thermate (Thermite with extras to improve effect) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA. --otester 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Concidering that the core was hit BY the planes, that hypothisis is very unbelievable. That and posting something from youtube to back up your point is laughable. --Tarage 13:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Then what your saying is that only a small, minuscule part of the core has to failure for the building to fall at free-fall speed and everything turns into dust, now that's "laughable". --otester 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Way to oversimplify. A LARGE chunk of the central collum, where the elevators and stairs were, was taken out by both jets. This not only weakened the building substantially, but prevented everyone above the impact point from escaping. The buildings didn't free-fall, they stood for quite a while concidering the intense heat of the fire and the critical structural failures, before pancaking down. And if you seriously believe that the only debree was dust, you are more insane that I would have pegged. Next time you want to question the official(and true) explination, don't oversimplify to the point where I can so easly pick appart your argument till it is nothing but 'dust', as you put it. --Tarage 08:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that here in the Netherlands we have Americans (I hope they are not fleeing their own country yet) who bear witness that they were in the towers, heard and saw explosions well before the collapse. It must be very frustrating for them to see even wikipedia distorting the facts. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Explosions? Perhaps from the fire burning inside the building? The planes hitting the building? Flamible things do tend to explode. Random explosions do little to advance the idea that this was a planned demolition. Nice try though. As for distorting the facts, I know quite a few 9/11 victim families who are more than a little upset knowing that people like you continue to try to defame this tragic event. Think about them once in a while please, instead of just your heavy left leaning ideals. --Tarage 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Venezuelans keep fleeing theirs and coming to the U.S. and you might see a lot more of them soon if you haven't already, especially those with experience in tulip farming, windmill repair and dike construction. The U.S. sucks so bad that it has the highest rate of illegal immigrants of any country. Go figure.--Beguiled 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to Venezuelans of Dutch origine? — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And this has what to do with this article? --Tarage 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All that is clear to me is that there are lacks of evidences on both sides..Mochool
(deindent) At this point, I would just like to remind everyone that this is not a general forum for discussion. Please focus your comments on the article. --Haemo 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It must be very frustrating for them to see even wikipedia distorting the facts.

"The buildings didn't free-fall, they stood for quite a while concidering the intense heat of the fire and the critical structural failures" - The Fires were not hot enough to even weaken the structure, let alone make the building collapse. Steel stands up to 1517°C before it starts to melt (also take note there was that foam stuff that also protects the structure), jet fuel fires burn about 825°C although this cannot be sustained for very long (and temperature will decrease as jet fuel is burnt up), a large volume of the jet fuel burned outside the building (remember the fireball?) so not much jet fuel left to keep the fires at 825°C for long. The fires in the trade centers (most visibly noticed on the South Tower) after the first impact and fireball burned far less than 800°C due to oxygen-stavation, as shown by the dark smoke. Even if the steel still somehow managed to weaken and sag slightly, there is still no reason for the towers to suddenly fall at free-fall speed and end up as dust and heavily sandwiched steel. --otester 02:42, 8th August 2007 (UTC)
The previous comment is not only idiotic, it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of any basic physics or engineering principles. To begin with, the jet fuel was not the only substance burning inside the trade center. Secondly, the impact itself from the jets more than likely caused severe structural damage to the core of the buildings. Everyone saw the explosion come out the other side of the building after the jet hit. That means it probably took out a large part of the interior. It would not have taken much additional heat to further weaken already damaged steel to the point of collapse. Third, the collapse was almost at free-fall speed because it collapsed one floor at a time the whole way down. With all the weight on top collapsing the building one floor at a time, it's going to fall pretty damn fast. In addition, the comment above about the passport proves nothing. Everyone knows stories about tornados that wipe out a whole town and leave one building standing and all kinds of other odd happenings. It is perfectly possible for a passport to survive the explosion unscathed. This is exactly why the conspiracy theories get so little creedence both here and in the mainstream media. All your ideas are so wacky and kooky that anyone with any little bit of scientific reasoning has no choice but to laugh at them. Think for one second about how difficult it would have been for demolition explosives to be placed, and how long it would take, and mysteriously no one saw them. You people are just as bad as the wackos who say we never went to the moon. And as if your ignorance wasn't enough, you are also trampling on the graves of the innocent people and the rescue workers who died that day. Primium mobile 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I would just like to remind everyone that this is not a forum for discussion of the article's topic, and to always stay cool. --Haemo 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't delete this link again please. http://911blogger.com/node/10025 --otester 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Baseless dismissal of conspiracy

"Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[121] These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[122][123]"

[122] is the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE. [123] itself refers only to the American Institute of Steel Construction’s Manual of Steel Construction, a report from F.E.M.A. (an agency of the United States government), and the proceedings of the 1986 Canadian Structural Engineering Conference.

So the article’s verification that conspiracy theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders is based on three purely architectural sources and a report from the government against which the accusations are being made. This to me is inadequate.

Also, the word "mainstream" is highly subjective. A gx7 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because we have an entire page devoted to them. --Haemo 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And this paragrpah dismisses all of them without substantial sources. A gx7 07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the conspiricy theories are all without substantial sources. --Tarage 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demolition. This article is as one-sided as the Warren Report. User:Pedant 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And the Cottingley Fairies really looked like fairies to Arthur Conan Doyle; another man with no experience evaluating evidence such as that. --Haemo 04:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Name one person who has (prior to 9-11-2001) experience in investigating the collapse of a burning steel-framed high-rise building? NYC Firefighters said they heard explosions and secondary explosions, and that it looked like a controlled demolition. User:Pedant 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss this on Controlled demolition hypothesis; you'll see that qualified experts disagree. --Haemo 05:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct on one point. We should just drop the word 'mainstream'. It's unnecessary. --Tbeatty 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And essentially meaningless. It only serves to introduce a negative connotation to anything contradicting 'mainstream' accounts or reports or what-have-you. User:Pedant 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
HOWEVER, replacing it with something like A gx7 did, 'most' is NOT a helpful improvement. I'm for leaving it as it is, but if you want to make it even more damning to your 'cause', be my guest. --Tarage 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because Dan Rather said it looked like controlled demolition doesn't mean it was. Selective sourcing to support a dubious line of reasoning.--MONGO 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was the word "mainstream" in this context is a generalisation. Not 'every mainstream journalist and scientist considers conspiracy incredible, as the article currently claims. Why don't we say "Conspiracy theories are a marginal viewpoint in the mainstream media at best, the majority of which report the idea as incredible."? A gx7 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the mainstream there is not controversy about what happened. This does not mean anything since mainstream can be wrong but is the way it is.--Igor21 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This article should not be arguing who's right, just provide a NPOV fair, proportional and unbiased account of different viewpoints. So the article should mention the main "conspiracy" claims. The conspiracy viewpoint is notable, and deserves fair treatment. Even if you disagree. As it is now, the article is canvassing the government viewpoint - which may or may not be true - and is ignoring the view of prominent critics like former ministers Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow. So, let's rewrite the article. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is based on facts, not fantasies by a bunch of fruitloops.--Beguiled 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Beguiled, you seem irritated? What would upset you the most? (a) the possibility of 911 being an inside job?, or (b) people thinking that 911 was an inside job when in reality the government was completely innocent?, or (c) wikipedia mentioning in this article on September 11, that people like Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow do in fact exist? Thanks — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
d) That in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory fact, some people still hold on to their facile belief that it wasn't a plane, or it was controlled demolition, or what not. Don't turn this into "inside job"; this is purely about the facts that the towers collapsed because planes crashed into them. You haven't been trying to assign motive; you've been trying to refute this fundamental fact. --Golbez 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
e) That editors come to Wikipedia solely to push a POV that derives completely from a politically motivated agenda with a cynical disregard for the truth. That's what irritates me...RxS 18:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
ad d) and e):
Thank you for sharing this. From your answers, Golbez and RxS, I sense you are irritated when politics is being mixed with scientific facts? I strongly agree that facts should not be cherry-picked or distorted to serve an agenda. (Before you read on, would you confirm to me whether we share the same ground here? #1)
Second, in stead of facts, I would prefer to talk about "observables". The final question being, we can all agree: "did the government in any way mean any harm?"
In my opinion, people holding different views on the answer to this question are still acknowledging the same observables. It's the interpretation of the observables which differs. How could different people being interpreting the same observables so differently? (Can you agree with me so far? #2 — It's important for me to know, I want to understand your angle in this.)
Well, firstly I must assume that researchers coming from either view have made quite a few mistakes interpreting some observables. Secondly, from different views there are bound to be a few people who willingly distort truth, but let's assume that most of the people involved are acting on good faith. I then assume that whenever it is pointed out that there is an inconsistency in story "A", advocates of story "B" will take that as further proof for their story. And vice versa. If and when I assume good faith, there can be no doubt that the same observables obviously can be interpreted by reasonably intelligent people in two completely different ways. Since, I believe, only one answer can ultimately be correct, this leaves me two possibilities: either there exist too few observables yet to answer the question of complicity, or there do exist enough observables but at least one of these views is failing to take into account all the observables in the proper manner. (In fact, these together form 3 possibilities: inconclusive, not guilty, guilty.) From what you have written, you are advocating the "not guilty" option. (Do you agree with my reasoning so far? #3)
You stated you are absolutely convinced that fundamental facts indicate that the collapses were sponaneous; from this you conclude there is no indication of government complicity. Now I want to know how you feel when you read about other views, because I want to work in harmony on wikipedia; is it insulting for you to read others claiming there could be any government complicity? My question again: I assume you are also upset whenever such statements are uttered outside of wikipedia, or is the "problem" confined to such statements on wikipedia? #4
Conversely, I felt hurt when I read your writing "politically motivated agenda", because I'm convinced that 99,99% of editors are working in honesty and good faith, as I am, and I need us to trust eachothers "good faith" intentions in order to work harmoniously on wikipedia. I trust you are acting on good faith (well, 99,999999% that is, and my girlfriend trusts you 100%).
I am looking forward to your response! — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Normally I don't respond to conspiracy theorists here because there's no point, but you're so gosh darn polite about it. 1) My problem is not that politics are mixed with scientific facts; it's that people have a poor understanding of scientific facts. For example, folks like you mention that witnesses "heard explosions", and immediately assume that means a bomb. No; an explosion is simply a forceful expulsion of air, and something sounding like it could also be caused by a large slab falling onto the ground, or bits of tower trickling down the inside of a destroyed elevator shaft. "heard an explosion" is in no way itself evidence of explosives. Yet that would be the only way to repeatedly bring up the "heard an explosion" thing - to try to convince others of the possibility that explosives were used. But there is no evidence whatsoever of this.
2) Their interpretation of the observables is incorrect, there's no reason to give equal bearing to them.
3) There are researchers who believe the controlled demolition theory. There are also researchers who believe oil has an abiogenic origin. But we don't give those folks equal ground on any petroleum article except the one about their theory, because the overwhelming consensus in their own community is that they are wrong. The conspiracy theories have exactly as much weight on this article as they deserve.
4) I never said the collapses were spontaneous. They were caused by massive damage to the supporting walls and central core by a large winged missile carrying a large incendiary load. I never said I conclude because of this that there was no government complicity. I don't care if there was government complicity or not, when discussing the actual events of the day. That's why I resist your attempt to change the subject.
5) I'm not upset when statements such as this are uttered outside of Wikipedia because I can ably refute them. It's the difference between a forum-style communication with random people like this, and face-to-face communication with people that I generally know and respect, but have gone astray. This mode of communication is far more frustrating and ultimately fruitless, considering that we always have another theorist du jour ready to pick up where the last one left off. That's why I've generally stopped trying here. --Golbez 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We go with what reliable sources are saying, which include sources with good fact-checking such as peer-reviewed scientific journals especially [53] [54], as well as news media such as the New York Times which happen to agree with what NIST says [55]. All these sources overwhelmingly agree about what happened. Above you mention two foreign ministers. Meacher, a Labour Party MP in the UK, is one of 198 listed in Category:Labour_MPs_(UK). 1 MP out of 198. No need ot give any more weight to conspiracy theories. The status quo more than satisfies WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Aude, now you're leaping ahead to your conclusions, are you perhaps in a hurry and wanting to end this debate soon? I'm anxious to know your answers as well to the four questions that xiutwel is raising (numbered #1 to #4). How would it be for you to answer these questions? My answers are:
ad #1 I agree that facts should not be mingled with feelings/judgements/opninons/believes/evaluations etc.
ad #2 Studying the subject 9/11, I was suprised to learn so many different interpretations are made also by reliable persons[56];
ad #3 I agree this discussion is about 'guilty' or 'not guilty' or 'inconclusive'. Personally I think that so called 'agreed upon reliable sources' are to my opinion not always reliable/trustworthy, because people get paid to do their jobs and are fired when they do not do their job according to the will of their supervisors. Sadly I've seen many examples of people in so-called places of authority that have been fired once they openly had a different opinion than mainstreamArpad Pusztai; Steve Wilson and Jane Akre. And on the other side I've seen vast amounts of work done well by people entirely voluntary (i.e. not paid. Why should they do the effort? They must be genuinely concerned.Dylan Avery) So this effect could bias the reliable sources and this puts things in perspective.
ad #4 It does upset me that governments advocate more and stronger social control over people based on the so-called fact that terrorists were responsible for the attacks. Instead of us people trusting eachother more we are directed by our governments to trust each other less. I see no reason to diminish my trust in my neighbours. Vanja2 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Aude, I would like it if you would respond to Vanja2's queries; would you be willing? My response to you is: 1 out of 198 is not much, but he is not any MP, he was minister for the environment for years. Surely a person in such a position would not risk being ridiculed lightly? I continue my quest for consensus at #Spread of "inside job" suspicions? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to use the Socratic Method here:

CBC Newsworld gave a report that supported the idea of conspiracy (the video is here: YouTube). Are CBC mainstream? If anyone thinks they're not, I would argue that they're using a definitional dodge (salvaging the argument by changing the meaning of the word) to change the criteria of "mainstream" so that mainstream reporters have to be on the side that says conspiracy as impossible.

Because unless all mainstream programs report conspiracy as impossible, then we have to use words like "generally" or "the majority". A gx7 02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some psychopaths wanted a tragedy like this does not demonstrate, or even imply, a cause and effect relationship. Quote from the video clip: Is this a conspiracy? Quite the opposite. -- Peter Grey 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The section labeled "Conspiracy Theories" is pejorative, and should be labeled "Alternative Theories" or something neutral. The Watergate cover up was once considered a "conspiracy theory" and turned out to be true. The sentence starting with "These theories..." is not specific enough. What theories? Scientists may agree with some of the theories but not others. The statement "virtually all" means almost 100%, which is not supported by any statistical reference. Just Google or YouTube on 911 conspiracies and you will find plenty of journalists and scientists proposing alternative theories to the story proposed by the 911 Commission. The term "mainstream" is changing. More and more people get their news from Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, and other online sources. The statement above is a commentary on the information included in Wikipedia, not information itself. If we cannot decide what to say about "these theories" then this sentence should be left out. This will be in keeping with the Wikipedia goal of objectivity and neutrality in conveying information. let people decide for themselves if alternative theories make logical sense, without coloring them in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.221.7 (talk) 23:56, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy link should not be at top

If there is to be a link to the "Investigate 9/11" website, it should not be the first item, but put together with all the other links at the bottom. 213.115.59.220 11:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; someone had hidden that little piece of vandalism in a template, so it didn't show up on my watchlist. --Golbez 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Golbez, for the quick fix to A gx7's weaselwords. I was attempting to fix them myself when you beat me to it. =) --Tarage 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Weasel words? The word "mainstream" is a weasel word; it's very vague and subjective. By adding the phrase "most of" to mainstream, I was merely removing generalisation from the sentence. Those in the "mainstream" who do consider the tragedy a conspiracy may be a minority but they should be acknowledged. A gx7 13:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You sound like a broken record. They ARE acknowledged in their own page. Please stop trying to give undue weight to such theories. --Tarage 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Such theories"? "Undue weight"? The problem is here the ignorance of you and people like you. This Wikipedia article is substantially false, the conspiracy "theory" is the provable truth.Bofors7715 05:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why aren't you out there proving it in the real world? Once you do that, Wikipedia will follow. If you try to prove it on Wikipedia, it's original research even if you could prove it (which, obviously, you can't, because it's demonstrably not true). 64.95.27.5 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)sean

Elementary my dear Watson

I'm not sure if I was seeing things or not... but just in case be on the lookout for a refrence named watson. Somehow it got stuck into the article for a few minutes, then vanished as I was trying to hunt it down. It links to a typical "Question 9/11" webpage. Clearly the act of a desperate troll... --Tarage 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no shortage of them.--MONGO 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actual editing - "Memorials" section

Image A
Image A
Image B
Image B
America's Heroes Memorial
America's Heroes Memorial

I've re-written the memorials section, since it seemed a bit lacking. It can be more thouroughly sourced, and I intended to do that at a later date, but I don't believe any of the information is contentious. I would, however, like to talk about how to improve it. We have two options for the "Tribute in Light" picture, A or B. Personally, I like B, but it seems a lot of people like A more. We also definitely need another image; there were two other ones, which I removed - the first, because the World Trade Center Cross is not a memorial, and the second because it was too large. The America's Heroes Memorial might be a good choice, but I'm open to other options too. --Haemo 06:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. Possibly, the section could stand to be shorter with details in the subarticle. But, the subarticle is a mess now and is in serious need of work. Things to note in the section and/or subarticle (1) there's a temporary Flight 93 memorial [Added] (2) last September, the Tribute WTC 9/11 Visitor Center opened. [57] The center includes exhibits, and they organize guided tours (3) The WTC Memorial Foundation organized the "9/11 and the American Landscape: Photographs by Jonathan Hyman" exhibition in 7 World Trade Center last September/October. [58] (4) I don't have a source for it right now, but a lot of progress has been made in construction of the outdoor memorial at the Pentagon. I don't think it's officially scheduled to be complete until next year, but think it will be finished sooner. It's not easy to get a photo of the memorial construction, but maybe. I have uploaded a couple more photos for the subarticle, but I'm fine with using the America's Heroes Memorial photo here. --Aude (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Flight 93 temporary memorial

Tribute WTC 9/11 Visitor Center
To give the respect to the victims, survivors and to the significance, that is increasing with the past of time, we need to add a gallery to this article, in which it can be "portrayed", the different memorials, all of them are very important and deserve to be mentioned and their picture shown in this page. John Manuel-02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Any gallery would be on the September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services subpage, not this one. The image you keep re-adding is not exactly appropriate for this page -- it's of a minor, non-permanent memorial which is not mentioned in the article. This page already has too many pictures, and three in that small space is too many. I know you like the image, because you took it, and it's a nice picture, but this isn't the right place for it. --Haemo 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not only that is nice, it is substantial because shows where once the tower were. Those flags and every single item belongs to that catastrophe. Probably, you sought this from TV, I was there, right in Manhattan and I experienced and lost friends who had children which I played with in the park. The photo, means the whole a lot for many people. I observe that you has put another photo, it is OK. The section is about "Memorials" and this photo reminds the reader exactly of the location of the towers. We are in disagreement at this point. It is OK too. Your POV is respected, it doesn't mean that we should follow it. I suggest to cool it off for a while and then comeback to this point. If the article has "too much" photos then as in the WP:MOS (Which it doesn't explicitly states how much is too much) a gallery is recommended. Another photo that can be included is this:
Let us respect the significance of this horrendous episode in our history by continue working together in spite of our disagreements.
Let us respect the significance of this horrendous episode in our history by continue working together in spite of our disagreements.

Remember, let time talk to us, well greetings, and happy editing John Manuel-14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we don't need more photos of memorials. There is an entire article about 9/11 memorials. You like your photo -- that is nice. It's a very good photograph. However, it is of a minor, temporary memorial which is not discussed in the article, and so it should not be here. Moreover, yours reasons for keeping this image are silly -- "it has many objects from the attacks", "it's in the Jersey Park", and "it shows where the towers were". Well, that's super, but the other images already do that -- "Tribute in Light", a major memorial which has its own article, is shot from the Jersery shore and shows were the towers were. I added a picture which is specifically discussed in the article, and has its own subpage. Yours is not discussed, and is too minor to even have its own page. There's no reason to keep this minor memorial here. We are not adding a gallery for 9/11 memorials on the page about the 9/11 attacks. We are also not adding huge pictures of plaques about 9/11 that are not discussed either. These are not appropriate for this page, and should be moved to a sub-page. --Haemo 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, thank you for explaining your reasons, it is fine to disagree; however, now I have a little problem, with your qualification of my reasons with adjectives, like "silly". If you felt happy, alright. Go ahead. Do you think that knowing and experiencing the pain of the disappearance of one of my friends who left his two children and wife alone forever, it is also "silly"? Now, about your temporal statement. No matter who long will pass this will remain in my soul, I have never cope nor I will be able to. The fact is that from New Jersey, you can see directly whereas other times were the towers. It has more to do with the location than with the memorial. That is why the mayor understood the meaning of the memorial. It was, is and will be simply the view. You and nobody will change that. The view is explicit, see again the photo of the plaque and you will perhaps understand why that view will be forever in our memories. At least of those who experienced at first hand the horrible event. The towers were there from any other vantage point you can see it so clearly and so directly, my fellow wikipedian. You probably will need to excuse me, because incidentally, for me this is not silly at all. It is a strong remembrance not only of that event but the responsibilities ahead and the almost complete change of the world order. Now, you seem a little obsessed with this, as I suggested to you let the time flow; there are other issues to improve in Wikipedia I am sure you know. Thank you again for your response but I disagree with you, with my cognitive and emotional will. Have an enjoyable editing time. -01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem a little bit too emotionally invested in this to edit an encyclopedia article about this -- perhaps you should try contributing to some of the memorial Wikis that exist online. I can't say anything about your personal pain, your memories, or what you feel about the events. However, from an encyclopedic perspective, they're not exactly relevant here. Wikipedia is not a memorial; your reasons for keeping this image might be very important to you, but from an encyclopedic perspective they are not appropriate or productive. --Haemo 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That is according to Haemo's views, correct? I ask you for waiting but you couldn't do this. Why can't you? because you are emotionally invested truly in this too. Thats is why you recurrently come here, the other case is because you have other motives rather than contribute to this encyclopedia, I challenge you as you have done above, to go to other wikis or other pages and leave this up to other users. I bet you cannot because you are too involved on this subject for some reason. I tell you what you could do, go edit some art articles. It will give you a fresh start. However if you want to state here then do not judge anybody's motivations. Are you an overseer? Judge? Well in here you are an editor? Let go to your peer-review. You will learn eventually to do this in here. I promise. John Manuel-13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PD if you think were so much photos, why, then, you took out that photo and added other photo? It doesn't make sense. Does it? Consensus is hard it seems John Manuel-72.229.114.226 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out a photo of a memorial which is minor, and not talked about at all, and replaced it with a photo of an important memorial, which has its own subpage, and is discussed in the article. The reasons for the replacement should be clear. --Haemo 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PD (Real reason: because the photo of your friend Aude is the best one because is the photo of your friend and that is all, Haemo) John Manuel-"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have problems with people that use so often "Shoulds" and "Musts", precisely because these words form the main structure of irrational fundamentalisms, which are often the mayor and direct cause of what is unfortunately documented in this article. Again, nope, your reasons are not "cut in stone" and they are not clear, neither they should be clear for every one or need to be taken as law. Are they? It is just your POV and as your POV is valid up to the extent in which mine and other editors' are too. You are putting your chosen and according to you more important photo instead of other photo because your own POV. That is a fact, and it is clear, what is not clear is your motivation to do so, and your understanding of WP:consensus, Consensus or WP:OWN. You might want to reread these contents with more attention. Also the WP:CV, calling names to stated reasons in a subjective manner and qualifying them as "silly", represents or belittles not only those reasons but the person who states them. I will put back the photo, you will ask for mediation at RfC. I will follow the consensus. Probably, you would be right under the eyes of other editors, as for me you are not; now, it is not only about the photo but also about principles. I just cannot accept the way you want to impose your views. In addition, perhaps you would get a campaign in pro of your views (I hope you don't do this) on the IRC or through emails and for such, more easily, you could obtain the consent of the consensus because you would have had supported by your "colleagues". That will be fine for me, but the diffs and the contents of these talk page will stand and the issue will be more evident when in the current time is seen obscure. With the past of time, as for example with Galileo Galilei's case who is attribute this quote: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual". This is not rocket science, for such we need consensus, but a real one, to defeat our challenges in the best effective manner possible [efficiency is not enough]. Mine nor your judgment, necessarily, need to prevail because is just mine or yours, but because is the best effective way, in this case, to portray the information at hand. Under my now "silly" and subjective reasons, I see yours a little too imposing and for such disconnected to the aim of the article, however not only in thoughts but also in actions. I suggested to you politely to wait, you could not do this and got ahead and change it. It is the third time that you are doing this. What is the problem with waiting? I think you want your way and not other, don't you?. Therefore, lets proceed with losing time and effort and we shall look for a mediator. The "Minor Memorial" is already there and is the memorial plus the View of the place where the towers were placed and thousand of innocent civilians sacrificed for God sake. (And I don't know were is the substantiation for such denominators of minor or mayor, greater or lesser, good or bad. Who are the authorities who are stating all of this? Where is documented and by whom?. By you? Verifiability is important in Wikipedia, show me your sources not only your POVs. See and read the photo above for mines) Has it been done an "importance" or "scaling memorial contest? Where? Who? Why? Now, if just were your personal POV, I accept it as such without epitomes, but again, why aren't you more cautious in stating it or/and acting under these impressions of yours? Conclusion which is the same as it was before: We are in disagreement, and because we are not reaching a resolution, then we need mediation from and an involved third party from WP:RfC. I will leave this task to you since you are the one who is fundamentally obsessed with the photo or other. The other way is to just wait in the most neutral form and see what others uninvolved parties would do with the article at large and with the section in which we are focusing right now. I challenging you [again] to take a "wait and see" status; irregardless, if you think you need to win, I am not minding at all not to, but in consensus, with respect and civility. Respecting what has defined and identified our western civilization is important for any editor of an encyclopedia, I think. I resist any seemingly omnipotent imposition, I am an individual but I respect social contracts. Don't you? Have the most pleasant editing. Greetings. John Manuel-12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Tribute in Light" picture is mentioned in the text, as is the Flight 93 memorial. I think it would be nice to have more about the temporary memorials, but not on this page. The sub-article seems the ideal place to mention these and at the moment it does not go into much detail on the temporary memorials like the one you have photographed. Perhaps you could write a paragraph on that page about these and include your photo on there as an example of one? Corleonebrother 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the attacks themselves, not the memorials erected afterwards. In fact, some of this article should probably be moved to subarticles to new "daughter articles" and linked back to here to keep this main article focused. While I like image "B" above, it isn't really a big deal which image is used overall. Galleries and images as well as discussion regarding permanent and temporary memorials erected should be at the September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services article.--MONGO 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would be against including any more memorials in this article. The idea of having a gallery of memorial images is a terrible one, no offence. --John 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some comments above come across to me as incivil, which we try to avoid. Normally, I don't respond to such comments, but understand this article covers an emotional topic and can forgive such comments. I'm also pleased to be discussing improvements to the article, and pleased that the section fully referenced now. Though, per WP:SUMMARY, I think it can be shortened with some details more suitable for the subarticle. I usually find it easier to summarize the main article, based on a good subarticle. In this case, the subarticle is in dire need of attention of someone with time to fix it up (not me, I won't have the time in the next weeks). Also, I think one picture (or possibly/at most two) will suffice. My pictures don't need to be there, but whatever pictures are included should match what's discussed in the text. --Aude (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried summarizing the section. You can see the sizes on the history tab. The page was 116,727 bytes before any of my edits. Removing the images brought the size down to 116,393 bytes and my copyedits have the article down to 115,593 bytes in size. A large portion of the bytes are due to all the references, which we can't worry about. But efforts to summarize sections, such as this section are helpful. See WP:SIZE for more about article size and WP:SUMMARY. --Aude (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, now we are communicating. I hope I didn't sound incivil just because, the diffs show the actions that have been done in regard to the photos and the reasons behind. I didn't care too much, but what really called my attention is when I sought the section and I understood its need to be improved. Suddenly, i put innocently a picture and you are seeing the positive results. For Aude and with respect this is WP:POINT, WP:Consensus and also Consensus, important to see is the WP:COI and evenly WP:NPA if what you really want is to follow the WP:CV therefore, it is good idea to visit and study WP:WOTTA or WP:ARGH!, well if you want to be really nice. Therefore, I have nothing more to do in here over this issue, but to respect your views. Now, about John's statements, unfortunately, I have to clarify the following, giving that I do understand his explanation of his purpose. This country is great because ideas, yes some of them probably weren't so great for some people at the beginning, but innovation is our trademark, not because we want to steal ideas this from others, but because as a nation we have been blessed by individuals who were bold enough to have ideas of their own and acted upon them in the first place and with good will [most of the times], and not all are success histories or enjoyed popularity. The only terrible ideas that I happened to know about in my life is those events that I have experienced in person or through the press. Like the plot whose aftermath is described on this article, which was wisely coined, "beyond all imagination". That is a terrible idea, it is beyond our morals, we cannot even imagine to do such a thing. Now, I know what you meant, John, you didn't like the idea and it is OK. Besides, I know how bold is Mongo so, in this case I need to respect both his long-term commitment to the project and his dedication and significant input in his comments and actions. Lets continue looking for ways to exchange all kind of ideas, and making sure that anything goes too easy out "there" because of "group thinking" feelings, but because is the more pragmatic way and for such needs to be implemented for obtaining excellence. Our time is demanding this from all us, the demand appears to be very granular in nature and should be observed at all the times. There is little room for mistakes now. Simpler yes, simplistic is is not the way. Well, that is my take from this interaction, I am sure we would have other opportunities not to quantify or qualify subjectively, but to ponder heavily on the issues at hand. Remember, Galileo syndrome, well, Giordano Bruno's case was far worse. The danger is in our "tribal perceptions" and how we use this "to belong", to survive and to obtain the power of feeling alright. I remain an individual respecting social contracts, my security rest perhaps in my "terrible ideas". Well fellows, until the next issue in which we will be again pondering what is best for the readers of Wikipedia, which in turn should be good for Wikipedia itself. John Manuel-00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't exactly know how you believed that claiming the "real reason" that I added the photo -- which is widely supported -- was because Aude is my "friend" is in any way civil. I don't know Aude. I've never talked to Aude before. From what I've seen, I think he's a good editor, but your assertion is totally groundless and shows a serious lack of good faith.
This perhaps belong to the section above, exactly "friend" in quotes, you did interact in this section and in the FAQ's section that you initiated in this page. Period. John Manuel-18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's nice that you are trying to improve this page, but, as everyone has mentioned, your image is not appropriate for this page. I understand this is an emotional issue for you, and so your excesses in this instance can be forgiven. However, you need to understand this simple fact -- the picture you have added is of a minor memorial which is not discussed in the article. The picture which has been widely supported on this talk page is of a major memorial which is specifically discussed in this article. That is why the Flight 93 image is included, and not yours -- not because I'm emotional about this (I'm Canadian, and so was thousands of miles away), and not because Aude is my friend or some other fiction. It's simply a matter of having pictures that reflect the content on the page, and not just because it's an image you took, which has some emotional meaning to you. --Haemo 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, the person who states and give time to his or her hands to write that he or she has not been somehow affected by 9/11, I have aaaaaa little probleeem with. Those who come to this page to contribute are emotionally affected, it doesn't mean that we are not able of reasoning or act objectively, far from truth. I suggest you to read Albert Ellis and his Rational-Emotional-Cognitive therapy or REBT for understanding this much better than you do at the present time. So you could stop about that argument altogether. Nobody in here has brought nationalities or believes or age or maturity, only you by mentioning that you are Canadian. With all my due respect, I care less if you are from any other country, my point is that you have acted without empathy or concern towards other people's pain or editions/contributions/efforts/POVS and imposing your arguments. You started by reverting or deleting the photo without outreaching or searching for any consensus within an article that by its natures had had editor and tense interactions. You did this by stating first that the photo was too big. I changed the size asking you politely to come here and talk to reach consensus, you did your post and all the same you reverted the article arguing about minor and mayors memorials and placed Aude's photo in the same location that I put the photo in question; incidentally, right after Aude replied positively to your first post in this section. I added that controverted photo without moving Aude's photo, and then you went to say too many photos and took out the photo and place Aude's photo exactly in the place that I did. It just doesn't fit well. Does it? Look I can take the time and put the summaries of the diffs whereby which you labeled you actions. In one diff covertly you even not mentioned the removal of the Photo. So you are not "thousands of miles away", you are "zillions of miles away" off the subject: We do things in consensus, you didn't at first and I forced you somehow to do it. you now are coming and talk. I have acted with good intentions and good will. I have mentioned the evidence from my time analysis based upon an intervention-interaction scrutinies that have reveled close interactions. Over this subject not only you but Aude and others have commented and collaborated and the section looks better as result. In addition, Aude did something that you didn't she offered an honest way out, a resolution. So if I invested my time to explain you this clearly, I have bad faith? You also write about the meaning of the photo for me and something about that I took the photo. Aude took his/her photo too, I am sure that s/he did it because for Aude that memorial means something especial. Stop using that Ad hominem arguments, just it is saying something of your understanding in here about human relations and development. For me the issue has reached its climax and resolution, i.e., a consensus have been reached, other users have contributed to it and has exposed their ideas most of which are reasonable. Lastly, your semantic usage of "widely", or "all people". You see five users are hardly a wide audience, or participation. Certainly five users can not represent the majority, and again even the majority cannot and sometimes does not represent or understand the greatest good. You know something, I glad that the photo is not in here, I don't know about Aude, but I felt as if I were getting into a WP:COI, also I don't think so as the time passes, there are more and more reasons, to remember this awful event with perspective. I achieved what I wanted, that you participated first in the debate, in the conversation. I hope you have learned this from this interaction, and so I have fulfilled my real intention. Respect for every Edition and for all contributors, that have meant well and good intentions, will and faith. Now, I won't comeback here for this photo-issue ever, and to this article for editing anything for a period of 30 days at least. In reference, to our conversation about this topic, for me has ended. I don't want to read it anymore. In the future, I am sure we perhaps will join again in some another difference or edition, without needing to assert Ad hominem arguments. Have a nice editing time. Shalom. John Manuel-18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you feel about me, I think we can just drop. I'm sorry you feel that an editing dispute is a personal attack, or in any way insensitive; however, at this point it's a fait accompli -- the section has been re-written, and even two pictures would be too many. I feel that the issue can be dropped safely, because I really, really do not want to get into massive text wars over an issue that has no relevance to the article anymore. --Haemo 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More editing -- the "Motive" section

I recently re-wrote the "motive" section of the article, because it had turned into a poorly sourced, and poorly formatted quote farm. I tried to synthesize most of the material together into some section, and trimmed about 1k worth of text. However, I am a little worried that we might be giving too much weight to the opinions of certain authors -- I would prefer more general sources for the section.

For instance, I recall reading, in Harper's (I believe), an article that made the same point as the last line; that of the "mythic" quality that Bin Laden ascribes to the attacks. I would love to use that as a source, instead of the marginally notable author used -- however, I can't find the article. I would like to do the same for some of the other sections, as well. Can anyone help out? Does anyone object to any of the sources currently used? --Haemo 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't look at this in-depth right now and will be on Wikipedia in limited amounts of time in the next 2-3 weeks, but some things that stand out:
  • The first sentence "According to U.S. government sources,..." is not good wording, since governments of other countries, journalists, and other experts agree with the statement. You might be interested in reading what the U.K. government has to say - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3682.asp. And the government of Germany, with the Hamburg trials there, has done a lot of investigation into the attacks, as has Spain. I have seen material written in German, but don't have time to search for again it now. And then there are non-government sources such as Al Jazeera, specifically Yosri Fouda who interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh in 2002. [59]
  • Also, I think the paragraph "The motives of al-Qaeda have also been extensively analyzed..." is unnecessary.
  • As for other experts, I haven't read Jason Burke's book. I can get a copy and look at it. The reference to Michael Scott Doran is to a book, which is a compilation of articles in Foreign Affairs. The one by Doran is here, but only a preview. I'll try to get a copy of this, in order to verify this. Foreign Affairs is generally a quality source.
  • Some of the details may be better suited for the subarticle - Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. Like the memorial subarticle, this page needs attention.
--Aude (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This could definitely still do with a trim. I've re-written the first line to simply just be definite -- we don't really need to qualify it, since other views are extremely fringe. I disagree with your feels about the "extensively analyzed" paragraph -- it introduces the topic of the analysis of motives, beyond what are, essentially, statements by the primary actors and introduces the "popular" view. Definitely needs to improve -- this article has really slipped since it was a featured article. --Haemo 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, you claim it was "poorly sourced", that simply isn't true, I know I had sourced much of it when several months ago people wanted sources. The edit has been in place for MONTHS. Along you come and remove from the motives section the testimony were the vice-Chairman point blank asks what the motive was (the only time it was asked in the 9/11 hearings) and an FBI Special Agent gives him the answer. And you don't think there is something wrong with that? You also removed the statement from the Former in Laden Unit Chief calling Clinton and Bush liars. Your edit is from yesterday, the edit I am returning to was there for MONTHS. You are removing KEY facts from FBI and CIA agents and you are obscuring the motive in the motive section. Tel555 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, you want to restore a comment that says this:

FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

However, the version I wrote already says the following:

The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. ... By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the "occupation of Palestine". The same motivation was shared by the two pilots who flew into the WTC: Mohamed Atta was described by Ralph Bodenstein—who traveled, worked and talked with him—as "most imbued actually about... U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region." "When someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted,"How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"[41] Abdulaziz al-Omari, a hijacker aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."

As you can see, it was removed because it was redundant, not because of poor sourcing, or whatever. --Haemo 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, I read what you wrote and I know what you removed. It is CLEAR what you are doing. It is not "redundant." The public deserves to know what AN FBI SPECIAL AGENT SAYS, it doesn't matter if terrorists were quotes, the public should know that the question of motivation was asked in the 9/11 Commission hearings and that an FBI agent gave the answer. ALSO, it is VERY important for people to know that the CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief calls Bush and Clinton LAIRS. You edited that out! Come on man, you think I don't know what you are doing? I have been fighting this fight for years. And you are not being honest, you wrote "poorly sourced" which isn't true. Now you deny that you wrote that? Tel555 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the edit that has been there for months:

Statements by others

President Bush says, "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." (President George W. Bush) Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People Bin Laden says the White House is "hiding the Truth ... the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)." [3]

Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated that politicians are lying to the American people about the terrorists' motives, "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Lou Dobbs CNN

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004

Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, makes the point that, "Bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity as we usually understand it, but his agenda is a basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and imagery." He says bin Laden's aim is "to end the repression of the Islamic world by the hypocrite governments and the 'Crusader-Zionist' alliance supporting and manipulating them." [4]

Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, says to understand why America was targeted we need to remember foreign policies of the last 25 years. Policies of "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets."[5]


THAT is all well wrirten and sourced! You claim (see above): "I recently re-wrote the "motive" section of the article, because it had turned into a poorly sourced, and poorly formatted quote farm." and that simply isn't true. Tel555 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But, we specifically explain that the explanations of Al Qaeda were supported by the 9/11 report. Why does it matter if an FBI agent says the same thing? I mean, right now, the article says basically "al-Qaeda claims that its motives are X, Y and Z, as supported by the 9/11 Commission report". You want to add in a new section that makes it say "al-Qaeda claims that its motives are X, Y and Z, as supported by the 9/11 Commission report. Also, an FBI agent who testified before the guys who made the 9/11 Commission report also says their motives are X, Y and Z." What's the point? As I said, redundant -- the material which was poorly sourced referred to another part of the edit. --Haemo 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Tel555 has been blocked for WP:3RR. This article is on my watch list, so I blocked. The 4th revert was after the warning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question the neutrality of this article.

The article presents as fact numerous presumptions which have not been proven and as such they simply might not be true. In short, from the missing Boeing 757 at the Pentagon to the blantant demolition of the WTC Building 7, the story presented in the article here is overtly biased.

This article violates the NPOV, it fails to "represent[] fairly and without bias all significant views" of people speaking up here and numerous authorities on 9/11, many of whom hold credentials which make them "reliable sources". Bofors7715 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Questioned previously and overwhelmingly rejected. I suppose you can bring it up again, if you want to. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The operative word in WP:NPOV is "signifigant". Please read about undue weight to understand why there is only a small mention on this page, and then an entire article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Haemo 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

Are there any security cameras around Pentagon, can someone post a video or a picture of a plane hiting the Pentagon building? Mkashifafzal 11:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN video - Old, old story. Also the #1 hit when doing a Google search on "pentagon plane camera". Does your question have something to do with improving the article? --StuffOfInterest 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Some screenshots of the video - User:Aude/Pentagon, with links to videos and other information. --Aude (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think it will improve the article currently poised in favor of US Govt.'s story? some 3000 were killed in US and some hundreds of thousands in afghanistan just lost their lives because US thought it was their fault, I wonder how a question be an "old story" if not answered, i am searching on net to find more clips and pictures of that crash, from other cameras showing an aircraft flying in and not a cruise missile flying low, your posted links of CNN are not working :P, thanks for your concern.Mkashifafzal 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know how come it took several years and even lawsuits to get those blurry images released? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Good luck trying to find out the answer to that mystery! It could take years to get any information out of those government bureaucrats, and even then you'd probably have to file... oh wait. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The five Israelis

Why doesn't this article mention the five Israelis who were detained by authorities when caught filming (and celebrating) the planes crashing into the towers? Instead, this is only mentioned on the "conspracy theories" page. It really happened - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/SundayHerald_021103.html It is an important part of the events that occurred on September 11, and raises many questions about who was involved, and who had prior knowledge.Logicman1966 04:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no reliable information that explains how that is an important part of anything. The whole "celebrating" claim is based on one person trying to decipher the expressions of someone's face from a distance[60]. Conspiracy theorists predictably develop elaborate fantasies from flimsy rumors, but we don't need to fall victim to those. Weregerbil 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong; let me provide you with some facts -
The 5 men were Sivan Kurzberg, his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The FBI has determined that at least two of these men were agents working for Mossad, and this has been confirmed by CIA. When their van was searched, bomb sniffing dogs reacted as if they had smelled explosives. When their photos were developed, a number of shots showed them posing and smiling with the burning towers in the background; in one Sivan Kurzberg held up a lighted lighter. The men were held in custody for 71 days for questioning, and were subjected to lie-detector tests. Paul Kurzberg refused to take test for 10 weeks, and then failed it.
The 5 men were employed by a company called Urban Moving, which was owned and operated by Dominick Suter. Immediately after September 11, Suter suddenly closed the business and fled to Israel. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers. The FBI concluded that Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.
When asked about the 5 men, a US official (quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report) said "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information”. I intend to add this material to the 'conspiracy theory' acticle.Logicman1966 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You need reliable sources to have a chance to include that information in the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You would also need to be able to prove *why* they were smiling. Agents working for Mossad could've been happy that the US would, after the attack, be much more willing to help them find and fight Islamic terrorists than they had been under the first nine months of Bush. Even assuming everything you said is true, none of it comes close to proving they had any connection to the attack. 64.95.27.5 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)sean

Mossad is quite a serious outfit. I don't think they would be so stupid to get caught doing something like this...tiresome to the extreme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.129.249.240 (talk) 12:07, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Yet another question

How many Wikipedia editors here think 9/11 was an inside job? If so, why are we using the mainstream theory, which nobody believes anymore? Come on guys, we all know that Cheney gave the stand-down orders for NORAD. This article needs some serious revision.

We already have a 'crazy theories bin' for that. --Tarage 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

About first paragraph

Here is what i suggest for it "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by terrorist[2], suspected by US Government as Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America." Is it OK.

Here's a reply I've been working on for questions and suggestions of this nature:

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.

All I am able to extract from your note above is that since the RELIABLE SOURCE is only US Government, so the article shall say what US Government says. All world media has been floating stories delivered in press releases by US Govt. spokesmen, if they reprint those stories, do the stories become mainstream beliefs?
As you mentioned several questions are not answered, I believe this incident has been the higly obscured incident ever happened in modern worlds history, to cover such an incident in an encyclopedia, just a few years after the incident when the details of the same are not clear, should be in a manner of using not definitive terms please.
I wonder where would US citizen stand if even a single conspiracy theory begins to be considered mainstream belief, they have supported their government to murder 700,000 humans in retaliation. It is something that will never be let to happen, thanks to CIA.
Refering your example, if we were living in 1948 or even in 1958, I would be of the opinion to put the event of Hitlers suicide in indefinitive terms, and LET TIME REVEAL THE TRUTH Mkashifafzal 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow... if you honestly think that the US is that powerful in it's ability to 'hide the truth', then nothing I say to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise because you could always simply say I was a government plant. So, I'll save the effort for someone who isn't completly batshit insane. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for revealing the truth about your ethics Mkashifafzal 09:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Anything for you crazy. --Tarage 10:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So do I have the consensus to modify the first paragraph as suggested above?Mkashifafzal 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you don't. Why would I say "you are crazy" and then say "go ahead and add your crazy theories". Either you read into that way too much(Like you probably do with everything else 9/11 related), or you are as crazy as I claim. Either way, no. --Tarage 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference no 2 added, is UN's press release, this reference contradicts with the immediate the blunt quote afterwards which says "Islamic Terrorists", there is no referal to any such term in UN Press release, so either a reference should be added, (though not necessary) or the suggestion on top should be opted, and i want someone else to do that edit.203.81.196.100 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Related archives

See if it answers your question. --Haemo 20:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on this, Haemo. It is a good starting point for a consensus FAQ for 911. (Though, at this moment, I am not happy with the 911 article) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't know if we need an FAQ on the main page... maybe at the top of the talk page... as for consensus, you'll find that most of us are already AT consensus. It is only people like Mkashifafzal who think the US government is the most evil entity in existance and Bush is clearly Satan who have serious gripes with this article. Most sane people, including yourself, accept that it probably isn't a conspiricy, and just want to debate about choise wording. I hope atleast. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Tarage, as a liberal who thinks that Bush is evil but still believes that he and the rest of the government had nothing to do with 9/11, I wish you'd stop with the repeated hostile language; the way that you consistently refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories as "liberal", or make references to the liberal nature of the people who believe them, is akin to saying that the terrorists were "Muslims". While it is likely true, it unfairly demonizes a large majority of people who would use that label. That's why we say "radical Islam" when discussing terrorists, to distinguish between the terrorists and the vast majority of Muslims. I am asking you to refrain from such broad generalizations; as an actual survivor of 9/11 who is also a liberal, I find it very off-putting to come on here and find that the two sides are "batshit crazy people" and "people who are very good at retorting the batshit crazy people, but are also bashing liberals." It seems as if your repeated liberal bashing is unneccessary and has no relevance or place in these conversations. 64.95.27.5 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)sean
This article will remain disputed for decades may be, there is no need for it to be specific, let wikipedia to be unbiased, by keeping articles of this nature deviate from normal wikipedia styles of using definitive terms. Mkashifafzal 10:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid, yet people (like Tarage) do settle on this statement that "Lack of comprehensiveness does not mean it's false." but forget that upon lack of evidence we can not convict the accused. A big mistake has been committed by Bush administration, immediately after the attacks they launched an International Justice program, even a bigger mistake is to try to defend that mistake.Mkashifafzal 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid." You either need to cite this, or step asside. The fact is, it is NOT a widespread belief. Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way. Mkashifafzal, you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened. --Tarage 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
For citation of above quote, read all of this talk page, all I understand is that there are two opinions, even though I do not mean to mention any theory on the main article, yet the first paragraph (this is where i started) should be written by giving weight to the Dispute and the difference of opinnion, the way that is to be indeffinate in saying blah blah. That Adolf Hitler example quoted above is an appropriate one, regardless of what happened to him, here in 21st centure it is ok to say he died, but imagin living in 1950 and say that he died, dont you expect more people to oppose you, will they all be crazy? why at that point is it not approproate to show uncertainity at a platform like an encyclopedia to give weight to the difference of opinionsMkashifafzal 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Spread of "inside job" suspicions?

Back from wikibreaking; to follow up on: #Baseless dismissal of conspiracy, I(— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)) would like to suggest the following:

a) (correct?) I think we are in agreement on:

  • the same observables are interpreted differently by different people, experts and laymen alike;
  • the majority of wikipedians go with the mainstream account;
  • the media tend to go with the mainstream account;
  • relatively few notable Americans go publicly with the "inside job" account. Among those are a fairly high number of retired Air force staff.
  • two former ministers of major states (Brittain and Germany) went public with their "inside job" suspicions, which I believe they would not do lightly.

b) consensus guidelines and policies are:

  • fringe views should get proportional, but not equal, coverage in our articles.

So, now I would like to know: how wide-spread is the view that there is something fishy with the official account? I have seen Zogby polls which suggest it's rather wide-spread:

Are there any other reliable polls available? I would like to learn more on this. I hope these polls will help us reach consensus on the amount of attention the "inside job" possibility deserves in the article. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not limit the "Inside job" suspecion to only "Foreknowledge of attacks and failing to respond" the job done should be discussed in detail, even to the limit of inside involvement in the original plot.Mkashifafzal 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we HAVE. Read the damned logs! --Tarage 10:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
These polls really aren't a good way to get a consensus of the general wikipedian oppinion but... fine. I'll play.
A.1 This is true, but the general consesus is the same.
A.2 I think so, yes.
A.3 Partially... some, like the BBC, have aired conspiricy theory things have they not?
A.4 I agree with the first part, but I can't verify the second, so I don't know.
A.5 I dissagree with this. Many public polititions come out saying very crazy things. One could even say BinLaden himself is a form of politition.
B.1 I think they have this.
B.2 & B.3 Public oppinion polls can be quite flawed. For example, the way you phrase a question can change the answer people give. I'd have to know exactially what questions were asked, as well as the motive of the poll.
Anyway... I hope this helps. I'm still against this FAQ, but I will yeild if most people want it. --Tarage 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Tarage, does the info provided by Corleonebrother (below) answer your need for more information about the polls? If scepsis about the mainstream view varies between 8 and 50 percent, would that persuade you to alter the mix of mainstream and conspiracy weighting? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by answer. It seems to support my claim that the polls may not be totally legit, one way or the other. It only supports my question, not provide an answer. --Tarage 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some information on polls on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. It is in a long paragraph in the first section and is hard to read, which is partly why I have suggested on the talk page that we make a new page for the polls, with the questions and methodologies for each one clearly stated. I have started working on it here in my user space. It is proving quite difficult however to find out about the methodologies used as the current references are mostly to newspaper articles about the polls, not the polls themselves. If you'd like to join in the discussion or help me improve the page, please do. Corleonebrother 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what this has to do with 9/11 attacks, but I would point out that a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. Just for the record. --Haemo 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we can agree to formulate more precisely, that: a majority of Americans does not believe that life on earth was created out of soup, but instead believe life was created by a God. If I then look at Origin_of_life#Yockey I find there is serious and respectful treatment of the critique of the life-created-via-evolution paradigm. To answer your implicit question: I think the 911 article should give fair, belanced and adequate treatment of criticism of the mainstream account of events even if a majority of wikipedians judges such criticism to be faulty. I claim it would be OR to disregard criticism in this article if and only if a large enough portion of either experts, general population or wikipedians would endorse such criticism. Haemo, how do you feel when you read my reasoning? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What you want to add is incorporated in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. As an encyclopedia, opinions have little merit for inclusion in an article that is based on known facts of an event...therefore, the 9/11 conspiracy theory article exists to address the very things that you wish to incorporate in this article, at is should based on undue weight for non factual evidence.--MONGO 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
MONGO, you seem anxious to avoid inserting unfounded opinions into the article, as you want to guarantee the quality of wikipedia, right? Q:How would you feel about including the factual events such as described in 9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_President.27s_behavior, WITHOUT the conspiracy conclusions/opinions, into the present article ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say that that passage is better off in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It has little to do with the attacks themselves and uses selective quotes ot form a basis of facts. In other words, it is a violation of WP:SYNTH.--MONGO 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's set aside the current wording of the paragraph, then. Hypothetically, we could include:
  1. The president was notified before entering the classroom.
  2. The president was notified of the second plane while IN the classroom, and then remained there for a while, actionless.
  3. The president later stated he SAW the first attack live and attributed it to an accident, at that time.
  4. The first attack was not available live.
If we were to include these four facts, I would say (a) they are interesting to readers and are relevant to the attacks; I do not see this as (b) selective fact picking or (c) synthesis, do you feel differently?
We could, hypothetically, insert such a paragraph at the #Immediate_national_response section. My hunch is, you would object. Perhaps you are afraid this would put undue blame on the White House, or something like that? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think there is a need to list those things. For one, you have to examine the context of where he was. Had he left mid way through reading the story, it would have created a lot of un-needed confusion/fear in those children. That and I actually think it was better to sit and wait till he had all the facts, rather than make a rash decision. Then again, those are my persional oppinions. --Tarage 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
And the President later said he made a mistake when he said "saw". So what? This adds nothing to the actual narrative of the attacks; we're writing about the attacks not the minituae of what the President did, said, and made mistakes saying. The only reason this fact is of any interest to anyone is because conspiracy theorists ascribe some malign intent to it; which is why it's on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, and not here. --Haemo 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The first two points deal with the response on the day itself. Was that a mistake also? I think it deserves including. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We'd like to add that more and more credible people are adding their names to the list of those who doubt the governments story of what happened on 911 and many of these people believe there is a good chance there was some government operation similar to Project Northwoods or the Reichstag Fire (Hitler's takeover inside job - proven!) that was planned well in advance. If you are going to counter this claim, then please at least view the sources of these claims, like airline pilots, professors, top engineers, scientists., etc. Everyone was so shocked and initially could not even believe that something like this could be possible... but the evidence keeps pointing to an inside job and now people are fed up with the war, and see the true colors of this regime. Please check the sources, such as PatriotsQuestion911.com before you make judgments on this comment. For this reason, I see others have made attempts to adjust the conspiracy page. That should be allowed. This is not right what is happening in our government, and we all will find out the truth someday and be utterly humiliated and embarrassed and sickened by it. TheAverageAmerican 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


back to the polls

I quote:

There is some information on polls on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. It is in a long paragraph in the first section and is hard to read, which is partly why I have suggested on the talk page that we make a new page for the polls, with the questions and methodologies for each one clearly stated. I have started working on it here in my user space. It is proving quite difficult however to find out about the methodologies used as the current references are mostly to newspaper articles about the polls, not the polls themselves. If you'd like to join in the discussion or help me improve the page, please do. Corleonebrother 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, has anyone found polls which indicate that 911 conspiracy views are NOT widespread? From the polls gathered by Corleonebrother, I would say that the mainstream account is given undue weight, compared to conspiracy theories. I would agree to not include the theories in the main article, but I would suggest (a) to use appropriate wording, making clear that it's the mainstream account, not commonly accepted, and (b) not to leave out factual material which strains the official version. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can come to a consensus on that. As Haemo pointed out, polls can be greatly over-emphisised. Statistically, they are mostly inaccurate at that. Look at what happened in Florida during the 2000 presidential elections. So many of the major news orginizations called Florida early, and as a result helped create a huge mess that we are still dealing with today. I think instead, we should focus on the experts, who have strongly shown support for the facts. I don't think we need to mess this up even more with polls. --Tarage 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Request clarification; Tarage, are you referring to:
  • A) some major news organizations correctly predicting Gore's victory?
  • B) Fox News erroneously predicting Bush' victory, and the other news agency's slavisly following?
But about the 911 polls: ofcourse a poll can be a factor of 2 wrong, but half of 40% is still 20% which would be quite the opposite of "negligable" for New York State public opinion. So, I would be glad to be informed if anyone knows of RS polls indicating that the 911 truth movement is a borderline phenomenon??
I would fully understand that, if wikipedians believe that 911-conspiracy is a marginal phenomenon, then we should not give it much coverage in this main 911 article. If however, the 911-inside-job paradigm is as widespread as suggested by polls, the current 911 article is worded rather strangely. I realize it will be hard for anyone who is firmly convinced of the 911 official version, or more general, of the integrity of government, to use less than firm wording. But for wikipedia to take side with the mainstream account, we need either the conspiracy theories to be non-notable, or reliable sources to have thoroughly investigated the matter. Agree? In my opinion, researchers from both paradigms suffer from selective fact picking, and reliable research independent of the alleged prime suspect (the status quo: government, corporate universities and media) is non-existant. So, anyone, any ideas how to solve this paradox? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're asking us to do, what? Prove a negative? As has been pointed out before, large numbers of people believe frankly counterfactual things, which are widely disregarded by qualified experts in the field. In the same way that a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution, we do not compromise the entire page because of it, and give such views a page at Objections to evolution, we do not compromise this page with speculation (less popular, in fact), and give these theories an entire page at 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is not the court of popular opinion; it is an encyclopedia -- Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Haemo 03:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Haemo, for the most part. There is a difference, however. On the evolution page, it is said that evolution is a theory, which is widely believed. I agree. And I would be satisfied if we did the same with this article: state clearly that is is an account which is widely believed. I understand that for you and many others this belief is so strong that it results in taking the account as "factual" and "certain". For me the account is no more than an account. It would be great if we could agree on such a change in wording. Alternatively, dissident wikipedians like myself should be convinced of the account. Unlikely in my opinion : I think there are too many facts which still are at odds with the official account, and have not been explained away (I predict: will never all be explained to my and others' satisfaction) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't the point; the comparison is not evolution as a theory, but rather the statement that evolution leads to speciation and genetic drift. The article clearly, and unambiguously states that these are facts, and these occur. Creationists would have them qualify these statements to be "theories" or "are believed to occur by many" which gives undue weight to creationist pseudoscience. The attempt to qualify this article -- or any other, be it the issue of the death of Hitler, or 9/11 -- is of the same merit. --Haemo 01:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Though I am a firm believer in evolution, I do not see how I could label creationism as pseudoscience when so many people engage in it. If (many) creationists were to ask for it, I believe no-one would be harmed by placing an introductory sentence which states that a large creationist movements disbelieves evolution as a mechanism for creation of life or speciation. Once such a introductory sentence has been put in, there is little harm in stating all the other well founded scientific theories as facts.
How would you feel about this? Would it meet your needs for fairness, clarity and truth? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point; doing such a thing gives creationist views undue weight. In an article about something which occurs/occured, like evolution or the 9/11 attacks, fringe theories about how they happen (or don't happen) do not belong in the lead. They belong, as explained, in a brief section which gives them appropriate weight; as both 9/11 and evolution do. --Haemo 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting) I agree: from my viewpoint that evolution exists, creationism is a fringe theory. When it has such support among Americans, I would not call it 'fringe' anymore. 'Wrong', maybe. But to call it wrong inside an article page, I would need a RS that is acknowleged by all major players involved. I am curious — genuinely — how you would decide creationism to be "fringe" within wikipedia rules and guidelines. Can you help me understand this? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As it says on in the guidelines, the moniker is not popularity, but rather peer-reviewed journals with respect to evolution. Creationism does not, and never has, met this standard. --Haemo 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. Evolution theory is western science, which uses peer-review, and creationism is religion, which cannot peer-review. Some of the scientific literature says that random evolutionary processes cannot account for the whole evolution; instead they propagate intelligent design. Wikipedians need to reach consensus on how to word an article. I continue below...#peer-review and reliable sources — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with linking the the Complete 9/11 Timeline?

I get called a vandal for adding a link the The Complete 9/11timeline, which is a timeline with links to 3355 articles from mainstream media sites. Blah42 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • It also happens to be a non-notable "open source" project with no editorial oversight and is full of out-of-context material vaguely related to 9/11 and written by anonymous editors. --Haemo 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your view, which you are entitled to, but I feel that it is an important resource that links to thousands of mainstream media articles. Blah42 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's super, but maybe you'll change your view when you read our external linking guidelines; specifically, point 12 under "what should be avoided". --Haemo 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
We also talked about this at great length a while back and there was consensus that it not be added. See archive 26 I think. There are multiple problems with it. RxS 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. It seems like the longer arguments were from those who wanted to include it, but the other side had more votes. All very arbitrary that the majority at one point in time gets to decide whether there should be a link. It is notable as the most complete 9/11 timeline on the web. Blah42 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... the longer the argument, the better it is? You need to take some debate classes my friend. --Tarage 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You completely lost the debate when you called me a vandal for adding a link that is linked to on numerous other Wiki pages. Blah42 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
When you randomly add a link without any sort of consensus, yes, that is valdalism. But I am in awe of your ability to determine when a debate is won and lost. I wasn't aware I was in the presence of a deity. --Tarage 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked more carefully, and the straw poll is extremely biased. Wow, your side won. It obviously doesn't violate guidelines, don't try claiming that, that's utter bullshit. Blah42 00:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The straw poll was over whether or not it violated guidelines, and should be included. I would point to the open wiki nature of the project to back up that point. --Haemo 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, it's still linked to by some Wiki pages, which makes sense, because no one has made an equivalent timeline. I think that edits have to be approved by the project manager, Paul Thompson. He has a book on Amazon, so he's not just some anonymous guy. Blah42 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem like an angry fellow. Perhaps you should take a break from editing, and come back when you have a cool head? --Tarage 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The timeline has implicit assumptions as to what is or is not September 11th related, plus it implies causation relationships which are wrong or unproven. Peter Grey 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that anyone who feels the Complete 9-11 Timeline should not be added to the links list fails to provide any specific examples? The main argument behind why the 9-11 article is the way it is is that it has to cite from 'mainstream' sources. The Complete 9-11 Timeline is almost completely composed of mainstream media sources with links to the exact original article cited. The timeline implies 'causation relationships' [sic] which are wrong or unproven? How convenient of you not to list a single instance. Not that anyone who agrees with you ever does. Why is there not a link to George Washington University's National Security Archives? No one can claim they're 'misleading' or 'fringe'. Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable to cite information that comes from the 9-11 commission report, which has it's own share of problems, considering the fact that the most important information was censored from inclusion in the report, not to mention the exclusion, convolution or evasion of many important issues; why did it take so long to respond and why are their discrepencies in the times of events reported throughout the NORAD chain? why were multiple officers at the FBI discouraged from investigating how a known major bin laden financier and how could he own so much of PTECH, a company that deals with intelligence matters for the federal government? relation of BCCI failure to the terrorist groups that had worked closely with the CIA and the ISI? There are many other issues that need to be addressed in order to understand something like the 9-11 attacks but many are too specific or technical to include here. however you can find many of them on the complete 9-11 timeline, complete with sources cited, links to original sources which are 99% mainstream media or from George Washington University's national security archive which has credentials no one can deny considering the files they have come direct from the federal government via FOIA. Wikipedia should be ashamed of its failure to provide information that isn't influenced by political desires and 'official' or 'mainstream' urban legends. ---- profg 13:47, 7 August 2007

May I suggest adding a "See also" link to The Terror Timeline instead?
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

12:01, 16 August 2007 Weregerbil (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv, not a conspiracy article)
06:37, 10 August 2007 MONGO (Talk | contribs) (114,008 bytes) (no basis for adding this)
I've re-added the link. I think it is a disgrace to not link to a wikipedia article because the content doesn't suit you? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre attack intelligence, July 10 2001 meeting?

Hello, where is the article that the charges from this book would go to? Thanks. "In a short excerpt from his book in Sunday's Washington Post, Woodward writes: "On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately." Link Bmedley Sutler 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, probably the best place would be Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, you also might want to re-write the "United States" section, because it's a horrible mess at the moment. --Haemo 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So they went to the White House and extended all those serious warnings to Dr. Rice… remember what Cofer Black said about her criminal neglect with regards to clear and present dangers of impending attacks. He said:
"The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." 78.0.67.12 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

Is it really necessary to link September 11 and 2001 in the bold part of the lead sentence? I find it makes the lead uglier without adding much.-Wafulz 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree I would prefer to link September 11 and 2001 further on in the article, after the lead. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I notice that the links have been removed in the lead sentence, but not added later on, which results in the "what links here" connection being broken! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, per WP:DATE, the date should always be linked so a user's date preferences are displayed. Dave101→talk  09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WTC 7

Why is there this sentence?

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell.

Referenced with interim report about ongoing investigation? Twice? It should say that there is no official explanation about the fall of building 7 and referenced accordingly…

[NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation] 78.0.67.12 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The NIST is the official explanation, and their interim report is the draft of their final report, which is due out soon, IIRC. --Haemo 00:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, so why doesn’t the article state it so, as it is, that is? As you may well know we don't know what will the final report look like since the working hypothesis "may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation." 78.0.67.12 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This is the best official explanation we have now. The phrase "collapsed after being heavily damaged by debris" is very bland, and general for what the NIST has explained top be their belief. Specific theories about how it collapsed can be included when they finalize their report. --Haemo 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It would seem so if we wouldn’t talk about extremely disturbing and emotional event or if we wouldn’t be aware of the damage done to other buildings (such as wtc3 and wtc6), which sustained colossal impacts, yet stood. The point is, there is nothing which would indicate, even slightly, that there are problems with wtc7 collapse, on contrary as it stands now editors have provided an explanation where there is none. If so we might as well suggest some more plausible hypotheses, such as this one:
        • [Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition] 78.0.67.12 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • You mean the buildings with were short and fat stood when pierced from straight above, but the ones that were tall and thin toppled when hit from the side? Fascinating. --Golbez 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Please focus, there is no explanation for the fall of building 7, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind implementation of that sentence, which is yet to be proved. That sentence is POV, plain and simple. Not to say that I'm honestly not sure what are you talking about, were there some other buildings which toppled over? 78.0.67.12 01:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
                • It clearly says that the official explanation is that debris hit the building, and it collapsed afterwards. This is the official explanation based on the NIST interim report. The specifics of this will be explained when the final report is issued, but as they say, the basic underlying explanation of what happened is not changing. --Haemo 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, but could you kindly clarify this interpretation? You've wrote> "It clearly says that the official explanation is that debris hit the building, and it collapsed afterwards…"
I'm puzzled by such conclusion, because there is no official explanation, none, period. Working hypothesis in ongoing investigation is not explanation, it is a working hypothesis of the ongoing investigation. Why would article state it differently? Fallacy? Why would we institute something as proof if there is nothing to back such claim?
Article should say, the official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is still pending, it should probably note that it's pending for six years… Just say it as it is, per our guidelines, that is… 89.172.46.93 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

I am moving/have moved this entire section to Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center#Reminder/firefighter . — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

FOIA no Arabs on Flight 77

I'm sorry, I'm certain there's a lot of work behind it, but this article appears to be in a very poor state. Why isn’t it updated accordingly to the new or some extremely old data? I've just took a look at the some of discussions, so forgive me if you went through this already, but neither here or at the sibling articles I've found any reference or mention of that FOIA request which showed that there were no Arabs on Flight 77. How come?

I'd guess that official FOIA documents are valid references? Are they?

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77 78.0.67.12 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All those documents say is that the coroner did not autopsy anyone with an Arabic name. There were also no Arabic names on the original flight list. Why is this important? Who knows? Instead, we have basically a non-notable online blog trying to make news by speculating about what this implies. It has no bearing on the 9/11 attacks at all; at best it might be footnote on 9/11 conspiracies. --Haemo 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, if the Arabs hijacked the planes, and there are no Arabic names on the flight list, and we know the names of the other casualties, could you please tell me under which non-Arab names the hijackers have boarded the planes? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Or, perhaps said Arabs were simply not autopsied by the coroner? The article Flight 77 amply covers the evidence that these people did, indeed board the plane and flew it into the pentagon. --Haemo 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I am not talking about autopsy now, just passenger lists. If you suggest the Arabs were there, but not autopsied, I'd expect them to be on a passenger list, either under an Arab or a non-Arab name. Correct? I do not know. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps because it's simply not true; most of the "passenger lists" obtained omitted the terrorists in the first place. Reconstructions of the seating, as the Boston Globe did for Flight 11, give complete seating charts -- including the terrorists. In fact, Flight 77 has even stronger evidence, with one of the hijackers caught on film both boarding the plane, and being searched by security prior to entry. Regardless, I don't see what any of this has to do with the article. --Haemo 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
has to do with the article. Well: If the article claims there were Arabs on board, it should explain why they are not on the passenger lists. (Reconstructions are no help. Anyone can reconstruct that IF they were on board, they had to sit somewhere.) Please provide a RS for their omission. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is, they are. Printed transcripts, obtain by the Boston Post and other sites online pinpoint the exact seats -- the Globe even did a graphic for Flight 11. The fact that some people are confused about this is totally immaterial to this article -- if anything, it would be a minor footnote on Flight 77, or a related article. --Haemo 05:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you please be willing to provide such a minor footnote? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an editor on that page; you should probably discuss it with the editors there. --Haemo 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
They are example: Flight 11. but please remember: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. RxS 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the manifest! I am afraid I would rather have a real one, i.e. where terrorists are not in bold, but a simple passenger list. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, they are available if you request them; for instance these guys have a copy. However, I would just like to reiterate that this has pretty much nothing to do with this page and we should really not be discussing it. Haemo 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that conspiracy theorists like to confuse two things: passenger lists and victim lists. A whole bunch of conspiracy theories have been created based on not understanding that terrorists aren't victims. Looks like there is a new variant of that scam: equating passenger list and autopsy list. Weregerbil 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Haemo and Weregerbil. I see there is a lot of confusion about it.[61] But surely, 6 years later, the names under which the terrorists boarded are known? What are those 19 names? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
After 20 seconds of googling: [62]. Also the 9/11 Commission Report. We should drop this discussion though; talk pages are for article maintenance. Weregerbil 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
those are official documents obtained through FOIA, one can hardly find more valid reference than that… the fact is the autopsy showed no Arabs on Flight 77, that is officially, and there is no official explanation for such discrepancy. So where is the problem? Just say it as it is, officially, there were no Arabs on Flight 77. 89.172.46.93 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 32

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The big problem still hasn't been fixed

The use of the word 'terrorist' in the lead in section is unacceptable, according to wikipedias own policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter

Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.

The word is used in the narrative voice, and the citation doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Damburger 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurd interpretation of a policy and has been discussed repeatedly on this page. Reverted.--Cberlet 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Absurd intepretation? ""Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"" says the rule. The statement is so clear there are no other possible intepretations.
No matter how many times this has been discussed, it doesn't change a thing. The article is tinged with American bias and is an advert for whats wrong with wikipedia. Anybody with any interest in making this project work must nessecarily be on my side of this. Damburger 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Really? Does that mean you think I do not want to make Wikipedia work?--Cberlet 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That is the impression given by your reverts. You want wikipedia to present a slanted POV. Damburger 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, please see the Draft 9/11 FAQ. I'll repost the answer below:

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.[6]

As a result of what is an academic and political argument we, as an encyclopedia, are left to decide how things should be phrased. However, we are bound by neutral point of view to follow the lead that a substantial number of reliable and unbiased sources have taken — namely, the appellation of the "terrorist" moniker. A selection of these sources includes the United Nations,[7] The Washington Post,[8] the Christian Science Monitor,[9] and The Guardian,[10] to name but a few. A Google News search brings up many other examples. Thus, though we, as editors, may personally disagree with the term used, as an encyclopedia we are bound to use the term which has gained near-universal acceptance and refer the exact debate over the term to other pages, such as the linked definition of terrorism article. 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 strives to minimize the use of this controversial term in anything other than an unequivocal context; hence the use of "hijackers", specific names, and organizations instead of the blanket "terrorists".

Related archives

Not one bit of this matters. The rules regarding the word 'terrorist' are crystal clear, and this is a violation of them.

Also, this 'FAQ' is just something a guy made it. It has no authority here as far as I can see. So we can just ignore it and stick to actual wikipedia policy, k? Damburger 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point it's making is that the "X says Y" is "Every single reliable source we can find say they're terrorist attacks". Hence, we say "these are terrorist attacks". The FAQ provides you with a quick run-down on why the article is the way it is; since people, yourself included, don't appear to want to read the archives where this has been extensively discussed. --Haemo 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say 'you can ignore this if you can find a whole bunch of sources to back you up'? It doesn't. You are simply making things up. This is clearly a case of cultural bias. The rules say one thing, the 9/11 article says another. Funnily enough, the Contras article sticks to the rule and calls them 'armed opponents' of the Nicaraguan government of the time. Stop pushing an American POV and look at things objectively. Damburger 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That because you can find reliable sources which do not call the Contras terrorists. This is not true of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks; we do not even label Al-Qaeda as terrorists on this page, only those who carried out the attacks. And you will note that guidelines are general principles, and not ironclad rules; this is one of exceptions. --Haemo 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. The phrase 'terrorist' is pejorative (this is recognised as a fact by wikipedia policy) and so theres is no 'sourcing' of it that would allow it in the narrative voice, regardless of how reliable those sources might be - they are simply sources reporting the opinion of people that it WAS a terrorist attack. Since reliable sources report people (such as Osama Bin Laden) saying it wasn't a terrorist attack, your argument has absolutely no merit.
I would like to add how cute it is you've used the word 'declined' in your revert, implying that you have some kind of authority here when you in fact have none at all. The only reason I am going to let it stand is because I won't violate the three revert rule. Congrulations on another victory for mob ignorance. This isn't over. Damburger 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, our side of this dispute can produce thousands of cites to reputable published sources that say they were terrorist attacks. What cites do you have to reputable published sources that claim they are not terrorist attacks?--Cberlet 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The dispute isn't about producing source - thats just a simplisitic strawman you've cooked up - the dispute is about intepretting what seems to me to be fairly simply worded wikipedia policy. You are just refusing to accept whats right in front of your nose so that you can continue pushing a cultural POV. Damburger 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase can be pejorative when used without accuracy or guidelines; the simple fact is that all reliable sources which comment about terrorism explain that these are terrorist attacks. What you are suggesting is akin to calling evolution a "disputed theory" rather than a fact because certain creationists think it is. It has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and declined in the past repeatedly. --Haemo 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Pisspoor analogy. There is no wikipedia policy about calling scientific theories 'disputed theories'. If you think there is, cite it. It has not been 'declined', the voices of reason have been shouted down by superior numbers. You talk as if the suggestion has gone through some kind of professional review. It hasn't. You, and Cberlet, are an example of the problem with wikipedia. You come together on political sensitive pages and overrule anyone with an objective viewpoint which might not sit well with mainstream US opinion. Damburger 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It might please you to note that I'm not American, but anyways. And there's a whole page about how to deal with fringe theories and undue weight. --Haemo 01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You may as well be American, as you articulate American cultural bias as if it were indisputable fact. By the way, since when has the STATED POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA been a 'fringe theory'? Is applying the rules equally to al-qaeda as to the contras giving 'undue weight' to the rules you claim are a 'fringe theory'? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You seem to have in your head the idea that I don't think 9/11 was a terrorist attack, but I do. I simply have the intellect to seperate my opinions from what facts. Do you? Damburger 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down and avoid future personal attacks and claims of superiority.--Cberlet 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I simply asked the question, are you smart enough to tell your own opinions from facts? You as far as I am concerned are being smug and condescending, having won a victory through strength of numbers rather than actually having any factual credibility. In fact, I take your sudden unwillingness to discuss facts of any kind as an admission that you are wrong. However, I have no illusions about you correcting your mistake on the page any time soon. Damburger 01:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

<-----The above series of straw statements and questions are still personal attacks and claims of superiority. See: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE.--Cberlet 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain calm and be civil. What you have cited is not policy, it is a guidelines — in fact, it is part of the Manual of Style, which is not the primary reference for content issues. We have pointed you to the extensive previous discussions about this matter, as well as the related content guidelines, including those about fringe theories and undue weight. You might also care to read through the archives, and see that this issue has been extensively discussed previously, and the current version is the result of a long-standing consensus. --Haemo 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As I clearly showed above, undue weight and fringe theories do not apply. The question is not which opinions make it into this article, its making sure opinions are presented as just that - OPINIONS. No ammount of previous discussion, or attempts to sidetrack by attacking my manner, are going to change the fact that you are just plain wrong about this. As to your ridiculous assertion that I should leave this alone because of a consensus - that line of reasoning could be used to oppose any change to wikipedia whatsoever.
You obviously have nothing of substance to offer to this discussion. Damburger 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll step out; I've said my piece and don't really want to deal with this level of hostility right now. --Haemo 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Damburger, your hostility and aggressive attacks violate multiple Wiki guidelines and rules of conduct. Please consider apologizing to Haemo, and changing your confrontational approach.--Cberlet 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I beleive in confronting ignorance, and I see a lot of it here. I can only conclude from your nitpicking at my 'hostile' attitude that you have conceded I am right. Damburger 09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I believe that he has conceded that you are too hostile to debate with on a rational level, and refuses to get into a pissing match with you. Reguardless, you aren't going to get your way here. --Tarage 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite... if they aren't terrorists, what are they? --Tarage 03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read everything I've said. You have completely missed the point. Damburger 09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have. You are objecting to the use of the word terrorist. However, in your own cited definition, it says "unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"." We have plenty of "X says Y" which you seem to be ignoring, but out of my own sick curiosity, I'm curious as to what you want it replaced with. Bad guys? Evil people? Or do you believe that people who fly airplanes into buildings with an intent to do as much dammage as possible are on the right side? --Tarage 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have misread that sentence. It says that the citation (i.e. the part of the article, not the thing to which it refers) must be of the format "X says Y". For example "The UN says this is a terrorist attack" or something semanticaly equivalent.
As for not calling them terrorists - I think that if you describe how they flew passenger jets into buildings and killed 3000 people that the reader will be able to grasp they are bad people, so its not nessecary to explicitly state that. Wikipedia, once again, agrees with me (from WP:NPOV):

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Damburger 09:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey in my country if someone kills over 3000 people we call him a terrorist. If you don't want the judgement then don't kill people...Duh. And before you protest I'm biased I am French, and as far as I know, even if French can be the most anti-American people, it's still a terrorist attack. Calling a cat 'feline' doesn't change the fact that essentially it is a cat, period.

The fact that the article about Hitler doesn't say "he was evil" is because he was much more than that. He was a man, and the chief of government. And he has been judged you are right about that. But using this as an excuse for trashing America and trying to insert the "anti-american" strike to this is BS. These men considered their only aim in life to destroy America, and to kill people on this very day. Saying they are terrorist is not judgemental, it's true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that means it aim to sum-up everything we know, but that doesn't seem we don't have to call a cat a cat. Because Hitler and the Nazis have been judged at Nuremberg, you can begin the article about Hitler by everything you want. But terrorist of 9/11 haven't been judged because they choose the violence instead of trying to protest peacefully. And because they haven't been judged that essentially denies us to treat them as History objects, like we can do with Hitler. Even if you hate America, it doesn't stop the fact that 3000 people were killed here. And if this article would have been redacted by a French guy, it would have been the same. I am for peace and I love diversity, but the fact that I love diversity doesn't mean I have to accept what touches human dignity. The fact that sexual mutilations is a religious tradition in some parts of Africa doesn't mean I have to accept that generations of women have to suffer a barbarian treatment.

You keep saying Americans are trying to impose a point of view, but what are doing when you keep on saying : "stop imposing a POV on us". YOU are trying to impose the POV that what people did this very day may be considered decent and right in some countries, and that we should accept that fact as a part of ethnic diversity and try to undrstand them. But did the terrorist in these planes this fateful day tried to undrstand the scared people in the planes? Did they gave them a chance to understand and reached out for them.

Guantanamo is wrong because it lowers America to their level, but that doesn't mean we should accept that there are people out there willing to kill 3000 persons to express their POV and that that is their right. Have a little decency for human dignity, please.

Now for what concerns Wikipedia policy, I think this is an exception, because every reliable source (even Ben Laden himself) said at least once the word 'terrorist' to apply to these guys.

And not just American newspapers, but all over the world.

[User:Anne-Caroline Sieffert] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.56.132 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take into consideration Damburger's possible reasoning. The user states to having Aspergers Syndrome on his userpage. Some of the clinical features are:

  • Narrow interests or preoccupation with a subject to the exclusion of other activities
  • Repetitive behaviors or rituals
  • Extensive logical/technical patterns of thought
  • Socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior and interpersonal interaction
  • Problems with nonverbal communication

I'm not trying to say to allow him special treatment, but only understanding of what is behind his comments and edits. The people who have this syndrome can have very high intelligence, but seem to lack common sense. I'm not saying that Damburger lacks commonsense at all. But, please keep this in mind when dealing with him/her that there may be a medical problem associated with problematic social interactions. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. I have Asperger's Syndrome myself, and to use that as an excuse for behavior is an insult. All of my life I have explain to people that while I have this disorder, it is not a crutch. I may dissagree with Damburger, but it is highly innapropriate to bring a medical condition into this. Please think next time you post. --Tarage 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean it as an insult at all. Medical conditions are not insults. I understand though. I'm sorry. Everyone is different. - Jeeny Talk 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't try and psychoanalyse me in order to find out the 'motivation' behind what I am saying. Don't try and pretend I'm only saying these things because my brain doesn't work properly or something. Please, actually address my arguments (which noone has done so far). As far as I can see, my points are bulletproof and the only reason why I can't now simply change the article is that I'll be out-edited by the mob. Damburger 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, the only one who seems to find your arguments to be 'bulletproof' are you and you alone. Everyone else has tried to show you that to edit out "terrorist" would be very idiotic. I'm sorry you can't see that, but you aren't going to get your way here. So lets move on?--Tarage 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, only me, WP:NPOV and WP:WTA think it shouldn't be there. I'm such a nut, citing wikipedia policy aren't I? You have failed to make a single counterpoint, apart from assinine references to people who describe the attacks as terrorist (which, as I tried to dumb down for you, don't matter because its a question of the internal rules of wikipedia). The fact is nobody has presented me with any serious challenge to refute. Thus I'm just going to go ahead and edit the article. Damburger 12:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Per Talk"

People are readding the POV word terrorist (disallowed by wikipedia, as I've outlined above) with the description "per talk" or "see talk" - despite the fact these editors have not contributed to the talk page at all! I have repeatedly described how and why, according to wikipedia, IT DOES NOT MATTER how many people say a group/event is terrorist: its against wikipedia policy to use the word in the narrative voice at all. The only responses have been citations of people who describe these attacks as terrorist - completely ignoring the very valid point I've made. Yet editors still continue to be so confident they've 'won' this debate that they keep readding the word as if the dispute has been resolved in their favour. Is there nobody editing this article that is even slightly reasonable, or even willing to read and understand a counterargument? Damburger 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, "per archives" is a bit vague. I would like to invite anyone who feels that consensus on anything has been reached in some archive, to pinpoint it. There are just too many archives not to. Agree? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST clearly points out why this is an inherently POV word. The UN may consider it terrorism, many others don't. You may add a line to the article stating "XXX says they were terrorist attacks", but not "they were terrorist attacks". This is a controversial and disputed matter, so you shouldn't state it as a fact. Melsaran 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem with "newspaper so-and-so says they were terrorist attacks" is that it looks like it's a fringe opinion of a few dissenting sources. Listing all the sources that routinely describe it as terrorism isn't particularly practical either... When sources routinely say it's a spade, and it has the added benefit of very well fitting the definition spade, let's call it a spade. WP:RS. Weregerbil 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
And, once more, you have completely ignored the point. It does not matter one bit what the balance of opinion is; the policy is clear. We don't use that word in the narrative voice, because it is a pejorative. You seem to think there are exceptions to this rule, but there are not any (feel free to try and find some). You haven't a leg to stand on so you are presenting the opposing argument as something it isn't. Thats called a Straw Man, and is intellectually dishonest of you. Damburger 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If you wonder why you don't get much response to your comments, it may be because you keep attacking and biting everyone who disagrees with you. Please see WP:NPA. Weregerbil 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Calling you on your evasions and straw man attacks is not a personal attack. I'm commenting on your pathetic excuse for an argument, not you yourself. Now, can you actually address the subject and find a part of wikipedia policy which contradicts what I am saying? Or are you going to keep changing the subject? Damburger 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text from WP:TERRORIST: In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. I think that's pretty clear. It also makes sense. Rklawton 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it says that you should say it in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". So in this case, you may say "the United Nations consider them terrorist attacks", but not "they were terrorist attacks", like I pointed out above. Melsaran 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they were terrorist attacks. I define terrorism as: killing person A to scare person B. I disagree with the wikipedia policy to not use this word in the narrative, but I abide by it. I think 911 was perpetrated by either islamic extremists, homeland terrorists, or both. However, I more believe in sticking to consensus, so I agree with Damburger, Rklawton, Melsaran: do not use the word terrorist in the narrative. Disclaimer: I may accidently violate this rule of style myself. Feel free to correct me whenever I do so. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Use of the word 'terrorism'

Should the word 'terrorism' be used in the narrative voice in this article? Is it disallowed by WP:TERRORIST?

Previous Comments
  • The use of the word 'terrorist' in the lead in section is unacceptable, according to wikipedias own policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter

Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.

The word is used in the narrative voice, and the citation doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Damburger 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, the point it's making is that the "X says Y" is "Every single reliable source we can find say they're terrorist attacks". Hence, we say "these are terrorist attacks". The FAQ provides you with a quick run-down on why the article is the way it is; since people, yourself included, don't appear to want to read the archives where this has been extensively discussed. --Haemo 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:TERRORIST clearly points out why this is an inherently POV word. The UN may consider it terrorism, many others don't. You may add a line to the article stating "XXX says they were terrorist attacks", but not "they were terrorist attacks". This is a controversial and disputed matter, so you shouldn't state it as a fact. Melsaran 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A problem with "newspaper so-and-so says they were terrorist attacks" is that it looks like it's a fringe opinion of a few dissenting sources. Listing all the sources that routinely describe it as terrorism isn't particularly practical either... When sources routinely say it's a spade, and it has the added benefit of very well fitting the definition spade, let's call it a spade. WP:RS. Weregerbil 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A spade is a spade... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 constitutes terrorism. The term has been used by Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and major news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, India, South Korea, and the list could go on. Even Al Jazeera refers to the "September 11 terrorist attacks", likewise the United Nations, and the vast majority of countries around the world do. --Aude (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, because the vast majority of editors agree that the word terrorist, if anywhere, belongs here. Stop trying to weasel it out. Enough is enough, give it up. If you don't like it, leave.--Tarage 08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Comments

I think complying with WP:TERRORIST wouldn't be all that hard. Indeed, it may well make the article more informative. Here's an example of the sort of changes we'd need to make:

From: "That morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."
To: "That morning nineteen Arab men affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."

By removing the blanket "terrorist" word, we can substitute in more descriptive and neutral words. Rklawton 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Id like to add that the debate isn't about how many sources say the attacks were terrorist attacks, or how authoritative those sources were - its about the validity of using sources to decide this at all. I think WP:TERRORIST plainly indicates it is not valid. Damburger 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:TERRORIST, as a guideline, is trumped by the policy WP:NPOV, which clearly indicates that "terrorist" is the word to use. No other word will fit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does WP:NPOV say "terrorist is the word to use"? It isn't exactly neutral, because the word "terrorist" is POV and can be avoided. Melsaran 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Terrorist" cannot rationally be avoided in the first sentence. Most of the rest of the occurrences are unnecessary, except where quoting sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing the word "terrorist" from the first sentence doesn't make it any less informative. You can still add a sentence like "many Western countries and organisations, including the United Nations, <etc etc etc> regard them as terrorist attacks" in the body of the article. Melsaran 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen any sources presented that call these anything other than terrorist attacks. I mean, we can probably safely presume that Al Qaeda doesn't call them terrorist attacks, but then again, the perpetrators of crimes rarely call their crimes "murders" or "terrorist attacks". It's abundantly clear that the term used is "terrorist attack"; I mean, look at the Oklahoma City bombing. Should we avoid calling that a terrorist attack? Should we avoid calling Charles Mansons killings "murders" because he viewed them as art?
Basically, the notion here is that we should stop using a given word because it has negative connotations, and it can be argued that such-and-such an attack is "not terrorism" by some logic. The manual of style enjoins us not to use this word loosely, because of the connotations attached to it; instead, stating that we should try to attribute it when used. However, we have to accept that, at some point, words have meanings, and those meanings can be applied to events. In this case, the attribution of "who calls these terrorist attacks" includes almost every single reliable source on the planet, including governments, newspapers, experts. The thunderous wall of unanimity about "are these terrorist attacks" is so deafening that even to simply attribute it would be stunningly pointless. It would be far better to attribute who didn't call them attacks; and I've never seen a source for that, even Al-Qaeda. It seems ridiculous to me to blindly apply a manual of style guideline when it is so obviously meant for other situations.
My suggestion would be to attribute who disagrees that they are terrorist attacks, and we'd need some reliable sources to attest to this. --Haemo 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be great to list the organizations that do not consider this to be a terrorist attack. Awesome idea Haemo. Rklawton 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
comply — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST is not a policy, it's a guideline. WP:NPOV is policy. If there were any WP:RS, even including al Qaeda, which did not refer to this as a terrorist attack, that might be different. (This argument only applies to the word terrorist in the first sentence. The "19 terrorist/Arab men" are both the predominant view, but opposing views may be required under WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, that WP:NPOV says that the word 'terrorist' is redundant; specifically WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. The word terrorist is pejorative, its meaning is disputed, and nations and organisation that have defined a meaning for the word tend to ignore their own actions or those actions they are in favour of. The article loses nothing without the word, but with the word loses objectivity. Haemo claims that words 'have meanings' but the fact is meaning is subjective, moreso for some words than others. The word 'terrorist' is so subjective as to nearly lack meaning altogether. You may as well go through the article and replace every occurrence of 'terrorist' with 'poo-poo head'. Damburger 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The meaning is not subjective — there are over 109 different definitions of terrorism and every single one by every single expert believes this qualifies. Let the facts speak for themselves is pointless when this is not the kind of call the average person could make, and where there are many different definitions. We, as an encyclopedia, take that step and tell our audience "here is what people who know what they're talking about say" — and they, uniformly, say "this was a terrorist attack". --Haemo 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we say 'here is what people who know what they are talking about say', we don't simply present their opinions in the narrative voice. Thankyou for making my point for me. You are essentially condescending to the reader by saying they are incapable of working out that folks who fly passenger jets into skyscrapers are The Bad Guys. Damburger 01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You should know by now that "terrorist" does not mean "Bad Guy"; this is not saying "these people were bad", it's saying they were terrorists. You can believe terrorism is good. You can support terrorism. You can even call it terrorism, and support it at the same time; and not in a "bad is good, baby!" kind of way. You seem to be ignoring the fact that attesting to "who calls this terrorism" would be an absurdity, running into the literally tens of thousands of sources — and would wildly violate our neutral point of view by giving credibility to an opinion about what to call these attacks which is vanishingly small and not supported by anyone who is a qualified expert on what constitutes "terrorism" or not. --Haemo 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No, terrorist does mean 'bad guy' because its definition is so disputed it can't mean much more. Your idea of 'experts' on terrorism are the ones who tend to selectively apply their own definitions.
But I don't really have to argue any of this, because wikipedia has already spoken for me. You keep bringing up WP:UNDUE under the mistaken impression is supports your paper thin rationalisations, it does not. Omitting a pejorative term is not giving weight to the not-terrorism theory, it isn't even pretend there a dispute. It is merely demonstrating a little objectivity and intellectual maturity. Damburger 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And per the example at the top of this section, replacing the word "terrorist" with more descriptive words, actually provides the reader with more information while doing nothing to promote crack-pot theories. Rklawton 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. A lot of editors have tried to lump those who want to remove 'terrorist' with those what to include more information about alternative theories. The issues are completely seperate though Damburger 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to using the words terrorist(s) here for the reasons I gave on other parts of this talk page. Mr.grantevans 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the opposition has no more arguments (which seems the case) I think its time to remove the word. The only reasons not to have been absolutely debunked (although that hasn't stopped proponents continuing to push them). Damburger 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No arguments other than the MoS guideline have been presented for removing terrorist from the lead. This is not at all adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The policy WP:NPOV clearly does not prevent the use of the word terrorist when no source, including those that believe it was government conspiracy or that it was justified, does not agree it was a terrorist act. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion has run its course. I am still thoroughly convinced of my arguments, as are some others, and I can't see a single valid point raised by the opposition. They are unlikely to admit that, of course. This hasn't been as productive as I had hoped, so I am going to try a different angle. Damburger 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft introductory paragraph

Friends, many of you strongly oppose my opinion that it is not certain that 911 was perpetrated as an outside attack. (In fact, I believe the most likely explanation is that it would be an inside job.) So be it. It's a free world, anyone can believe whatever he/she likes. I can and you can.
Nonetheless, there is a tremendous amount of facts that we DO all agree on. Why not move the current article to "the official account of the September 11, 2001 attacks" and have a neutrally worded article about the vast amount of undisputed material instead? The way this has been going for years, it's such a waste of our energy, folks!

Suggesting a new lead:

On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by means of hijacked airliners. Four airliners were hijacked; three buildings were hit, the fourth airliner was destroyed. The government and mainstream media widely accept the attacks as being carried out by 19 Arab hijackers. Alternatively, it is widely believed the attacks were an attack orchestrated from within the United States, with conspirators in high places of the government. Articles: ... and ...

And then the rest of the events which are not disputed, worded with a neutral narrative (not labeling 'terrorism'), and attributing viewpoints.

Rationale: I do not think we will easily reach consensus on this article. Clearly the editors which advocate the official story have a need for the article to be according to their view of the world, and are abhorred by wording it neutrally. Therefor, I think the best solution is to have a consensus article and a seperate article for the mainstream view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 14:39, 16 August 2007 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv, no consensus for change) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 14:36, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 14:23, 16 August 2007 Aude (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 14:21, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 14:18, 16 August 2007 PTR (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (Undid revision 151606506 by Xiutwel (talk) - Discuss on talk. The 911 commission is not the only source.) (undo)
  6. (cur) (last) 14:11, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,126 bytes) (wikipedia is not about proving you are right, it is about attributing knowledge Undid revision 151557362 by Weregerbil (talk)) (undo)
  • Reject because few if any neutral, reliable third parties believe that it was anything other than a terrorist attack, there's been no solid reliable evidence that it was anything other than a terrorist attack and very few people really believe it was anything other than a terrorist attack. The aggressive effort to push these CT's come from a political motivation rather then a scientific, good faith effort to find facts. Besides, the draft leaves out energy beams. RxS 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject - see also Wikipedia:Content forking Rklawton 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally I belive 911 was an inside job, but I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". I agree with Xiutwel that the future for this article is under a main-page. It has it's righfull place on wikipedia, but needs clearifying about beeing a Point-of-View-article. Geir 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject - Enough of this already... --Tarage 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • as a compromise I would be willing to abandon renaming this article provided that in the lead there is a sentence explaining this is a mainstream view, not an objective view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't HAVE to compromise a thing. The article is fine the way it is. It will not be changed no matter how much you complain about it. I for one am sick of arguing this over and over again. LET IT DIE ALREADY. --Tarage 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The page has been protected following a request at WP:RFPP. I hope that we can solve this issue on the talk page. Melsaran 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as an editor who hasn't looked at this page in a while, this article loses almost nothing from the fact that the word 'terrorism' doesn't appear in it (in the voice of the article itself). "...consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks" has just as much meaning as "...consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks". Using the word 'attackers' in place of 'terrorists' in other places in the article creates a version of the article that can be unprotected and edited once again, because I doubt there's much dispute that the 19 instigators of this incident can be described as 'attackers'. The purpose and results of the attack can be derived from description of the events themselves.
If use of the word is insisted upon, then it could come in its own section on this page, which for the record I believe is completely unnecessary. If that section ("Is this terrorism?") appears in the article, then according to WP:NPOV, there should be equal time given to voices that believe these attacks were not terrorist attacks. In other words, if you open the box that debates whether this was "terrorism" or not as a debate, both sides must be given equal footing, and a lack of sources that say it isn't is not an acceptable reason not to include both sides. I suggest that the better course is to remove the term. Skybunny 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove the term as it adds nothing to the article and is inherently POV, but it's fine to say "organisation XXX said that the attacks were terrorism" (attribution instead of stating it as a fact), without giving equal footing to the minority opinion that it was not terrorism, per WP:UNDUE. Melsaran 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps change terrorist to "widely regarded as terrorist[11][12][13][14](and add official government announcements by a few dozen countries). Not to make a WP:POINT, but NPOV would require that, if terrorist does not appear unadorned in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That would appear to be a good compromise. Melsaran 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
agree with Melsaran: do not use the T-word unattributed. comment if the attacks ever turn out to be an inside job for everyone to see, there will be less debate about whether it was terrorism or "fighting". But that's not the point, if we agree to abandon our policy on this page, which page will be next? I am very frustrated with a group of dominant editors pushing their POV without striving for consensus, ignoring the spirit and the guidelines of wikipedia in the process. I'm not saying that I do not make mistakes myself, but I wonder: do you believe in wikipedia as a community or just in yourself? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their correctness never does.
suggestion ...were attacks using hijacked planes. The attacks were widely denounced as terrorist atrocities by almost every country in the world.[refs] The point being, there is no secret about it being terrorism, it's just that we on wikipedia have decided not to use that label ourselves. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
To Skybunny: in situations such as this, WP:NPOV does not demand equal time to alternate/opposing views, but rather appropriate or perhaps proportionate time. Furthermore, a lack of sources is definitely a reason not to include a viewpoint. See WP:UNDUE. Jpers36 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I pointed out above :-) Melsaran 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"widely regard as" is not needed. Simply terrorist, accompanied by references will suffice. So, it would be terrorist[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and need to add some more sources. Or per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we could simply say terrorist with the single U.N. reference. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Aude, which would you prefer? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a fascinating case. On the one hand, we have an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources describing the attacks as terrorism. We have the event itself - the canonical terrorist attack, hopefully never to be surpassed. It became the catalyst for "The War On Terrorism" as the article says.

On the other hand, we have wikipedia guidelines. We have WP:TERRORIST, part of the Manual of Style, which says that, as quoted above, the word should not be used in the narrative voice. Why not? Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. The question is, then: is there anyone who isn't persuaded that these hijackers were terrorists? Are there people who think that they didn't intentionally kill themselves and thousands of others in order to further their ulterior motives?

We also have WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable pillar of wikipedia - the only one, I believe JW said - which says that something can't be stated as fact unless it is generally accepted as such. Things which are not generally accepted (in other words, opinions) can be converted into facts by attributing them to a reliable source. So I guess question two is, are there any non- fringe observers who seriously dispute that this attack is the textbook case of terrorism? In other words, would it give undue weight to tiny-minority views to define this event as anything other than a terrorist attack? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "something can't be stated as fact unless it is generally accepted as such. Things which are not generally accepted (in other words, opinions) can be converted into facts by attributing them to a reliable source." is a logically fallacy of the form "A implies B therefore B implies A". I can't remember the name but its false (like "Rain implies being wet, therefore being wet implies rain" you could just be swimming). In any case, WP:NPOV recommends against the use of the word terrorism, indirectly, in the section WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Damburger 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You say logical fallacy, I say statement of the neutrality guidelines. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Really, is "terrorism" POV here? How can it be? Merriam Webster says that terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion[63], and that's just what 9/11 was. That's what the Oklahoma City bombing was, that's what Virginia Tech shooting was, etc. If you believe the US Government was responsible for 9/11 (I don't) that's terrorism; if you believe hijackers of planes and Al Qaeda were responsible, it's still terrorism. Any way you slice it, the events of 9/11 were terrorism. The people who carry out terrorism? They are terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, the moron from VA Tech, etc. — all terrorists. Thus, terrorists committed this terrorism — even if you're in the minority that feels the US Government did this, and not people from the middle east. The events of 9/11 were terrorism events, carried out by terrorists — whoever you think the terrorists are. How can that be in dispute? Timneu22 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
What about dropping 2 atomic bombs on cities to try to coerce a surrender from Japan? What about putting people in Auschwitz? What about Abu Ghraib? By that definition many acts of war and all war crimes are acts of terrorism. Mr.grantevans2 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. Acts of war are different. Timneu22 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Terrorism is what happens when people are going about their daily lives and something bad happens like India recently. When bombs are dropped as a part of war, this is not going about daily lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.31.154 (talk) 16:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about it but I think someone said al-Queda declared war on the USA years before 9/11? In any event, I'm responding to the definition shown above and unless the definition explicitly states that acts of war do not qualify as terrorism, then perhaps that impression is just an urban myth.Mr.grantevans2 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Then are you stating that 9/11 wasn't terrorism? That VA Tech wasn't terrorism? Oklahoma City? These are all terrorist acts, right? Timneu22 10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying the article doesn't need the word and shouldn't include a controversial word which it doesn't need. Mr.grantevans2 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying there's no controversy. 9/11 (and the other events I mention) are terrorism. Period. Timneu22 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the use of the word add to the article? Mr.grantevans2 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It makes the article accurate. How can 9/11 events be described without saying they are terrorist events? This must be stated. Otherwise, it's like describing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without mentioning bread. I really feel like the elimination of "terrorist" in this article is just a ploy for people to push the idea conspiracy theories. And I've stated: even if it was the US government, it's still terrorism. Timneu22 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Timneu22, I can't read your mind and you can't read mine. I am not using any ploy nor do I subscribe to nor push any theories at all and your suggestion is ridiculous and inhibiting to open discussion. Regarding your actual point, I think including the word terrorist is like describing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and including the word "tasty". Mr.grantevans2 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) It's just ridiculous. I want to know what the point of this discussion is — no where else in the sane world is 9/11 discussed without "terrorism" being involved. So why, on wikipedia, are people trying to remove the term? If it's not to push a conspiracy theory agenda, then what is it? You're telling me that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists? It wasn't terrorism? If all the planes had crashed into military targets, it wouldn't be called terrorism. When people are going about their daily lives (like Atlanta Olympic bombing or London bus bombings) this is terrorism. MY GOSH, even the List of terrorist incidents says 9/11 was terrorism BECAUSE IT WAS! How is this in dispute!?!? We should "[avoid using "terrorist" unless] verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". Haven't enough sources been cited to say this is terrorism? Timneu22 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Britannica describes the event without using the "T" word within that description; so don't say it can't be done. The reason people on Wikipedia are trying to avoid it is because we are dedicated to NPOV and some of us feel the "T" word oozes POV in the public mindset. Mr.grantevans2 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Two articles and their intros:
* The July 7, 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts...
* The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on ...
9/11 was far more notable as a terrorist bombing than these events. Are you therefore going to rewrite EACH of these articles? Rewrite all articles on Wikipedia pertaining to terrorism? We can't just go around updating every article (I'm sure there are hundreds) to remove the word terrorism. At some level you must realize that using the word "terrorist" isn't POV. Was Oklahoma City's bombing a terrorist act? Yes. Well then tell me why 9/11 isn't. Timneu22 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Mr.grantevans2; we use terrorist because we want to remain NPOV. Britannica has no such concerns. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No-one is objecting to the use of the word 'terrorist' in the article. They are merely objecting to the use of it in the narrative voice. As far as I'm concerned I think nothing would be lost from the article if the narrative voice used attacks, attackers and other more descriptive words. This is in no way an indorsment of the beliefs of the conspiracy people. Its simply a matter of NPOV. And the word can be used dozens of times if you like - with references.Extrememedium 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  3. ^ Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology[5] and updates[6]
  4. ^ [7]Frum, David, "David Frum's Diary" on the National Review Online Web site, October 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. post "Blogging Woodward (4)", accessed same day

peer-review and reliable sources

...(continued from #back to the polls)

I think there is a paradox. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, there are two major suspects: Osama bin Laden and an alleged shadow government. Now, in order to establish which due weight to give to either the mainstream view or to conspiracy views:

  • government sources and associated media reports are deemed reliable sources (which is not the same as trustworthy sources)
  • popular opinion does not count
  • scientists, military, intelligence personel which are fired for speaking out about their mistrust of the government seize to be "reliable sources" from that moment on
  • any fact which is at odds with the official version, even if acknowledged as "true" is labeled "factoid" (in the second meaning, being: irrelevant bu true detail)

It appears to me that this is a snake biting its own tail. When following this process, it is absolutely impossible for wikipedia to write about crimes committed by the establishment neutrally unless they themselves admit it. Every other authority is denied. Every expert, major politician that speaks out is set in a corner a lone lunatic.

This cannot be the way forward? We must be able to find a better way to find some balance between what to include and what to leave out? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Addition: are reliable sources not supposed to be independent of the subject matter to be useful for wikipedia? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be more a discussion for Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks instead of September 11, 2001 attacks. --PTR 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It would apply there, also, but this discussion is about THIS article being NNPOV. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But your para above talks about suspects. I'm not sure what you want to change. I don't think an article saying most people think this but some people think that is going to be very readable. That's why the subarticles are linked. --PTR 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
For readability, and given the views of most wikipedians, I would suggest a lead paragraph stating that this is the mainstream view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This alledged shadow government isn't a major suspect, making this entire discussion pointless. RxS 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

not major - That's your opinion (and such is your right) but it is not mine. Since you believe they didn't do it, there is no need for you to question all the spin stories they put out, and you are confirmed in your belief. But your reasoning goes in circles. Independent sources would not make a strong case against the inside job theory. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
See, that comment makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. It's not up to you or I to decide what's "major" Something is "major" when experts working in their field and neutral third party sources say it is....this all should go without saying. You can consider something "major", I can consider something "major" but for Wikipedia's purposes our opinions don't matter. RxS 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, according to recent polls, something like 40% of the American public does not believe the "official" account of what happened on 9/11. On a related note, on the order to 60% of the American public does not believe in the theory of evolution. Both are based on pretty much the same level of evidence, and display about the same level of acceptance in credible experts and reliable sources. They also both, in the stead of the so-called "official" version have a literal zoo of different explanations, which have no support by qualified and credible experts. As the evolution article does, we devote a small section of the article to a discussion of these alternative theories, and link to an extensive sub-article where they are treated in depth. Wikipedia is not the court of popular opinion, it's not a democracy, and it's not a vote; it's a reference encyclopedia. If you read above, or here you can see an explanation for why the article is the way it is. Essentially, in compromising the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, by saying things like "according to the official account" or something similar, you give an absolutely staggering amount of undue weight to these theories, which have no support by credible experts. It's the equivalent of writing the lead of Hitler to say "Adolf Hitler was Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and Führer from 1934 to 1945. He led the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the Nazi Party. Some believe he escaped Germany and now lives in Argentina." It not only totally misrepresents the article which follows, in violation of our guidelines, but gives a far too much credence to a fringe theory about Hitler's death. --Haemo 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the self-eating snake metaphor - it has a corollary, too. Consider, for instance, a Paranoid Nut Job who shows up to Wikipedia one day to teach the world about some big secret. Paranoid Nut Job eventually finds himself blocked for disruption (or whatever). Paranoid Nut Job now has another bit of "evidence" of a vast conspiracy – one that now includes Wikipedia. Now, how are we to tell the difference between a self-eating snake and the work of a Paranoid Nut Job? That's why we pretty much stick to verifiable, reliable sources. Rklawton 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough

I'm sick of this. I'm sick of the endless debates that go nowhere, and those who attempt to try every concievable method to push the same flawed idealogoly. I'm sick of the constant revert wars. If you are sick of this, let your voice be heard here. I propose no more pointless debates. No more "but they aren't 'really' terrorists". No more "this article has POV problems." Maybe if enough of us stand up and say Enough, we can move beyond this pointless argument. Who is with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarage (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 August 2007

I totally agree with you here. All Muslim references should be removed until evidence is show. I don't care so much if people call Lary Silverstein or GW Bush terrorists for staging the attack but if wikipedia has rules about it then I'm all for sticking to them. More rules is better here. If there is a chance to improve the rules then so be it.(Gaby de wilde 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. I proposed a 1RR limit for people posting obviously controversial theories on articles like this many moons ago, this is absolutely pointless. --Golbez 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had a brief read through this Talk page and it certainly seems that the normal wikipedia editing process is being disrupted - to an extent. However, I'm not sure what the best route to take from here is. If specific questions (e.g. use of "terrorist") are the issue, then an RfC is appropriate. If you feel that a particular editor is a problem, then I would suggest discussing it on their Talk page, and if that proves unproductive, requesting a third opinion or even a user RfC. The wikipedia dispute resolution process should be able to deal with this, one way or another. Be patient and keep the faith. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
An RfC has, in fact, been filed. See here. Melsaran 11:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want to stifle debate and essentially freeze this article for all time? I can't think of any reason other than that you feel the article as it stands is to your liking and that editors with contrary views are a threat to this and must be silenced. This is not a wonderful attitude to have on wikipedia, is it? Damburger 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall. I'm tired of shouting at the top of my lungs to someone who doesn't get it, and never will get it. I'm tired of wasting my time on a debate that has been going on for years, and yet people like you STILL come out and with this idiocy. Yes, I called it idiocy. No, I will not take that back. Your ignorance has shown like a star in this entire debate. And I just don't care anymore. I refuse to let you have your way. --Tarage 08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You've the nerve to complain about my civility whilst calling me an idiot? I'm not a brick wall. I hear your arguments, and I tear them apart. Then you continue to make the same argument as if nothing has happened, and won't move on or try to make a new argument. To me that shows your ignorance, not mine. Damburger 09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, Tarage has already warned me about editing this page and he did so without addressing my point. Thats just rediculous? So he is A terrorist attacking wikipedia, look out everyone!(Gaby de wilde 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
You say 'tear appart', I say 'plug your ears and go lalalalala. Again, I don't care about your argument anymore. It's wrong, and I'll fight till I'm banned against it. Because to fight a fool, sometimes you must act like a fool. --Tarage 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no proof Osama was involved, so you should take the fascist hate speech about Muslims some place else, don't assume it's time to start making weird accusations at my address when I mention this.(Gaby de wilde 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
You just accused me of "plugging my ears and going lalalalala" in the exact same sentence as you say "I don't care about your argument anymore". I'm not sure you realise how ridiculous that is. Damburger 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"To fight a fool, sometimes you must act like a fool." --Tarage 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
But the other person might be acting like a fool in order to fight with you.
Leave aside for now questions of why you think you need to be fighting on a Talk page, and of who started it (honestly, I can't believe I'm having to say this). The only thing that is certain, if you follow such a philosophy, is that you look like a fool. It doesn't help you or your cause.
What might help is proposing an improvement to the article and pointing out how, in your view, your proposal meshes with wikipedia's principles. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

4 col reflist?

I know this is a pretty minor thing to bring up, but we've got 177 refs here. What do people think of a four col reflist? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall trying it in a preview before, and it looked terrible; but, since there there's been a drive to clean up the references into standard formatting so maybe it would look good now. --Haemo 06:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 177 refs is typical for an article like this. Evolution has 167, New York City has 161, and even I-35W Mississippi River bridge already has 102 refs. But only two columns. Three columns of refs used here is unusual, and I think four would definitely make them too squished together and difficult to read for people using smaller screens. --Aude (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the term "terrorist"

As I said above, I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". Indeed it was an act of terror.
However it is important to understand that in this context the term "terrorist" is designed. Designed to function like: "Which" in Europe between 1450 and 1700; like "Jude" in Germany 1930-1945; and "Communist" in USA and Western Europe 1945-1980.
Like the other examples, the term is designed to create these effects:

  • To have someone to blame for all evil in the world.
  • To deny those who are termed so basic human rights.
  • To put the attention of the individuals and groups that holds these beliefs (and NOT are terrorists), outwards. So they don't have to face their own feelings and thoughts (which actually creates all these horrors).
  • To silence any questioning or other belifes (then you're suspected of beeing a terrorist, and who wants that?)

As it is now, the article is advocating the above statments.

And to #Enough: If the majority at school are beating and harassing you. And there comes a point where you speak up. Or somebody is speaking up for you. What is it enough of? Harassing/beating or speaking up? Geir 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's a terrorist act even if it was not committed by the Al Qaeda operatives. I believe, even Al Qaeda spokesmen referred to it with an Arabic word frequently translated as terrorist. Is there anyone who does not call it terrorist? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So, now we are beating and harassing conspiricy theorists? Come off it. You aren't getting your way, so you try a different means of attack. That doesn't work, so you try another. If anything, you are the bully here. You refuse to stop the harassment on this article, so you continue to attack it from different angles. Enough. --Tarage 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What are the results for your muslim neighbour in everyday-life after this 911-story became widely acepted? Does she/he feel the beating? Geir 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow... now you are grasping at straws. You are saying that by labeling the hijackers 'terrorists', I am labeling every muslim a terrorist? Nice try, but no. Apples and oranges. Calling someone evil does not mean anything but that person is evil. Stop twisting things. --Tarage 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No, this was not specificly about the label terrorist. It was about the every-day impact of the hole 911-story, the increased hostility and suspiciousness against muslims all over the world. Geir 10:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait... this isn't about the label? Tell that to Damburger. And even then... are you sugesting we censor the truth so that a few people won't be harassed? Surely you jest. --Tarage 11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If this is how you understand what I'm saying, so be it. Please keep an respectful tone on wikipedia. Geir 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In western countries we see those attackers as "terrorists" because they attacked the US, but in certain middle eastern countries, the foreign policy of the US is seen as very invasive and as a danger. See also the section Statements by others in this article which is giving reasons why a palestinian or a person with arabic background may think of the 911 attackers as "freedom figthers".

The problem of calling someone a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is always determined by the point of view of the narrator. For example when the US financed the Taliban in the 1980s in order to combat russia, no one in the western countries referred to them as terrorists but rather as freedom fighters against communism. But for Russia they were seen as Terrorists. So for me the T-Word is never NPOV ! It is hard for someone who's country has been attacked to have NPOV but that is exactly why there are guidelines! Of course it is necessary to mention that most of the western countries see 911 as a terrorist attack.

It's not just Western countries; Arab media and government like Al-Jazeera label 9/11 a terrorist attack. In fact, you can believe it was a terrorist attack and still be supportive of it. Terrorism is a para-military tactic; it's not some kind of relativist pejorative — see Definition of terrorism. Simply listing "who calls this a terrorist attack" is an absurdity; instead, the question is "who doesn't". We're still looking for reliable sources which attest to these nebulous people who believe otherwise. --Haemo 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As I have been banging my head against the screen trying to explain, this is a question of wikipedia policy and sources do not matter. If the whole world calls George W Bush a wanker (and, lets face it, its only a matter of time now) we still do not use that word in the narrative voice in his bio. Damburger 01:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is that uniformity of "who says this is terrorism" is apparently everyone. No one has been able to bring up a reliable source that indicates substantial views, especially amount academics who actually know how to apply the definition of terrorism that this anything but a terrorist attack. The view that the manual of style trumps the neutral point of view is absurd, since the reading of WP:TERRORIST this argument is based on is so narrow as to totally ignore the point of guidelines in the first place. --Haemo 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again you misrepresent my arguments in order to make them easier to rebutt. As I pointed out above, WP:TERRORIST agrees with WP:NPOV because of the concept of 'letting the facts speak for themselves'. My reading of the guidelines, and of the rules, is not narrow simply because its not the same as yours. My reading adheres to both the letter and the spirit of the rules.
And it isn't that nobody has been able to bring up a reliable source that says the are terrorist attacks; its that nobody can be bothered since, as I have stated so many times, sources are irrelevant to this argument. Damburger 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't care what you think anymore. We have been down this road many times, and you refuse to accept that they ARE terrorists. I don't CARE anymore. Do you understand? You won't win this. As long as I have editing powers, I will undo ALL edits that take out 'terrorist'. There, it's done. Call me a troll, call me an asshole. I don't CARE. I refuse to let you have your way on this. --Tarage 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
So basically, you are now promising to vandalise wikipedia out of sheer spite if this doesn't go your way? Damburger 09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I'll be just like you. --Tarage 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
They really, really aren't. The point of the manual of style guidelines you are quoting is to encourage attribution of statements which can be considered pejorative and negative. The point everyone else has been trying to make to you is that any such attribution in this case is pointless, since the list of "who calls these terrorist attacks" would run into the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of references; including everyone qualified to weigh in on applying the definition of terrorism to this attack. Changing the lead to call this otherwise give undue weight to a view which is so in the minority that no one can find sources for it, so far — let alone sources from anyone actually qualified to weigh in on the topic. --Haemo 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you get that the point of WP:TERRORIST is to encourage attribution? To me it seems to be fairly clear in what its says: avoid the use of the word terrorism. Despite your constant invoking of WP:NPOV that also suggests we shouldn't use the word terrorism. I can find sources for people saying these aren't terrorism, but I am not posting them because I am well aware of what you are trying to do. You are trying to make this about the sources and it is not, it is about wikipedia policy. I won't let you take this off on a tangent and distract from the point.
The fact that my interpretation of both rules and guidelines is widely accepted as correct can be seen in any wikipedia article relating to a terrorist group, where that terrorist group doesn't target Americans. Contras and Lords_Resistance_Army are examples of this. Words such as 'armed opponents' and 'guerillas' are used for stateless groups that have committed horific atrocities against civilians. The only reason that such objectivity isn't found here is because of cultural bias. Damburger 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If other articles lack the term terrorism, then I suggest you go and edit in them and add that term, so long as there are reliable third party sources to support the claim. That there are a plentitude of third party statements by numerous international entities, news media and respected authors who do refer to the attacks of 9/11 as acts of terrorism, and that these are mainstream views, makes it more than accurate that we document this event as an act of terrorism...lets not continue marginalizing what happen on this date.--MONGO 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
IT DOES NOT MATTER how many sources you cite, because terrorism is not a word thats allowed in wikipedia. You could try editing other articles to add the word terrorism in, but you would be shot down very quickly. That would be the case here as well if the victims were, say, French. Damburger 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop yelling, you're looking at things in much too much of an absolustionist viewpoint. The page you keep referring to is a guideline: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." RxS 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention it doesn't say "don't use the word terrorism" at all; the guidelines exists to encourage attribution of who is labeled a terrorist. This should be pretty clear, especially since it references Category:Terrorists which by the Wikilawyering reading of the guidelines it shouldn't exist. --Haemo 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What is accomplished by using the word? At the least it is inflammatory and can appear to portray bias. This article should be written with the same lack of inflammatory language as the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan article [64] if this encyclopedia is to appear to be unbiased. I'm sure the "terror" felt by Afghans when our 500 pound cluster bombs started falling was similar if not worse than the terror felt by Americans on 9/11; but my primary point is; Why use such language in an encyclopedia? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? Not in my opinion. Mr.grantevans 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What is accomplished? It labels an entity for what it is. Charles Manson has have felt his killings were "art", but that doesn't stop us from calling them murder. Creationists may feel that evolution is a religion, but that doesn't stop us from calling it a fact. Wikipedia does not, and should not, subscribe to semantic relativism, where we disallow any words which can be misapplied as a pejorative — for all the sound and fury, in the end there is still a definition of terrorism which exists, and can be applied by experts on the subject to entities. And guess what? They unanimously call this terrorism. --Haemo 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Terrorism is such a loosely defined term that it shoulnd't be used here. Although, if anyone does have a good definition of terrorism that we could use on Wikipedia, then please provide it here. If no one does, the term should be removed from the article. Merat 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I question Haemo's competence to edit this page

Haemo has no background in physics or engineering and as such is not qualified to consider the evidence which proves beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolitions which hence invalidates the grossly false suppositions of this page.Bofors7715 04:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good I don't need any, because we're writing an encyclopedia here, and not evaluating evidence ourselves. --Haemo 04:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you claiming that is acceptable for an encyclopedia to include treasonous falsehoods?Bofors7715 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No? --Haemo 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No??? Then why are you are engaging in unacceptable behavior.Bofors7715 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of information is verifiability, not truth. It is at best unproductive to argue here about what is true and what is false. Instead, provide links to reliable sources supporting something you'd like to add to the article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center Section is False

It has been proven beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destoryed by controlled demolitions. This section ignores that evidence and instead regurgitates US goverment propaganda from NIST.Bofors7715 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not validated by reliable sources. More importantly, this is not the page you want to discuss this on; refer any discussion to controlled demolition hypothesis. --Haemo 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are not qualified to determine what is a reliable source in engineering.Bofors7715 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not alone, but we as a community are; in fact, we even have guidelines for what is a reliable source. As you can see, determining what is or is not a reliable source takes no special expertise. --Haemo 04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but your guidelines either do not apply in this case or are being misapplied. For example the NIST report on the collapse of the twin towers is not a reliable source. It is a highly doctored piece of spin. Please see this: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

Again, reliable sourcing applies everywhere. However, this is not the place to discuss this; see controlled demolition hypothesis instead. --Haemo 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Since Bofors7715 raised the question, our verifiability guidelines really do apply here, as they do everywhere.
“ Any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. ”
That's a very interesting link but it does not meet our guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. So we could not use it to justify saying that the ideas mentioned in that video clip are "proven beyond any doubt". Hope this helps! Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
this is not the issue, it is not our job to use such references as "proof beyond any doubt", our duty is to recognize the fact that the official fairytale stands to no scrutiny, we can use zillions of links which show that the official fallacy is questioned by the whole wide world, and while doing that, we are actually and factually following our own guidelines. Until we manage to move this article into NPOV the appropriate POV tag should be placed, the factual accuracy is also questioned, and we should provide appropriate warnings at the entrance point, say it as it is, until we fix it, and we'll fix it this year, because, as someone wrote above… enough is enough. 89.172.46.93 13:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

“It has been proven beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destoryed by controlled demolitions” - Wrong, it’s been speculated but never proven. If it is proven in the future the article will be changed, however it hasn’t so the article still stands in its current form. ~ NossB 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem. Speculated but never proven. What has been proven beyond any doubt is that the Nist conclusions contradicted their own test results (their ASTM E119 tests proved the fires could not have melted or weakened the steel sufficiently, their simulations showed less damage than they reported in conclusions etc etc), most of their tests did not meet industry standards and many claims they made had no support. What many if not most reputable structural engineers claim is not that it was a controlled demolition but that there should be an investigation to determine the cause of the collapse, something that has NEVER been done despite the controversy over whether it was a CD or not. Until that investigation is done the article can make no claim as to the cause one way or the other. Wayne 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WTC 7

{{editprotected}}

Please, kindly change the following sentence in the attacks section…

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell.

Into this one>

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., the 47 stories building was not hit by plane, it collapsed without resistance in less than 7 seconds, after six years the official explanation of its collapse is still pending.

Reference: NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation

Feel free to improve the wording, many thanks. 89.172.46.93 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. --Golbez 10:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The source supports the current wording and it is less vague than the proposal which implies that there may be a cause unrelated to the collapse of buildings 1 & 2 whcih is not supported. . --Tbeatty 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the source doesn’t support the current wording. The source is all about working hypothesis and ongoing investigation. We had a discussion above, there were no takers, feel free to add your comment there, again, working hypothesis in an ongoing investigation is not acceptable and cannot be presented as proof. There is no official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 and we cannot invent one, it's against our guidelines it is disturbingly POV, to say the least. 89.172.46.93 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see that you're a new user, so you may not be aware of this but we've gone over this topic many times. Reliable sources, experts working in their field in and out of official positions and neutral third party sources all around the world indicate that WTC7 collapsed from damage resulting from the attacks. None of these sources display any doubt about this...don't mistake due diligence for doubt on their part, thanks. There are other articles that discribe conspiracy theories, perhaps you could examaine those for possible improvements... RxS 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, but you'll need to provide reference for your claim, a single official source will suffice… I'm not interested in conspiracy theories… there is no official explanation for collapse of WTC 7. None. That sentence is false, especially so with regards to provided reference, so what is that? It is nonsense, isn’t it? You provide a reference and then you misrepresent its meaning? Why?! 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.38.72 (talk)
Please see this exact same discussion in the last archive section. --Haemo 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To User:89.172.46.93, perhaps your edit should be revised to "although not impacted by an airplane, WTC fell after sustaining heavy damage from thousands of tons of structural steel beams dropped directly on the building from hundreds of feet above from the collapse of the north WTC tower along with several hours of fire damage fueled by thousands of gallons of heating oil stored in the basement. Emergency workers at the scene reported significant damage to the SW corner and predicated as early as 4:00pm that the building would collapse." 206.169.172.212 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

@ user 206.169.172.212; perhaps so, if you can find the reference… elsewhere, it's already done anyway… this article in its current form, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report will become historically insignificant… best wishes… 78.0.94.68 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Two goals for this article

Ok, how much energy has been used here basically saying: "You're wrong, we're right"? It doesn't lead us anywhere, does it?
I want to focus on two goals for this article/subject:

A disambigued/main page

I want a disambigued/main-page that says: "The mainstrea/majority-view of this event can be found here.." and "Another view(s) can be found here.." This article/discussion has proved beyond doubt that it is very hard to include any other points of view into the existing article. Thus, it can't function as a first-page for the subject.

That is very much not going to happen. That would be completely equal weight. --Golbez 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an "alternative view article"...and those claims , as stupid as they are, are examined at 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO 21:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK. In a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A neutral language.

I want a more neutral/objective language in this article. From "This-is-The-One-and-Only-Truth" to "Acording to the mainstream version it is so and so..". This is the wikipedian way of dealing with issues where there are conflicting/different views. Geir 11:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So would we insert that line before every sentence, or just once a paragraph or so? --Golbez 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, not for every sentence. But especially in the beginning and yes, maybe once a paragraph. Geir 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the official version so it is difficult to make it nuetral. I would suggest however inserting somewhere that 71% of Americans (latest poll) do not support the official version of events as the page currently gives the impression it is a majority viewpoint of the public rather than only a majority viewpoint of investigators. Wayne 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not the "official version" -- this is the version which is supported by reliable sources and experts on the subject. And Golbez was joking above — your suggestion makes an utter mockery of undue weight guidelines. Again, and 60% of Americans don't believe evolution occurs. Should we stick that in the lead of the article? Or perhaps just every paragraph or so? --Haemo 06:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
<3 --Golbez 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As far as I can see, two main themes keep recurring on this talk page:

1. Use of pejorative language such as 'terrorist', even with referencing, in the narrative voice

2. Presentation of the official account of events that day in the narrative voice

The debates keep going nowhere, and I believe it is mostly because of a group of entrenched editors who refuse to listen to arguments that run contrary to their own views - and have even stated so themselves: "I don't care about your argument anymore. It's wrong, and I'll fight till I'm banned against it." [65]

These editors dismiss anyone opposed to their vision for this article as "Fringe" without really having anything to back it up: "All other explanations are fringe theories with very little support." [66]. They have also suggested that those disagreeing with them be restricted in their capacity to edit the article. [67]

Does anyone have any suggestion for mediating this disagreement? This article can't develop if anyone opposed to its current slant is shouted down by people who have said they refuse to listen to counterargument and have dismissed all other opinions as 'fringe'? How is the rest of the community supposed to work with them? Damburger 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the other explanations are fringe theories, although truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What's important is that the other explanations are perceived as fringe theories, even by those who hold them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not:

A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves.[68]

36% of the population is not fringe. That is a higher percentage than the number of people who voted for Tony Blair in the last UK General election[69], yet support for Blair is not considered a 'Fringe' opinion.
I am not the first to debunk the ridiculous 'fringe' assertion, but it keeps returning as if it were not debunked. This is one of the many things making debate and modification here next to impossible. Damburger 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For every poll you pull that says that, I can pull a poll that says that the majority of people believe that Terrorists were solely responcible for 9/11. Polls are highly unreliable because a simple change in wording to the question can make the outcome biased to one side or the other. The fact remains that dispite arguing till you are blue in the face, editors like Haemo and MONGO have easly disected your points. Yore refusal to accapt that terrorist is not only allowed here, but correct, proves that you are an entrenched editor. How is Wikipedia supposed to deal with you? --Tarage 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has 'disected' my points. Nobody has really addressed them. If you think you can prove there is something wrong with the poll I just pointed, please provide evidence of this assertion. I always cite my evidence, you never do. Damburger 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And a majority of the American population does not believe in evolution. That doesn't make creationism anything other than a fringe theory, whose assertions should not be used to compromise the veracity of the article. The point is, you keep bringing up a narrow reading of a manual of style directive, and then start claiming it trumps neutral point of view; specific, undue weight. Other editors have repeatedly explained to you not only why your interpretation of the manual of style is incorrect, and absurdly narrow, but also why the current version is accepted. You don't seem interested in listening to anyone else, or reading the numerous archived discussions where this has been discussed before — instead, you claim everyone else isn't listening to you, and repeat the same arguments over and over again, all of which verge on Wikilaywering. This doesn't bode well for any dispute resolution. --Haemo 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I DID NOT claim that WP:MOS trumps WP:NPOV - I patiently explained to you that WP:NPOV is consisted with WP:MOS. Your WP:UNDUE weight intepretation has no basis in fact, and you've not done anything to back it up. You CONSTANTLY misrepresent my argument in order to attack it. Stop it. Damburger 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
allowed the attacks to be carried out is already consistent with the article. The problem is the dishonest attempt, without new evidence, to turn possibility of negligence into certainty of treason. Peter Grey 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If a significant number of people doubt the official account, why should that not be mentioned? Damburger 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Damburger has a good point. It's not constructive to have a bag of labels to throw out which have the effect of stifling the continuation of discussion. The terms "fringe" or "conspiracy" and even "theory" are used all too often and often without regard for their real meanings. They act as strawman arguments and I think the related body of work suffers as a result. It's not an intentional thing (to close down discussion by use of these terms) but has become almost epidemic throughout pseudo-intellectual circles as well as here on Wikipedia. To address Damburger's question about how to mediate this discussion, I propose that we all remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith and in addition try to refrain from using dismissive labels when discussing suggested content. Mr.grantevans2 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We have guidelines which clearly contextualize the use of such a term as "fringe". These very useful duck guidelines also apply. --Haemo 03:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. Show me EXACTLY where in WP:FRINGE it says that 36% of the population can be ignored. Its not 3.6% of 0.36%, its 36%. Your undue weight argument holds no water.
But as I said above, that won't stop you completely ignoring the fact I've torn it apart, and continue repeating it verbatim. Thats the problem here, for which I think I need outside help. Damburger 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you totally missed the point there. Creationism is a fringe theory, and it has 60% support in the public. You don't see 60% of the evolution argument devoted to it, in the interests of "due weight". Wikipedia is not the court of popular opinion. --Haemo 09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats a poor analogy. Evolution is a scientific theory. The idea that the US government did or did not have foreknowledge of the attacks, or did or did not plan them, isn't. Its intellectually dishonest (as usual) of you to bring that up again. Damburger 09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The analogy, in my mind, is that evolution is about a fact'; the method through which it is carried out is a scientific theory. When we talk about facts, we don't subscribe to the kind of pollsterism which totally ignores reliable sources, due weight and qualified experts. The fact that a whole bunch of people believe something doesn't make their views anything other than bunkum. Did we mention that that more that 26% of young Americans believe that the moon landings were probably a hoax? Is that a close enough analogy for you? How about that 60% of African Americans believe that drugs are a government plot? How about the 30% of Americans who think AIDS was cooked up in a government lab? How about the 27% of Americans who think a cure for cancer exists, but is being suppressed? How about the 6% of Americans — millions of people — who don't believe in the moon landings? --Haemo 09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, because you can debunk moon landing conspiracies. Science can comment on the origins of HIV. Science can't comment on the motivation of people who fly planes into buildings, or who ordered them to do it. This is a dispute about whether or not a group of people are guilty of something or not. It can't be compared to a scientific theory. Yes, people can qualify as experts regarding the physical reality of how the towers came down. But where are the experts on the inner workings of the Bush administration? You are intentionally trying to blur the line between scientific observation and world events, in order to preserve the POV of this article.
In any case, what have you to say about the use of the word 'terrorism'? I see that you have completely ignored it, under the amusing delusion you've a stronger case on the conspiracy theory angle. Damburger 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've said it all before, but you choose not to listen. So here it is, very clearly:
  • Terrorism is a technical term for a form of asymmetrical warfare. There are many different definitions of terrorism, and numerous experts on the subject who discuss it.
  • Terrorism, because of what it entails, is also misapplied by some people as a pejorative.
  • Because of this pejorative use, it is important to ensure that it is not used lightly, and to substantiate who says it — the guideline here is WP:TERRORIST.
  • However, with respect to this event, apparently every single qualified expert, on every one of the 109 definitions, calls this terrorism. Literally tens of thousands of reliable sources call this terrorism.
  • In light of this fact, it is readily apparent that the people who dispute that this was terrorism constitute a very, very minor opinion — especially when we look at people who are qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject.
  • Thus, compromising this article, especially the lead, and in light of the fact that we have a separate subpage specifically about responsibility , consitutes a massive violation of neutral point of view — specifically undue weight.
However, this isn't anything you haven't heard before. --Haemo 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listened, digested, and torn apart everything you have said. You have ignored this and continued repeating your arguments as if they still stand.
The idea that there are '109' definitions of terrorism is for a start very, very silly. Who decides whats a valid definition of terrorism?
But the main part, the part you skip over in order to make this pathetic argument look half reasonable, is that all definitions of terrorism are applied selectively by their definers: Part of the US definition goes "(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" which could quite logically be applied to the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki.
Furthermore, wikipedia doesn't seem to think the Guildford pub bombings was a 'terrorist' act, so apparantly the rules in WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV do apply when its not Americans getting killed. Damburger 10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to edit the Guildford pub bombings. If there are reliable sources that state it's a terrorist attack then discuss it on that article. There are other articles that use the word terrorist in WP since reliable sources call the events in the article terrorist attacks.
The poll you mention of the 36% is discussing responsibility - not the events of the day which is what this article focuses on. Here is the question (the second linked question) asked in that survey and the survey answers [70].
The most important issue here is it's not what we think, not what we believe and not what we want in the article. We are here to write an article based on reliable sources. --PTR 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats exactly what I said the 36% was discussing. I'm not subscribing to any particular alternative theory (probably a better name, seeing as all theories about the culprits of the attacks are conspiracy theories by definition) just pointing out that they are out there, and are not as 'fringe' as the entrenched editors here would have you believe.
But the question does not ask if the respondents believed that terrorists flew planes into the Trade Centers. It asks if they believed the U.S. Government was somehow involved ("assisted in or took no action"). Since it's a combination question and since a lot of people believe the government should have been more aware and done more to stop the attacks there is no way of knowing if the respondents support conspiracy theories. --PTR 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As for the Guildford pub bombings, I mentioned those to demonstrate how wikipedia policy is being put into practice elsewhere, as a guide to how it should be put into practice here. Whats wrong with that? Damburger 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned, other articles do use the terms terrorism and terrorist since the subject of those articles is widely regarded by the reliable sources as terrorism. It is dependent upon the sources. --PTR 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it looks to me as if Haemo is using strawman arguments,perhaps unintentionally. I still say the discussion should concentrate on how to produce the best NPOV article rather than trying to justify sticking with a non-NPOV article. The 1st. paragraph as it now stands could just as well have been written by Karl Rove. Mr.grantevans2 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

About Haemo's argument about the use of the term "terrosism": he is completely ignoring the fact that WP:TERRORIST explicitly says that the use of this word "should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article": you can eventually write "X say Y is a terrorist" and cite the source. So it makes no sense to discuss about the many meanings of the word given the fact that we have a so clear rule to apply.--Pokipsy76 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But you left out the rest of the story on that link...it clearly states, "In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article."...and indeed there are exhaustive sources that definitely are reliable and authoritative that claim that the acts of 9/11 were acts of terrorism.--MONGO 16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but they are not referenced in the "X says Y" format specified. This is the problem - the use of the narrative voice. I have no problem with "Most world governments say 9/11 was terrorism", I have a problem with "9/11 was terrorism" on its own. Damburger 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand you are trying to go by the letter of WP:TERRORIST but "should be avoided" does not mean "must be avoided". The word terrorist in the lead sentence has a reference immediately behind it linking to the UN declaration that it was terrorism. That should satisify the "X says Y" since the reference is set right behind the word. That prevents having a lead sentence that says, "most world goverments, people, newspapers, telecasts, magazines, the UN etc say 9/11 was a terrorist attack" with 65 references behind it. --PTR 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What is accomplished by using the word? At the least it is inflammatory and can appear to portray bias. This article should be written with the same lack of inflammatory language as the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan article [71] if this encyclopedia is to appear to be unbiased. So the question is:Why use such language in an encyclopedia? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? Not in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If it "should be avoided" so let's avoid it, what's the problem? To follow the rules is surely the best way we to resolve a dispute, isn't it?--Pokipsy76 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST is a guideline, and is optional, especially when it conflicts with policy. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is policy. "terrorist" is overwhelmingly used by a diverse range of reliable sources to describe 9/11. To not use that word, we would be violating WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy. --Aude (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that you can't use the word, WP:TERRORIST just say you can't use it in the "unqualified narrative voice of the article".You can say "terrorist according to...." and you would still be giving the "due weight" to the POV: thete is not a conflict.--Pokipsy76 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Which of the 5000 available references would be good enough...and need it be used each and everytime the words terrorism or terrorists are used?--MONGO 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you are intelligent enought to find a rational way to respect the guidelines without filling the article with 5000 references and to use the word just when it is really needed.--Pokipsy76 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST, which is a guideline not a policy, doesn't say it can't be used in the narrative voice just that it "should be avoided". In this case it's not avoidable due to the overwhelming number of sources that would need to be put in as "X". --PTR 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But nobody is forcing you to put *all* the references that use the word "terrorist", I'm sure you are able to choose just the ones that are relevant in the specific context where you are using the word.--Pokipsy76 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be all of them, in this case....at least the UN, all official government statements, a number of representative press statements (including at least one from each country), etc. We're talking at least one hundred. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see any problem if we follow the guideline: you can choose any source that is relevant in the specific context where you use it.--Pokipsy76 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is no (reliable) source that says otherwise. If we are not to used the unadorned word terrorist, then we must list a representative sampling, including the UN, all countries, all major newspapers and wire services, and a number of self-described terrorists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We already do — we link to the UN saying they're terrorist attacks; which includes an "academic consensus" of all the relevant experts. To list only "one or two" is a blatant misrepresentation of the situation here, and constitutes an egregious violation of undue weight — it's akin to saying "The Washington Post says that Hitler died in 1945", because the sheer number of sources who say he died in 1945, as opposed to the fringe minority who said he didn't, means we should choose just one who says 1945 to meet manual of style guidelines. This attempt to apply semantic relativism to his article, because someone, somewhere, might disagree with all the experts and not label this terrorism is ridiculous. No matter how you twist and turn, words have meaning, and experts on what those words refer to can label events using them. In this case, they unaminously label these terrorist attacks. The fact that people can misapply the word "terrorism", or misunderstand what it means, and not think these are terrorist attacks shouldn't change how we, as an encyclopedia deal with it. --Haemo 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a false choice. We could simply not apply any label to the attackers; we can just tell the story of what they did. Mr.grantevans2 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But you just called them "attackers"...exactly how are we to refer to them? Shall we call them "those guys" or "freedom fighters" or "people who have a beef with the U.S."?--MONGO 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Like it or not, part of the narrative here is the fact that a unanimity of experts believes this is terrorism. We do a great disservice to our to neglect this fact — especially given that "what is terrorism" is a question which requires expert views. It's not "is this person a bad man" or something, which people can decide using their gut. Too many people feel that saying "this was a terrorist attack" is the same as saying "Hitler was a bad man" — when it's not even remotely similar. --Haemo 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope; it just deflects attention from the event itself and is completely unnecessary to the article's story. It reminds me of the adage that comedians use more and more profanity and superlatives when they're having trouble holding an audience's attention. This event is the story; name calling rhetoric just takes away from the power of the story. What is the term we use for our forces when they invade and drop bombs on a country? Liberators? Invaders? No; we use no judgmental labels at all and nor should we here. Mr.grantevans2 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
How is the word "terrorism" name-calling, or "un-necessary" to an event which in unanimously called a "terrorist attack" by reliable sources, and qualified experts? Again, you seem to believe that "terrorism" is a form of name-calling, when it is anything but. The article isn't calling them "bad guys" or something. --Haemo 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Describing something as 'terrorist' cant be anything other than name calling, because term is inconsistently defined and its definitions inconsistently applied - as I explained above. But you've ignored that and carried on with the same argument like I never refuted it. Through this wilful ignorance of opposing arguments you can justify any edits you want to yourself. Damburger 07:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll address here all the objections expressed above:
1) The point is that there is no (reliable) source that says they are not terrorists
This really is not a point. The point is that the word "terorism" used in a narrative way is not enciclopedic as you can read in the guidelines.
2) It's akin to saying "The Washington Post says that Hitler died in 1945", because the sheer number of sources who say he died in 1945, as opposed to the fringe minority who said he didn't, means we should choose just one who says 1945 to meet manual of style guidelines.
In fact there is no guideline implying what you are saying about Hitler. If there were such guidelines we should follow them or try to change them. Actually the guidelines say there is a problem only for some problematic words like "terrorist". If you don't agree with the guidelines about it try to show your arguments in the appropriate places.
3) Words have meaning, and experts on what those words refer to can label events using them
Who do you think are these "qualified experts" about labeling people as terrorist? What kind of expertise did they achieve? You are still missing the point: even if today the entire world was willing to label the attack as "terrorist" the word still has a "systemic bias" problem and therefore the guideline says it shouldn't be used *in a narrative way*, and this really can't be a problem for the article.
--Pokipsy76 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't say it's not encyclopedic. The guideline says it should be avoided. This should not be interpreted as "can't use". We also satifisy the X says Y by placing a ref immediately after the first use of the word. There are other articles in WP that use terrorist and terrorism in the narrative voice when it is universally accepted (i.e. the vast majority of reliable sources say) that the event or group the article refers to is terrorism or terrorist. --PTR 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say that placing a ref after is equivalent to the format 'X says Y'? In my mind it certainly isn't. As for these other articles - I am guessing any article you can find where the word terrorist is used in such an unqualified way describes an attack on the US or possibly Israel. As I've pointed out, terrorist attacks against other nations tend to be described objectively according to the rules and guidelines. Damburger 16:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it's a ref immediately after the word, therefore, the ref refers to the word itself and directs you to look at the information in the ref.
The phrase "is was a terrosist attack" and "it was labelled as terrorist by..." have a really different meaning even if followed by the refs.--Pokipsy76 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_diplomatic_assassinations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec
--PTR 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Those articles are wrong as well then. This article has received more attention because its more high profile. All our arguments apply there as well as here. Damburger 19:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:GUIDE Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Why are we still arguing about this? There is obviously no consensus for your changes. If you can't respect that then I'd suggest WP:RFC as the next step. Otherwise, you have a whole list of pages just above that use it in the same context. I'm sure you're not trying to advance any specific 9/11, CT or anti-U.S. POV but your assertion about how terrorist attacks against other nations are treated is clearly mistaken. RxS 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have ALREADY gone through WP:RFC without any luck. My 'assertion' that terrorist attacks against other nations is no such thing - its a FACT which I backed up with EVIDENCE. On both points you seem to have ignored the history of this discussion. Damburger 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should tell you something when the Request for Comment does not support your actions. --Haemo 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's ridiculous when proponents of the "terrorist" word usage ignore the obvious arguments against it. The question is:Why use such language in an encyclopedia? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? If it is so important to use such characterizations, then why do Wikipedia articles about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan not describe western forces as invaders? I doubt that anyone would say the term doesn't apply. To be more exact; we don't use those terms because they are not meaningful and portray bias.Mr.grantevans2 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I agree: if a problem arise applying the guideline we can consider the opportunity to make an exception, but in our case there is really no problem and no need do bypass the guidelines!!--Pokipsy76 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"Obvious arguments" do not translate into good arguments, or arguments that everyone agrees with. --Haemo 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
s/everyone/anyone/ ? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding theme #1 Use of... 'terrorist' 'Terrorist', in context, is not pejorative or inaccurate, but perhaps it would be more constructive to find a more precise but equally succinct description of attacks that might better capture the unconventional quality of Al Qaeda operations. Peter Grey 10:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
YES ! now there's a suggestion/compromise that makes sense to me. Mr.grantevans2 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Its not a bad suggestion. But what kind of terminology should we use? We can't invent a terminology thats not in use already, as that would constitute OR. We should start from what we know about the nature of the attack; it was part of a declared war (al qaeda had previous to this declared war on the US) but declared by a stateless entity. It was a surprise attack. If the hijackers were members of a conventional military they might be described as special forces. A word that springs to mind for me is Asymmetric.
Regarding conspiracy theories; I think the physical description of the attacks has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Theories involving missiles and drones and missing passengers and such are overly complicated in any case, and beg the question of why the Evil Government Agency didn't just recruit 19 guys to do the job exactly as the official story said they did - that would be the simplest way. We should just avoid ascribing culpability in sections that talk about the physical nature of the attacks. Damburger 14:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What about just"al-Queda"? Mr.grantevans2 12:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
What about calling them what they bloody are, terrorists. Honestly... I don't think I'm ever going to understand the amount of effort you people are putting into this. All over a single word that the majority of us thing is perfectly fine. I can't turn on news program without someone mentioning the word. Once again, I refuse to accept this 'dumbing down' of the article, and I will fight it till my last breath. And I know I'm not alone. --Tarage 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
We're trying to arrive at a consensus. By your reasoning one could say about references to our forces in Iraq: "What about calling them what they bloody are, invaders." Please just have a look at 2003 invasion of Iraq; is that article dumbed down because it doesn't use adjectives like "invaders" or "liberators" to describe our troops? It's natural to be emotional,biased and patriotic about wars, but this is an encyclopedia wherein the articles should be void of all 3, at least I think so. Mr.grantevans2 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
our troops? Wikipedia doesn't have any troops. Plus, invaders or liberators are terms with objective military meanings, but that's an issue for the corresponding article. Peter Grey 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of the word 'terrorism' seem to have run out of relevant arguments, being reduced to Tarages attitude of 'I've not got a leg to stand on, but I will fight to the death for my POV'. Can we finally remove the word now? Damburger 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove it. As I said above: I understand you are trying to go by the letter of WP:TERRORIST but "should be avoided" does not mean "must be avoided". The word terrorist in the lead sentence has a reference immediately behind it linking to the UN declaration that it was terrorism. That should satisify the "X says Y" since the reference is set right behind the word. That prevents having a lead sentence that says, "most world goverments, people, newspapers, telecasts, magazines, the UN etc say 9/11 was a terrorist attack" with 65 references behind it. --PTR 13:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't need the word and shouldn't include a controversial word which it doesn't need. Why is it that the onus in this discussion seems to be on those who feel the word does not belong? I'd like to know why the people who want it think it is so important to the story that it should not be avoided "should be avoided"? Mr.grantevans2 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How is it a controversial word? News outlets all over the world use it regularly, governments all over the world, journalists, historians and NGO's all use the word regularly. Just because you (and a small group of CT'ers) think it's controversial doesn't make it so. I think you're projecting. RxS 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether we state it as "most world goverments, people, newspapers, telecasts, magazines, the UN etc say 9/11 was a terrorist attack" with 65 references behind it or use it with a reference immediately behind it linking to the UN declaration that it was terrorism, the word will still be there since that is what all the reliable sources call the attacks. --PTR 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST says "should be avoided": please tell me why it is necessary and should not be avoided in this instance. Mr.grantevans2 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST is a guideline not a policy and even in the guideline it does not say that the word is not to be used it only gives a guideline for its use. --PTR 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Since when has 'its just a guideline' been in of itself a reason not to follow that guideline? What would be the point of making guidelines if you could simply dismiss them by virtue of the fact they are guidelines? What actual reason is there to disregard this guideline, other than that you want to? Damburger 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the WP itself says the guidelines "should be followed in Wikipedia articles. However, they are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense; they do have occasional exceptions. Ignore any of them rather than being clumsy, inaccurate, or unclear." Using a narrow interpretation of the X says Y format would be clumsy, inaccurate and unclear. --PTR 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You've done nothing but state your unsubstantiated opinion. WHY is it clumsy, inaccurate and unclear to follow this guideline? You've yet to come up with a single compelling reason. In fact, you've yet to come up with any reason at all. Damburger 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I'm still waiting for an answer. "WP:TERRORIST says "should be avoided": please tell me why it is necessary and should not be avoided in this instance." If the "terrorist" word promoters have an answer, let's hear it; please. Mr.grantevans2 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Damburger, Because we would have to put "most world governments, news reports, magazine articles, television broadcasts, the UN, the Security Council, Al-Jazeera etc called the 9/11 attacks terrorism." with about 1000 refs behind it. That would be clumsy, inaccurate (because we'd be sure to miss some) and unclear. --PTR 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Mr. grantevens2, again because the guideline says "should be" not "must be" it is up to the editors on the page to come to a conclusion that including all the refs in an X says Y format would be clumsy, inaccurate and unclear. It doesn't say not to use the word. WP is by consensus. There is consensus to leave the word in rather than try to rewrite the article to make it 10 times bigger by adding all the refs everytime the word terrorism is used. This was a terrorist act because all the reliable sources we have say it's a terrorist act. We cannot come up with a new word on our own. WP only includes what has been written. --PTR 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But (read my lips:) I am not saying to put refs in for the word; I'm saying leave the word out altogether and then,in fact,the article will be smaller. Mr.grantevans2 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And I(read my lips:) are saying that the word is important to the article, and taking it out would be ignorant because of the numerous orginizations and experts who agree that these were, in fact, terrorist attacks. --Tarage 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean Mr.grantevens2. Leave the word "terrorist" out altogether? Not even the guideline says to simply leave the word out. We have to refer to it in some way because all the reliable sources available for reference use it. --PTR 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The guideline says to avoid the word. In what way are we avoiding it in the article? Mr.grantevans2 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. Please read the guideline again. Also keep in mind it is not a wikipedia policy. I'm not sure there is any answer I can give you that doesn't keep going around in circles. The guideline says the words terrorist and terrorism "should be avoided", it's not a mandate. It also says to use it in the X says Y format if it is used. It also says to use common sense. Keeping to a narrow interpretation of X says Y would have too many Xs for the Y. Using the ref right behind the word to the list of those saying it's terrorism satisfies the X says Y. Not using the term terrorism would not be reflecting what the reliable sources say. I think I'll let someone else chime in here since you seem to need an answer I don't have since I'm not sure what you want. --PTR 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Its just a guideline' angle is getting old. You still need a reason, other than it being a guideline, for disregarding it. It clearly states we should avoid using the word 'terrorist' in this manner, and you don't seem to have provided any real reason for its inclusion. Damburger 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this:

  1. WP:NPOV says that where controversy exists, we should present each notable position neutrally and without undue weight. There are numerous reliable sources that use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" to describe the attackers or the attack, respectively. I am not aware of any reliable sources that say the attack was not a terrorist attack. Therefore our verifiability policy prohibits us from stating that it was, for example, an accident, an act of war, or a government-sponsored black operation. NPOV seems to leave us no option but to describe this act as terrorism.
  2. NPOV is non-negotiable, and nothing trumps NPOV.
“ Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." ”
This is why other editors are emphasising the "just a guideline" aspect of WP:TERRORIST.

Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again it's a false choice to say we must choose between saying it was a "terrorist" attack or not. Here is the way Britannica deals with it; "series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States. The attacks caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism."[72]. Now although they use the word "terrorism" to describe the response,they avoid, whether intentional or not, name-calling the attackers or the attack as "terrorist". But, much like PTR, I'm starting to feel I just can not get across the point that I am trying to convey. Ironically, I also feel NPOV should be the final consideration and calling 1 bunch of invading militants "terrorists" and not another bunch(e.g. the 180,000 western hired mercenaries in Iraq)seems to me to be blatant Orwellian application of a NPOV principle. I suppose some of us will simply not be able to understand the contrary argument to our own. Mr.grantevans2 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"I suppose some of us will simply not be able to understand the contrary argument to our own." This is why I say this whole thing is pointless. I don't feel any of your arguments are valid reasons to change this article, and you think they are. Unfortionatly for you, the majority agree with me, so it would appear that in this statemate, majority rules. So can we drop this now? --Tarage 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you are in a majority, I just think you are loud. This is why I asked for suggestions for resolving the dispute - because a small number of very vocal editors are entrenched here determined to push their version of the article at all costs (you have explicitly stated this before). This can only harm the article. Damburger 07:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The lead must state terrorist, there being no other WP:NPOV way to describe them. We could footnote it, but we'd need 100s of references to even summarize the reliable sources that call it terrorism. As for "majority": whether or not the majority is with him, the guideline can and should be overriden by WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Mr.grantevans2 makes an excellent point about the false dichotomoy fallacy underlying this (and many other) disagreements regarding this article. It's rather absurd not to label a airplane hijacking as anything besides terrorism - piracy would probably be the only other term even close - particularly based on the mere personal distaste of a few editors to the terminology. The flaw with the word "terrorism" is not neutrality, but that it over-simplifies. There's a rather good argument to be made that the hijackers couldn't have cared less about terrorizing anyone but were engaged in simple retribution for the US collaboration with oppressive governments such as Saudi Arabia, though Al Qaeda as a whole endeavoured to alter, via violence, US policy in Saudi Arabia (and was successful since US troops were withdrawn in 2003). Peter Grey 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia Britannica also says (in the same article [73]) "At 8:46 AM (local time) the terrorists piloted the first plane, which had originated from Boston, into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City." and "Some 2,750 people were killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 in Pennsylvania; all 19 terrorists died." In another article [74] "The devastating aerial attacks by terrorists in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, caused untold chaos and horror and initiated a flood of events that affected all aspects of life in all corners of the world." I would also rather use terrorist than Islamic extremists. --PTR 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That isn't the lead in though; and in any case, Wikipedia guidelines take a higher priority than the example set by Britannica. Wikipedias policies and guidelines are all we should worry about.
Don't try and quote WP:NPOV at me either, that supports removing the word 'terrorism' as well, something I've demonstrated several times in this talk page and you've chosen to ignore.
Its also asinine to suggest that terrorist 'must' be mentioned in the narrative voice to avoid having thousands of references to it. This pathetic argument could be made about practically every adjective out there. You do not have to include every single source that uses the word. Damburger 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has gone far enough, there's obviously not going to be a consensus on this. The discussion is just going round and round. Sometimes you just don't get your way...I'd suggest working on other articles for a while...there's plenty of POV issues around Wikipedia that could use some attention other then this page and the term in question. If you want to take this further you can always open an RFC. But it's important to remember that the person that's willing to argue the longest doesn't get his way by default...rope-a-dope doesn't work. You think you're right about this, others think they are right...you're not going to be able to sway them at this point so my suggestion is to move on, at least for now. Or open an RFC. Does anyoe mind if I close this section? RxS 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. I opened this section to try and find a way to resolve the conflict, but it hasn't worked. I've aready gone down the RfC route and it hasn't help. The ones who 'argue longest' are the entrenched editors here desperate to keep the word 'terrorist' and thus preserve their POV. They beleive if they simply keep restating their arguments like I haven't refuted them a thousand times, they will 'win'. They have said this explicitly.
I have been the one trying to be reasonable. I have been the one trying to seek mediation, for example by requesting help at WP:WTA. Some people have come as a result to dicuss this, but Tarage and his band are still determined, as they have stated, so simply revert anything that displeases them.
I agree this section getting large, but I won't shut up and go away just because people like Tarage are (by their own admission) being stubborn. Damburger 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, he's not the only one who disagrees with you, not by a long shot. I know you think you're being reasonable, but I'm not sure if it is reasonable for anyone to continually to argue against consensus long after consensus has been shown...right or wrong. And it appears that you're just as entrenched (and stubborn) as anyone else here. At some point people are just going to stop answering your assertions, and they may rightfully feel that your ignoring their refutations and that you have a POV just as you accuse them of having one. There's no satisfying everyone here. Can you post a link to the RFC on this subject you said you opened? Thanks. RxS 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have second, almost word for word what RxS has just stated. As a test measure, what references can you, Damburger provide which calls the acts of 9/11 something other than acts of terrorism? I would be willing to guarantee you that for every reference you find, I can find 10 that do call it terrorism. So undue weight applies here...see undue weight, a critical component of our neutral point of view policy.--MONGO 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And I have explained REPEATEDLY, that IT DOES NOT MATTER how many references there are - the issue is about wikipedia policy NOT HOW MANY PEOPLE DESCRIBE THE ATTACKS AS TERRORIST. This is the problem. They ignore my arguments in order to avoid having to answer them, because they can't. Those that have tried have been clutching at straws using ridiculous intepretations of WP:UNDUE whilst ignoring the plainly stated guidelines in WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV about letting the facts speak for themselves.
They are not interested in arriving at a consensus. They are interested in pushing their POV on this article. Damburger 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST states..."In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article."...so are you suggesting we attribute every single time the word is used in this article? That seems really redundant...but that would avoid the "narrative voice" issue....the facts are that the preponderance of this term is so prevalent in sources, etc. when discussing this event, that to call it something else would be POV, not vice versa.--MONGO 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as knowledgeable about some of the protocol but I do recall the vast majority of reliable sources stating that Saddam had WMDs in 2002. In fact, now we are told often that "The whole world thought Saddam had WMDs". Are you saying that Wikipedia would have been hogtied by undue weight into stating within articles at the time of the invasion that "Iraq has WMDs"? I think this is a matter where common sense should prevail and unless someone wants to just parrot US government terminology , as do most references, then I don't think it makes sense to be calling the hijackers "terrorists" and I'll rely upon Peter Grey's suggestion as just one of many possible alternative motivations of the hijackers. Remember, the term "terrorist" implies knowledge of the actors' motive which I certainly don't have and I doubt the so-called references have either. The bottom line is the term "terrorist" is speculative, presumptive of other people's mental processes and non-encyclopedic, I think. Mr.grantevans2 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If the article as on "Pre-9/11 views of Saddam Hussein's weapons program", then yes, the article would probably contain a phrase like "nearly all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs". And I think calling it "mind-reading" when we have experts who specialize in knowing exactly what Al-Qaeda's intentions, actions and motivations were — and are further qualified to opine on whether or not the definition of terrorism applies to their actions is patently absurd. It's not a big question mark or something, given that thousands of people have spent their careers studying this. We might as well call anyone giving Mussolini's reasons for invading Ethopia "speculative" and "non-encyclopedic" by the same token. --Haemo 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree to that "nearly all intelligence agencies believe the 9/11 attack was an act of terrorism". Mr.grantevans2 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
How about "all people and agencies which have stated an opinion believe the 9/11 attack was an act of terrorism"? Seems accurate. Nearly is a WP:WEASEL word in this context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Because that is an incorrect statement (and I challenge you to prove otherwise!) - best to just not use the word terrorist at all, as per guidelines. Damburger 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not an incorrect statement, but it's difficult to source. However, "nearly all" is just wrong, as it implies there is an intelligence agency which does not believe the 9/11 attack was an act of terrorism. We would need a source for that, just as we would need a source for there being a person who knows what "terrorism" is, knows about the 9/11 attack, and does not believe the latter is an example of the former. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You can only prove it by citing every single intelligence agency on the planet. You haven't done that. We don't need a source not to include a pejorative term, any more than we need a source to not include the word 'wankers' Damburger 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do need a source not to include the generally accepted term, and it's not pejorative in this context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What if 'wankers' was the commonly accepted term? It doesn't matter how many sources you can produce. We have the rules on our side. Give up already Damburger 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's an extremely common usage in this context, that's how billions of people refer to it. And in any case it's not pejorative in the sense that calling someone wanker is. To insist on calling it something else is as POV as you claim it's inclusion is. You seem to be very concerned about policy guidelines, I'd recommend taking a look at WP:consensus, WP:Battle and WP:GAME. This issue has been settled to the best extent Wikipedia consensus and discussion can settle anything. This has become a time waster for good editors who should be doing something else. Try further down the page at WP:DR, but this section has got to be wrapped up. You know, you're not doing yourself any favors here. If you ride an issue too long, too hard against consensus, people won't listen to you next time you want to make a change somewhere. Anyway, let's give this poor talk page a break and close this section. RxS 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it time to bring up WP:IAR in response to Damburger? WP:NPOV is clear, and contradicts WP:TERRORIST in this instance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm being accused of gaming the system by actually asked people to obey guidelines AND policy: I have explained time and time again how WP:NPOV [i]supports[/i] my argument because of the princple of 'let the facts speak for themselves'[75]. I won't simply sit down and shut up because I'm told to. My arguments in this matter are bulletproof, which is why everyone has refused to address them, and tries their best to ignore them. Trying to make wikipedia objective is not wasting anybodys time, or acting in bad faith. It is what editors are supposed to do. It is what I'm trying to do here, despite enourmous resistance from people with a clear agenda contrary to the aims of wikipedia. Damburger 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"contrary to the aims of wikipedia"? "clear agenda"? I'll accept an apology anytime (now is good). RxS 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You accused me of gaming the system just a moment ago. I didn't get an apology for that, did I? My skin isn't that thin. Are you are as blind to your own incivility as you are to your own POV? Damburger 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I only asked you to review some guidelines, which apparently you took as an insult. If that offended you than you have my apologies. You have no idea what my POV is and you shouldn't assume it. We've answered your arguments, they are far from bulletproof but you can keep thinking that. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, we all get to have our own viewpoints but in the end if you can't sway consensus to your point of view then it's all moot. You haven't been able to do that so I consider this closed for now. I'm putting you on ignore (and I ask others to do the same) so we can end this topic. If you'd like to take it to WP:DR then we can go from there. But for now I think we've said all that can usefully be said about this. RxS 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The self-proclaimed majority (which I do not believe is a true majority, simply a very vocal minority) refuses to listen to any line of reasoning that might contradict their worldview, and have explicitly stated as much (See Tarages comments). So how am I supposed to sway them, when they have said in advance they will not be swayed, ever, from their platform? By your 'logic', it would be thus impossible to change anything in any wikipedia article that had a handful of stubborn editors camping on it. You won't read this as you've ignored me, it seems, for calling you on your hypocrisy. I started this section to try and find a resolution to the dispute after the RfC failed to do anything but rehash the old debate (which was barely even a debate, as my points are consistently ignored and the other side have stated they will never concede anything they say as being wrong). The same thing has happened here. So, I will let this section die, but I will be opening another one - until we get this sorted. Damburger 16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "terrorists" is a grossly prejudicial,silly and sophmoric slur along the lines of "crusaders". That's what I think. Just because adversarial Government leaders use these terms with reckless abandon doesn't mean an encyclopedia must. Mr.grantevans2 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deutsche Bank

I searched but I don't think the damage to this building, its dismantling, or the two further (I would say) 9/11-related deaths that occurred there recently are in the article. Should we at least have some mention of it? --Golbez 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the damage section - September_11,_2001_attacks#Damage. The deaths are not, but they are mentioned in the Deutsche Bank Building article. I'm not sure about when deconstruction will be complete, but the LMDC website still says September 2007. [76] I'm skeptical about that, but we need to find a more up-to-date source for that. --Aude (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality?

I would first like to say that the following is not a personal attack - merely an observation. I have read through most of the talk page notes on this article and I do understand the policy on verifiability. But in my opinion, I feel the question of true impartiality must be brought up - especially after viewing the comments of Tarage. Seemingly, Tarage seems so passionate about going against governmental findings and mainstream theories, that his/her rebuttals against possible conspiracy discourse may actually keep future generations from coming to this site and getting the broad scope of what may have actually happened. I feel comments like "Because the conspiricy theories are all without substantial sources." show that Tarage believes the only credible source for information on September 11th is the government.

It's great to be a great American (if Tarage is an American, I can't say for sure), but to toss out comments by other posters simply because their comments didn't come from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX news, violates Wikipedia's own policy on neutrality. Comments like "Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way...you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened." seems to denote that Tarage cannot even fathom the possibility that our government could have possibly done something that contradicts the "documentation". If the Nixon administration could cover up their actions against John Lennon back in the 70's or of course, Watergate, then could it not be possible that some of these "so-called" conspiracy theories may have some truth to them?

Example. In one of your earliest notes, you stated on the subject of opinion polls:

"Public oppinion polls can be quite flawed. For example, the way you phrase a question can change the answer people give. I'd have to know exactially what questions were asked, as well as the motive of the poll."

But, on another Wikipedia article, we could take a look at the approval rating polls of our current president. President Bush had an approval rating of 92 percent back in October 2001 (according to ABC). In July of 2007, his approval rating, according to ARG, was 25 percent. Now, would we exclude the ARG poll information simply because ARG may not be as recognizable to the general public as say ABC would be?

So, under conspiracy theories section, the comment "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.", despite article "verification", could be deemed as a statement of opinion, rather than a reflection of neutrality. My questions to Tarage would be:

1. What do you deem a credible source? Does this have to be a reasonably recognizable impartial news organization?

2. Do you believe that the news organizations of this country are, in fact, impartial?

3. If a news report (surfaced on any of these news sources) stated information that called into question or completely and undoubtedly refuted the information that is currently in your September 11th wiki article, would you post that information in depth upon it being posted to Wikipedia or would you allow your our personal feelings on the subject to prevent you from doing so?

Again, this is not a personal attack. I'm just merely trying to understand why it seems that you, Tarage, are trying to keep information off the article, when it is obvious that numerous people have brought up stronger points for not just a quick inclusion in the article of the fact conspiracy theories on 9/11 exist, but these points make a good case for there to be a broader discussion in this article about some of the points brought up by these theories. I understand that their is a seperate article for the theories, but I must agree with some of the previous posters - this article is far from neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kct2002us (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented that any WP:RS has given the 9/11 conspiracy theories any degree of reliablility; they have reported on the existence of the theories, but not their "truth". We should do the same. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All fine and good, but if you look at Tarage's previous remarks on the subject (on this talk page), does it not seem that the whole "Reliable Sources" policy is more subjective and based on opinion than anything else? You have some people who don't believe that news sources such as CNN or Fox News are actually reporting on the actual news or perhaps that they twist the news based on their political leanings or monetary persuasions. This is the same opinions people would have for those news mediums that feel their may be merit to the conspiracy theories. Doesn't this make the "Reliable Sources" policy seem somewhat one-sided? Both sides of the argument could claim that evidence can be seen for their points of view. Why just placate to one particular point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kct2002us (talk • contribs) 19:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it perfectly clear that the oppinions expressed by myself are NOT the oppinions of some of the better authors here. The only posts I take responcibilty for are my own, and likewise they should only be applied to me, not the "Pro Terrorist Use" group as a whole. Editors such as Haemo and MONGO are far more eloquent than I am. The purpose of my posts are to voice my oppinion and mine alone. Once again, please do NOT apply my ignorance of editing to them. To do so is a cheap and pathetic tactic. --Tarage 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, while my arguments may have as many holes as swiss cheese, I trust that editors like Arthur_Rubin can take my nonsensical-ish arguments and back them up. Again, my oppinions and arguments are my own. Don't apply them to anyone else but me. --Tarage 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the reliable sources guidelines. Reliability is not the same as what we colloquially would refer to it as, and there are clearly delineated guidelines for when a source is reliable. The key principles are (1) editorial oversight and (2) a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. --Haemo 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Kct2002us, please note that the essence of wikipedia's no personal attacks guideline is that editors should comment on content, and not on the contributor. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I know I'm being pedantic but shouldn't the article be named "September 11, 2001, attacks" (with a comma between 2001 and attacks)? I believe that's more grammatically correct. Or was there some reason the comma is missing? -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is in the archives several times. Since the English Wikipedia covers several dialects and stylistic rules, there is no single perfect solution. The current name seems about equally objectional to everyone. Peter Grey 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not pedantic. And, yes, you are correct. There should be two commas setting off the parenthetical year in the American English form of "September 11, 2001, attacks." Nevertheless, it's not worth fixing the title because the rest of Wikipedia reflects the same punctuation error. Due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia autoformatting, in many instances, American English dates cannot be viewed with correct punctuation without screwing up the dates for users who chose to view autoformatted dates in the British form (i.e., "11 September 2001 attacks"). See this discussion for an explanation:[77]. The consensus in the Manual of Style talk pages was that it is better to have "hanging" years (such as "September 11, 2001 attacks") in the American form than to have an out-of-place comma (such as "11 September 2001, attacks") in the British form. If the ubiquity of this punctuation error bothers you (as it does me), I suggest you change your viewing preferences to the day-month-year format. That won't help with the title of this article (which is clearly wrong but ultimately not worth fighting over) but it will alleviate the problem when reading most other articles. Lowell33 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity (continued from 'Resolving Disputes')

That section is getting a little big, but that still doesn't invalidate the dispute:

  • The word 'terrorist' is recommended against in WP:TERRORIST. Its explicitly cited as a word to avoid using in the narrative voice.
  • The word 'terrorist' is not to be used, according to the principle of 'let the facts speak for themselves' in WP:NPOV
  • The word 'terrorist' has not appeared in the narrative voice in articles about attacks against non-americans, such as Guildford pub bombings. This shows the use of the word is a clear example of WP:BIAS.

These arguments have not been refuted. Those who want to keep the word in have simply maintained that they will revert edits regardless of what anyone else says.[78] I have been the subject of accusations[79] of acting in bad faith, and then been told to apologise to the same author moments later for turning these accusations back against him[80]. For pointing out his hypocrisy, he put me on ignore.

This level of debate is not healthy. Can someone actually address the points above? Otherwise, simply concede that use of the word is not objective, and is contrary to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Damburger 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 3 - as pointed out to you above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_diplomatic_assassinations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec
If you read through all the discussions above without an agenda in mind, you'll find the answers to your points one and two as well. --PTR 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To address Damburger's points in order...

  • WP:TERRORIST is a red herring. It is only a Manual of Style guideline, and WP:NPOV is a wikipedia policy. To understand the difference between guidelines and policy, try violating both and see which one gets you banned ( do not actually try this).
  • Other editors interpret WP:NPOV very differently to Damburger. The sentence "let the facts speak for themselves" is section 3.3; by way of comparison, the sentence "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." is section 1.0.
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good basis for argument.

It seems to me that a correct interpretation of WP:NPOV is the only issue before us. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've misread my third point. I'm simply using other parts of Wikipedia to highlight the bias that exists in this article. Damburger 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the next step is a guideline RfC to confirm whether WP:TERRORIST should be modified in conjunction with WP:NPOV, rather than being on carried out on the individual pages about clear terrorists. (I also ask Damburger to correct the section title. This isn't about "objectivity". It's about policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
A RfC to clear it up isn't a bad suggestion, although its clearly wrong that there is a contradiction between WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. As I read it, they work together perfectly. Damburger 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its worst to say the word "terrorist" must be applied in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Mr.grantevans2 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not; at the heart of doublespeak is the notion of semantic relativity, where the meaning of words can be distorted to support a political agenda, or to distort reality. Calling these anything but terrorism is doing exactly this. --Haemo 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • One entirely inarguable fact is that there has long ceased to be any new points raised on this talk page with respect to this question. Some say "terrorism" is the correct vocabulary and no other word suitably describes the event, some say the term is inflamatory either inherently or because of its use in bad faith by politicians. I would suggest that it is time other dispute resolution mechanisms were pursued. Peter Grey 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we done yet? Or is Damburger's temper tantrum going to be allowed to continue till it fills up another page? --Tarage 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY please. Anyway, I've asked for editors as WP:NPOV and WP:WTA to come and comment here. Apparantly, according to you, that constitutes a 'temper tantrum' because I won't simply give up and let you get your way. Damburger 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would say calling in everyone you can to try to argue a losing point is a temper tantrum. No... I'd actually say you are boardline trolling. --Tarage 03:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete page

I was just looking at all of the inventors who don't deserve a wikipedia page because of a lack of mainstream confirmation of their invention. I had to learn to respect the way wikipedia works right there. This makes me think the amount of pseudo science on this page should make it more then worthy of deletion, Wikipedia should not function as a platform to advertise a minority opinion as scientific fact. The page doesn't mention doubt about the subject, everything written goes without proper scientific evidence. Who brought Osama bin Laden into this story? I really want to hear how he relates to this before reading "he did it!!" in the wiki. Don't you actually have to prove some one did something? Lets agree to disagree and delete the page. There are so much lies on it it's broken beyond repair.(Gaby de wilde 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

WP:SOFIXIT --Haemo 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:POINT. Peter Grey 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute? You talk about me and call me an idiot AND move my article but you don't reply to me? This is just rude trolling IMHO.

At least state your opinion?(Gaby de wilde 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

I think Gaby's initial post contains its own answer: the word "mainstream". Fringe science and pseudoscience may be routinely deleted because of a lack of mainstream acceptance. Attribution of this attack to Osama bin Laden is not deleted because it has mainstream acceptance. To answer Gaby's second rhetorical question: No, we do not have to prove anyone did anything. We simply have to find reliable sources who say that they did, and present such information neutrally. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't post 40,000 word rants about the subject of the article; discuss the article, not the subject. --Haemo 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article assumes a consensus that does not exist. It makes no reference to other points of view such as science! It represents everything what propaganda stands for. You are right of course when you say you do have to find reliable sources. The claim this is not a highly controversial topic is easy to disprove. My claim remains: This is a subject of extreme controversy, such discussion has no place in wikipedia. And stop deleting everything I write here will you? (Gaby de wilde 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

You do understand that Wikipedia has thousands of articles about highly controversial topics? That's not a sufficient reason for deletion.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you make posts in keeping with WP:TALK, they will not be deleted, and vice versa. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The page covers a notable topic and therefore deserves inclusion in the project. it certainly wasnt wikipeduia who brought Osama into this and indeed all material should be referenced, SqueakBox 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No it was this

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

But no reference to the actual video is made on this page. So the page is just a reference in it self. It does not contain any content.

The locked page uses words like TERRORIST and has an extremely PROPAGANDA like nature. It tries to force a consensus upon the reader that doesn't exist.

The official story is a conspiracy theory.

The global scientific consensus is that the buildings got blown up.

Kerosene doesn't get hot enough to create pre-collapse explosions in the basement. Or is a pre-collapse victim in a hospital bed not a credible source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0

If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure -Mark Loizeaux, president, Controlled Demolition Inc.

So that means EXPLOSIONS not COLLAPSE. And what about the thermite? They may have tried to ship all evidence to china the 5000 megawatt afterglow is something you will have to explain for before you quote a news article as a scientific fact.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

The official story is nonsense. This everyone knows already. But feel free to explain why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Why did the private footage need to be confiscated. Where the reported to be found flight recorders are. How Bush could see the first plane crash on live camera. You may explain why the official story is so full of such non scientific nonsense. And most of all we need some explanation of why the official story needs to be supported by removing evidence.

I think those are honest questions. How can there be 10 000 videos on google video all claiming controlled demolition. While some artificial consensus is enforced here?

Please don't just delete my arguments again.

(Gaby de wilde 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Gaby please stop using this talk page to prove whether or not September 11th was real or not. This is an article talk page not a discussion forum.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But ok, lets try discuss the article.

Why not have A paragrhap about the evidence getting shiped off sight? Be honest?

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[126] These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

I find the the official story to be one heap of nonsense. The sincere questions about the hiding of practically all evidence should be mentioned here. The thousands of questions about the topic should not merely be generalised as conspiracy nuttery in one single paragraph. They should all have their own Q and A. If anything should be labeled as conspiracy theory it should be the official story.

I find spontaneous pancake dustification of skyscrapers pseudo-scientific nonsense of the highest order.

Then the story wants 3 of those caused by 2 aluminum jets? Almost all the kerosene burns off on impact but there is enough left to melt steel? This while it doesn't actually get anywhere near the temperature in the real world of science. The impact of a jet is no where near the pressure the wind creates. People who worked in the building for years got blown up in the basement. How much more pseudo-scientific does it get I wonder? Explosions + not enough impact + not enough jet fuel + it didn't get hot enough = controlled demolition

no? please explain your answer. The article should contain the cop-out excuses commonly used by the mainstream media in order to get away from the facts. Not the other way around, you cant quote up an article out of chunks of clear nonsense and rationalise it by saying it was written in the bible of mainstream media. The truth is not the property of news agencies to make of what they like.

I'm not putting this up for debate, it is my opinion the story should go as it's not based on scientific facts.

(Gaby de wilde 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

The paragraph that Gaby quoted is a WP:SUMMARY of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If that paragraph is not a fair summary of that article, then it should be discussed here.
If, on the other hand, there is a problem with that article - perhaps it does not fairly document the various conspiracy theories or their recpetion - then Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories is the place to discuss that, not here.
We still have important issues to cover here, such as how to resolve the question that got this page protected. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the posters above have no intention to ever create a decent page about this topic, they have been unable to up to this point. The page is locked while it uses slander and propaganda of the highest order.

Take this:

That morning nineteen terrorists[3] affiliated with al-Qaeda[4] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

REFERENCE 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html No one claimed responsibility for the attacks, but federal officials said they suspect the involvement of Islamic extremists with links to fugitive terrorist Osama bin Laden, who has been implicated in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and several other attacks.

In other words: This news article does not confirm the claim in any way.

REFERRENCE 4

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

this article still does not prove anything, it is a reference to a reference, the actual video is not supplied. The video is also a known hoax. So a reference to a reference to a video. Hardly a reason to start screaming TERROR TERROR!!! The sources supplied do not incriminate anyone.

Osama can say what ever he likes, he doesn't have the power to stand down the US air-force. He didn't ship the gold out of those banks, he didn't lease the WTC 30 days before the event and earn billions in insurance fees like Silverstein & co did.

Osama most certainly didn't blow up building 7. He didn't place the pre collapse explosives. Because he simply doesn't have the power to do so. Ow, wait you still have to come up with evidence he was actually invoved?

The whole page is 100% propaganda.

It starts off like this!!

The September 11, 2001 attacks consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[2] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America..

What terrorists?

what suicide attacks?

What Islamic extremists?

What ARE YOU CRAZY PEOPLE?? HUH??

You cant refer to a religion as being extremist and terrorists. You cant even make the link with the religion evident. This is just SLANDER. Specially when you don't make it evident but just pull this kind of statements out of the blue sky.

Is it still an encyclopedia if I refer to OPEC as a Catholic extremist terrorist cell? Extorting global oil supplies? TERROR TERROR!!

Does it sound flavored or objective to you?

This is why the page should be deleted. People refer to this wiki as a reference to what really happened. And the page stacks lies upon lies upon lies. It's disgusting, lets delete it?

Let them take their war of terror some place else. The intention is to scare people into worshiping their government. We shall have non of that here. I'm not a religious man but I know for sure this is not the place for you to call Muslims terrorist extremists using Donald duck references.

I'm not putting this up for debate either. The Ali Baba and the 50 virgin terrorists hoax story can-not be backed up with evidence. The scientific method demands looking at all the data supplied, not just small chunks that support your war agenda.

All pseudoscience must go, specially the social engineering kind.

(Gaby de wilde 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Ignoring rant which <s?contains mostly liesnothing that meets Wikipedia standards for something which should be considered, whether or not true, and the pseudoreferences "quotes" are not the current state of any Wikipedia article. What needs to be deleted is any of Gaby's contributions related to the rant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Edited to strike my WP:CIVIL violations, but it was commented on, so should not be deleted without the consent of the later commentors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


(edit conflict, but pretty much agrees with above) The fourth reference is known as a secondary source, which is the kind of sources that wikipedia tries to cite. We take as little as possible from primary sources, and instead use secondary sources, verifiable secondary sources in fact. Google video is not a secondary source, nor is it a verifiable source, so any evidence gleaned from people's postings there is not permissible as evidence. Unless you can find any verifiable evidence that supports your reasoning, I'm gonna call on Occam's razor and say that the more simple explanation that fits the facts is true. Please stop trolling this page unless you have cold, hard, verifiable facts that support your thesis, as any further rants will be removed as trolling. Thank you. Gscshoyru 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please cease requiring primary sources ;it serves no purpose, and it is directly contrary to our reliable sources guidelines here. In addition, gigantic rants about the subject of the article have no place on this page. To be quite frank, this talk page is not here to air what your opinions about this or that are. We all have our own opinions of the events, but this is not a place to discuss them. Discuss the article not the subject of the article. --Haemo 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Although he's obviously ranting and might need to be treated accordingly,I don't think Gaby de wilde is trolling(there is a difference,I think) and I don't like sarcastic references to any type of disabilities "I must provide a phone number to a local mental hospital" which I think is the worst type of trolling. In my opinion, the mainstream theory is the most conspiratorial and incredible of all that I've heard but I'd never say people who accept it are mentally ill; that would be an outrageously mean-spirited, censoring and juvenile thing to say. Mr.grantevans2 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone making references to peoples sanity should be removed. The article is not about your or my sanity. Keep up the good work Damburger. I have seen no strange temper no nasty remarks but I do read people accusing you of such while ignoring the development of the actual article. (Gaby de wilde 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Why the fuss?

As a neutral editor who has not had anything to do with this particular article at any time, I believe it is time to have a (relatively) neutral editor have their say.

In response to claims that the word 'terrorist' is extreme and should not be used on this page, I put forward that many people, from the Dalai Lama to President Bush to former Prime Minister Blair have referred to the hijackers as such. This word has been bandied about so much that it has entered into public use, not only in America but in other countries as well. It is our duty as editors to record this. Whether or not all editors agree with this usage, it is the mainstream usage and should be used in the article, even if a note is added to point out alternative words to 'terrorist.'

In response to claims that the hijackers should not be referred to as 'Islamic extremists,' I sympathize, I really do. I understand that such a reference can hurt the reputation of the entire religion. However, it is an accepted fact, supported by what evidence is available, that these men were motivated by their devotion to an extremist sect of Islam. This does not mean that all Muslims are extremists, nor does it mean that the extremists are even accepted by mainstream Muslims. My advice would be to keep references to the men as Islamic extremists as non-accusatory as possible, but to leave them where they are. Since that is how the hijackers are viewed by the majority of people, those references have a place in this article.

In response to personal attacks, as well as flame and edit wars, taking place on this article, I offer a piece of advice- leave it. If you really feel that something is wrong and should be corrected, and you have the references to prove it, then come to the talk page and discuss it. If such an edit can be added as an alternative viewpoint alongside the mainstream one, then by all means. But on no account should any alternative viewpoint completely replace the mainstream viewpoint. The ideal here is to have both viewpoints existing side-by-side on the same article, without conflict over which one is 'the right one.' Wikipedia is for facts, not for opinions of the individual.

Please think over my advice for awhile, and try to put the ridiculous edit wars here in light of how an editor should do his or her business- with others, peacefully and with teamwork. This kind of foolishness benefits none, and hurts the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia as a whole.

Sageofwisdom 19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen, amen, amen. Note that I've been discussing these same points on here, and like you I have rarely (if ever) edited this article. All your points here are dead-on. Timneu22 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments here -- it's good to have an outside voice. --Haemo 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why all the fuss? Because some people can't accept that they don't get their way. Can we un-protect and move on, and treat all removal of 'terrorist' as trolling yet? --Tarage 05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Too much time is being spent on minor points that have no hope of being changed. The article is largely factual but we need to concentrate on the errors that are easily disputed. For example, the fake videos are treated as reliable sources. Osama is given undue weight even though the FBI has amitted they have no evidence he was involved. The identities of the hijackers are treated as their real identities despite the FBI admitting that most used stolen passports and dont know their real names. al Qaeda is directly blamed even though the source used says they are only suspected. These points all have reliable sources refuting the current claims so these are the errors that need work not the half page on semantics we have now. Wayne 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter if Bush, Blair and the Dalai Lama call them terrorist attacks. Its against wikipedia guidelines AND policy for that word to be used in the narrative voice. There is no need to suggest an alternative word - because the article functions perfectly well simply not using the word. Damburger 09:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might: before the discussion regarding whether or not the people involved in the attacks of 2001 were "terrorists", or even before the argument on whether it is possible to use the phrase in accordance with Wikipedia policies, there is something on which I daresay sould agree:

  1. The presence of the phrase causes reccurrent argument on this talk page
  2. The use of the phrase is not necessary: after reading the description of the attacks and who qualified them to be "terrorism", readers are capable of making their own mind without the article having to endorse any specific term (and this is assuming the highly unlikely situation of someone who would come on this article with no previous knowledge of the dewscribed events).

Hence, I think that there are very good practical reasons to avoid the term, and none to endorse it. Rama 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple comments here; resposes to above:
  1. Didn't Osama state that the attacks were his?
  2. Are you then going to rewrite all the other articles that use "terrorist"? Here are two intros from other articles which are far less notable terrorist incidents:
    • The July 7, 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts...
    • The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on ...
I argue to Damburger that Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong or being abused for this article. This was a terrorist event — innocent people who were non-military targets died. This was a terrorist event. Timneu22 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think that Wikipedia rules are wrong, there is a very obvious conclusion to which you should come as to your contributing to it.
The matter is not to discuss whether or not the attacks were terrorist acts; this is both obvious and irrelevant. The question is whether we, as Wikipedia editors, should endorse the point. Just like it is obvious that Hitler was evil, but beating the point over and over in his biography is not necessarily a good idea (Godwin point intended). Rama 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My statement about Wikipedia's rules was about this particular rule (WP:TERRORIST), which was obvious in context. How can someone say, as you just did, that "it's obvious" these were terrorist attacks but the point shouldn't be endorsed? Further, I can see that the people making claims on this page are certainly biased: Damburger's contributions suggest that he is a biased user. I'm looking for neutral users (like myself) who haven't been editing these types of articles. Timneu22 12:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it's obvious that Hitler was an evil man, yet we don't keep pressing the point over and over in the article. It'd be childish. Rama 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Amen to the points of Rama and Damburger. Regarding Timneu22's comment regarding his opinion of "suggest"ed bias, that is a direction we shouldn't go in, it seems to me, as we are supposed to assume good faith + anyone can accuse anyone else of being biased; extremely counterproductive comment by Timneu22 as I hope he might realize. Mr.grantevans2 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
One can assume good faith and one can also research the edits of others. If those edits reveal that another editor isn't editing in good faith, then it's time to have an opinion. Which I now do. Timneu22 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Timneu22 Didn't Osama state that the attacks were his?
1. In the September 16, 2001 Osama video tape he denied responsibility.
2. In the December 9, 2001 video tape he admitted responsibility but this tape was proven to be a fake.
3. The December 27, 2001 tape doesn't say anything and is thought to have been made before the attacks.
4. The September 9, 2002 audio tape is still claimed by the administration to be genuine but the experts who examined it say they are 95% sure it is fake.
5. In the October 29, 2004 video tape (two days before the US elections) Osama admitted responsibility. There is no consensus as to it's reliability but the mainstream media speculate it is possibly a fake.
6. In the 23 May 2006 audio tape Osama said he was the only one involved and that Moussaoui was innocent. Being an audio tape there is no way to determine who is talking.
If you contact the FBI they will tell you that there is no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. Wayne 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I still say that for terrorist to be removed, we need some source that states the acts were not terrorist. I think I saw a source indicating that even al Qaeda agrees it was a terrorist act. They think it justified, but.... 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. I'll see if I can find some such source(s). Mr.grantevans2 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to find a reliable source for the negative. Perhaps it's always harder to prove a negative:)?. Here are some ones that are connected with films and books. I haven't read the books or watched the videos "loose change" "inside job" at the links so I don't know how reliable they are. The one about 9/11 being psyops and the other one about it being a majic trick are kindof interesting,I think, but reliable sources? I guess not.[81],[82]

,[83],[84],[85],[86],[87] Mr.grantevans2 14:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. Has anyone considered keeping the attack itself as a terrorist attack (almost universally accepted fact) while not calling the hijackers themselves terrorists?. Wayne 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'd go along with that as a compromise. The fewer "T"'s the better, as far as I'm concerned. Mr.grantevans2 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I object, on the fact that you are calling an apple an orange. --Tarage 06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
They were undeniably hijackers who made a terrorist attack. Calling the hijackers terrorists is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy (WP:TERRORISM) and is no different than WP's example of not calling the KKK racist (Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint). We know it but need to avoid it. Wayne 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why avoid calling an apple an apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarage (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside view on "terrorist"

(In response to a request for help on WT:NPOV)

The principle that "terrorist" is a non-neutral word when used in Wikipedia's voice has been well-established in Wikipedia for a long time. It should not drag on this long here.

Neutrality does not merely mean "what reliable sources say". It is not necessarily a neutral description, if the US, UK, Dictionary, or ones grandmother, calls (or doesn't call) a certain group "terrorists". That is important to understand. This is Wikipedia, it is a neutral encyclopedia, and it has its own communal consensus and standards. These apply, and not standards and views which may arise outside it.

In terms of "Words to avoid" (WP:WTA), the emphasis is that a term which conveys a view of agreement with one "side" of some matter, should where practical be replaced by a term that does not favor the views of either side. We look for words that charactize and do not label, if there is contention. "Militant", "Bomber", "Hijacker" and "Activist" are characterizations. The word "Terrorist", by long standing communal view, is not.

(We can notionally test this. Both sides would probably agree that Al Qaeda members are "activists", and both sides would agree they are militant - as opposed to pacifist. Both sides would agree the various aircraft were hijacked, and both would agree that other acts by Al Qaeda included "bombers". But only one side is evidenced as calling the perpetrators "Terrorists". Why? Because it is a non-neutral term.)

Outside in everyday life, one can use terms as one wishes. On Wikipedia, neutrality comes first, and the definition of neutrality here is not "what the dictionary says" sometimes. It's what people would feel if we as a project added our authority to a word use. If Wikipedia labels a group as "Terrorist", it adds that we view it that way. Individual editors may do so privately -- but the project as a whole, which editors represent when writing articles -- does not.

A good and precise article is possible and practical, without adding our own coloration to the description of facts.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. How do the words "hijacker" or "bomber" characterize someone? If I go down to the 7-11 and plant a bomb, am I not a bomber? Of course. If I hijack a plane, I'm a hijacker. This is not a characterization. It's a description. The people who hijacked the 9/11 planes are hijackers. They also killed innocent civilians, which also makes them murderers. The problem here is that one side thinks a group of people is being labelled "terrorists", when what is trying to be accomplished is to classify only those who participated in the events as terrorists. How can that be wrong? Timneu22 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this has gone on for a bit, but I'd just thought I'd add: In all of this, hasn't WP:TERRORIST been misinterpreted? Isn't it the use of the noun "terrorist" that is legislated against, rather than the adjective? The adjective "terrorist" can be applied to any act or ploy aimed at against a civilian population to induce terror; and thus a terrorist actcan be carried out by almost any organisation, whether it be a government, group of freedom fighters or terrorists. The US tactics abroad have at times been "terrorist", although obviously they are not terrorists; and the contras, regrdless of whether you consider them freedom fighters or not, their actions were aimed to induce terror and so were "terrorist". Wireless99 16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - you actually pick a good example there (possibly unintended). Yes, they were murderers, we can all agree on this, both by law and by dictionary. But a more neutral term for Wikipedia use is "killers" ... because it lacks the emotive level of that word. (In fact we dopn't even have to use that word, we simply list how many people died, and how their deaths happened, it is sufficient to state those facts alone.) In the same vein, is part of the reason why "terrorists" is a poor and less neutral choice of word than alternatives, for Wikipedia. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I also agree with Wireless99. Why has no one commented on my question: if you remove "terrorist" from this article, what about all these, and others? Timneu22 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Timneu22 - In general on Wikipedia the argument "what about those there" is not given great weight. For example on articles for deletion, precedent from other similar debates (even on almost identical subjects) is actually listed as an "argument to avoid" (WP:ATA). Each is decided on its own case. The answer to your point is, I agree there are other articles which use less than neutral wording. There are also many where editors have purposefully chosen to use neutral wording. All things considered, the latter is "best practice" on most Wikipedia articles, and is the favored approach. When we finish this one, if you like, we can visit some others and address the wording on them, too. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Timneu22 - My answer to you speaking from a position of no authority but much reflection is that these other incidents are not as temporally and emotionally to the front for people right now. I would submit that in a small but significant way that the dispute on this talk page mirrors the wider debate about cause and effect in these troubled times. I would suggest as an ardent fan of Wikipedia, a site that for me defines all that is good about the internet that it is Wikipedia's best interest to be, dare I say, religiously neutral on this topic. People are defining this event event as the "day the world changed" and all that hokum. Let us show that Wikipedia can rise above current geo-politics. Remove the word "terrorist" from the title of this article and from within it. Let the reader decide how to interpret the facts. If that is not possible and I would be very troubled if it were not, at least make it clear within the article that certain terms within the article are controversial. Lastly (if I may) I believe that we should not accommodate the conspiracy theorists as their claims are based on an intrinsic mistrust of the government/system, bad science and they jump to conclusions - none of which is fact-based. See here for a sound debunking.
As stated earlier, the people who hijacked the planes were hijackers; these are the same people who executed this terrorist event, making them terrorists. A murderer is one who murdered, and a singer is one who sings. A terrorist is one who commits terrorism. It's that easy. This has NOTHING to do with neutrality. Timneu22 23:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it has a lot to do with neutrality. Terrorism is not a "non-neutral" word, as FT2 asserts; in fact, if you read the guideline, the consensus is that is is a pejorative. That is, it is a term with negative connotations. The reason for it being pejorative is obvious — terrorism, regardless of which of the 109 definitions of terrorism generally involves causing fear or anxiety by attacking targets which are not the main target of the action. Most people think this is a bad thing, and so attach negative connotations to the word "terrorism". The same is true for any other word, like "pirate" or "thief". These words have negative connotations.
The point which is made in the guidelines is that what constitutes "terrorism" can be a debatable subject. The guideline does not urge us to remove the word, but rather to tell us "who says it". That is, to show which "side" is labeling the other terrorists. In this case, the side is everyone. Every reliable source, every expert, even supporters of Al Qaeda and the events on 9/11 accept that these were terrorist acts. The concept that there are even two "sides" to this is not clear — apparently, the "Al Qaeda's actions were not terrorism" side is so small that we cannot find reliable sources to modify the statement as the guidelines suggest. This runs us flat into the neutral point of view guidelines — specifically, undue weight, which strongly favours calling the actions terrorism.
In fact, guidelines even suggest not to remove the word, but instead to source who says it. In this case, the list runs to thousands of reliable sources. I mean, we could say "universally regarded as terrorism", but that would just case a bigger firestorm; after all, is that neutral?
I mean, the underlying principle behind the "don't use the word" argument is semantic relativity; that a word like terrorism is so subjective that it is like saying "bad man" or "bad person". That's nonsense. It has a very precise academic meaning, and has whole fields of experts studying who and what it applies to. They call 9/11 terrorism. Every expert qualified to weigh in on the subject of what is, or is not, terrorism agrees that this was terrorism, regardless of which definition they use. That's the reason we have a list of terrorist attacks — because we, as a reference encyclopedia believe that words have some meaning which people schooled in their use can then apply to label reality. What a blind and legalistic reading of the manual of style urges us to do is forget all that and engage in facilitating this relativism when it's clearly contrary to the heart of the guidelines. --Haemo 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure which side you're arguing. If it's "universally regarded as terrorism", then isn't that how it should be portrayed? Timneu22 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Part correct, Haemo, and part less so. The majority of what you say is accurate. "Most reliable sources call them terrorists, and to not state that they are described as such by most countries would be improper. The question is purely whether Wikipedia, in Wikipedias voice should do so, and on that score the view is its not good practice, for the reasons given. Not least of which is, as you say it's often heard as a pejorative. Citing is easy - a list of "for examples" in the footnote.

Your point beyond that though, needs correcting. The fact that a term is academically correct, like a term which is dictionary correct, does not mean it is popularly neutral. For other examples of possible pejoratives and judgementals with precise academic and dictionary meanings, see words such as "myth" and "cult", that are also considered WP:WTA's. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point to my post above, was to argue that it is consistent with WP:TERRORIST to describe the 9/11 attacks as "terrorist" or the hijackers as using terrorist tactics without actually calling them terrorists; for that, I submit, depends on your perspective and can be left to the reader. We can perhaps make this clearer in the article in order to maintain NPOV, maybe find some academic/jounalist sources for the description of al queda's tactics (or something along those lines) and the definiton of terrorism etc. Does it seriously follow that if you are using terrorist tactics (which have both a strict political science and dictionary definiton) that you are a terrorist? No. The US government has used terrorist tactics many times in its history, yet the majority of Americans, presented with this fact, would not call those who carried out the attacks "terrorists". Those who consider certain political groups that use terrorist tactics to be 'freedom fighters' would not call their groups "terrorists". It clearly depends on your ideological perspective. However, this does not stop the actions or tactics from being what they were. Wireless99 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
But the word 'terrorism' does not have a strict definition - as its been mentioned by others there are hundreds of definitions. A word that everyone has a different take on is going to cause problems in whatever context it is used.
However, this isn't really the place for that debate - the place for that debate is WP:TERRORIST. The point here is to discuss how to adhere to policies and guidelines, not whether or not they are correct. Damburger 13:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that they are not "correct", I am suggesting that they have - mostly - been misinterpreted in the current debate up until now. And as it is in application that the policies are interpreted, so it is here that the debate must take place. And as has been reiterated a thousand times, I may define "terrorism" as my left leg if I so wish, this does not give it any authority or justify this definiton to be taken note of by anyone else who speaks the language, or wishes to know about the reality of the subject. For this we refer to experts in the form of inter alia the relevant scientific community. And if (as a responsible encyclopaedia we should)we do, then we do have a strict definiton for terrorist acts and tactics. Wireless99 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If your view on the word 'terrorism' were correct, the guideline would never be applied, and thus wouldn't exist. So logically, your view cannot be correct. Damburger 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you been reading what I have been writing? Obviously not. It is describing people as "terrorists"(noun), "extremists" and "freedom fighters" (also nouns) which is guarded against by the policy as they carry ideological overtones outside the scope of a Wikipedia NPOV article. More objective language should be found. However, describing acts or tactics as terrorist can be done without - I argue - any consequences for wikipedia NPOV. That the policy would never apply I cannot understand, for under my interpretation of it it would still play a vital role in keeping the hijackers from actually being called terrorists in the article. Wireless99 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Where does WP:TERRORIST make that distinction? It does not. Damburger 14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It never once uses "terrorist" as an adjective, and always talks of labelling your enemies as "terrorist" groups etc etc. Its not that difficult. God you're hard work. Wireless99 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This might be merely an academic point, but of the "hundreds of defintions" of terrorism out there, I personally don't know of any that wouldn't define these attacks as terrorist. The different definitions quibble over things like civilian v. non-combatant victims and whether intent is required, but all that I'm aware of would consider flying civilian airliners into civilian buildings and knocking them down to be a terrorist act. This might be more of an arguement for the WP:TERRORIST discussion page, but I don't think the existence of hundres of definitions should be a reason to throw out the term entirely, esepcially if all our reliable sources uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchall1 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps our vantage point is wrong?

Wireless99's challenge of the word's application got me thinking about this.

Perhaps we are tangled up in the hood ornament when we should be looking at the engine to see if the hood ornament is on the right car? Perhaps our "reliable sources" have, as a consequence of their usual lazy way, been driving around a Ford with a Mercedes hood ornament? To be clear, perhaps some of the sources which have been using the term "terrorists" say right in their articles that the intention of the terrorists is something other than to instill fear; something like retribution or to destroy an American icon for example.

Several contributors are saying;

terrorism/terrorist activity "involves an intent to cause fear"

We may be looking at it from the standpoint of which reliable sources use the term terrorist. Perhaps we should be looking for reliable sources which address the intent of the attack? It seems to me that the intention to cause fear is an integral part of the term and we may well find that there is not a broad universal agreement among reliable sources as to the hijackers' intent; in which case that would allow us to design wording which meets all of our guidelines. I realize my point is a bit esoteric but I also believe that if we find/think there is a conflict between the generally accepted usage of the word to describe the attack and the generally accepted intentions of the hijackers that the latter would trump because it (intent)is the essence of the former. Mr.grantevans2 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your point is a little subtle, but the UN's labeling as "terrorism" specifically addresses the intent of the actions, because they have adopted the "academic consensus" definition, which speaks to intent. --Haemo 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
How can the UN reliably speculate on what was going through the minds of terrorists, whose minds were vapourised 6 years ago? Damburger 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, I accept that; here's the rub: nowhere within this article's subtopic of "motive" [[88]] are we suggesting the intent of the attack was to cause fear. Instead we quite properly use reliable sourcing to reflect other motives. I am saying that the "motive" section of this very article precludes the use of the word "terrorist". Am I getting this point across or is it confusing? Mr.grantevans2 14:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not confusing, your contention is quite clear, and it represents a tiny fringe viewpoint that has some esoteric merit, but should in no way change the proper use of the word "terrorist" on this entry, even given Wikipedia guidelines. This entire discussion would be considered bizarre at the editorial offices of most print encyclopedias. The minute dissection of increasingly obscure points takes us further and further from reality.--Cberlet 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of the English-speaking world's newsbodies would also concur with you on that...and this is the English Wikipedia...I do understand that the Arabic wiki version of this article incorporates more conspiracy theories. But 300 kb's of people arguing about what is probably the best example of terrorism and that it shouldn't be referred to as terrorism is, frankly, ridiculous.--MONGO 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm stumped on why, if the intent to cause fear is an integral part of the term "terrorism", that specific intent is not mentioned in this article under motive; perhaps it should be if there are sources to back it up; but, if not, I think that just adds a heavy weight to the argument that the "T" word is the wrong word, even if the reliable sources are using it. Mr.grantevans2 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons, evans, as to why intent to cause fear is not mentioned in the 'motives' section is that the main sources used are from the ex post facto al qaeda videos, giving the reasons for the attacks. Now if you are launching a holy war against an enemy, and you want them to be scared, you don't tell them you are using tactics aimed at their civilian population whose entire point is to induce terror (akin to "we want you to be scared of us muhahahaha..."). You want them to think of you as an equal in some sense - you want the holy war to be thought of as an actual war similar to a war between two nations. It worked of course because Bush started the nonsense "war on terror", with an "axis of evil", trying to defeat an enemy that is largely imaginary.Wireless99 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth Of 9/11!

There was no evidence of any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down was the fire. When you enter 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel thrust contruction like the trade centers did, they warped bent and gradually was more then the building could handle. As for Unitied airlines 93 was not shot down but brought down by the hijackers when the passangers of flight 93 fought back and stopped them. The 9/11 Commission reported that "authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft — American Airlines Flight 11 — long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center," according to CNN.com. Furthermore, the closest fighters were about 100 miles away and were unarmed. Fighters also went after a Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 which was suspected to be hijacked though it was later determined untrue and the plane was safe.Alauran 05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, when I saw this header I expected a totally different message. Do you have any suggestions for changes to the article? Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats because I deleted a previous post that was obviously trolling. Apperently, Alauran didn't see it in time and posted a responce. Or maybe this is a parody of that post. --Tarage 06:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There was no evidence of "any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down" because there was no attempt to find any and the primary source of such evidence was deliberately destroyed before it was examined for such evidence. No evidence found (if no one looked for it) does not equal no evidence. I haven't looked at flight 93 yet so can't comment. As for the fires...90% of the fuel burnt outside the buildings (the fireball). There is survivor eyewitness testimony that within 15 minutes of impact there were only small scattered fires on the impact floors. NIST found that the fuel was not a factor in the fires after the intial impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). NIST’s tests found that peak temperatures were reached in 20-30 minutes, and that temperatures were below 600C (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p78). The most significant aspect of all the tests NIST carried out is that they could not (NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5) get the trusses to fail! Strange as it may seem these were results of the NIST simulations yet they concluded fire made the trusses fail without actually determining exactly why (in fact they determined that maximum damage to the steel occured 20 minutes after impact. Why didn't it collapse then?). Obviously the tests were inadequate and the cause of collapse is undetermined. Whatever the air force did on 9/11, it is the first and ONLY time armed fighters were not sent to intercept an aircraft that flew off course. There are plenty of gaps for conspiracy theories to fit in. Until there is a proper investigation they can't be discarded. I will also point out that I did not read the NIST report until a few weeks ago so I may find I am incorrect once I look into it closer. Wayne 10:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This last paragraph qualifies as WP:OR. There may possibly be something to investigate here, but there's nothing that should affect editing of the articles until some reliable source comments on those. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't use this talk page for soapboxing, or general comments about the subject. --Haemo 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A new take on the 'terrorist' question

Its apparent to me that whilst the debate is nowhere near over, asking for help from WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST and getting a fresh perspective has moved the discussion forward a lot more than my previous arguments. In that vein, I'd like to offer this point to discuss. Please don't simply repeat what you've posted before, as I feel we are finally starting to make some progress.

Compare the following two beginning sentences:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

and

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

Can those who advocate the inclusion of the word 'terrorist' tell me, what useful meaning is conveyed in the first sentence that isn't conveyed in the second? Damburger 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No good. "terrorist" is undisputed. "Islamic" is disputed, although accepted by the mainstream accounts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If 'terrorist' was undipsuted, this would be a very short talk page. 'Islamic' is a totally different issue, but one I agree is worth looking into. I can't help noticing you've just evaded the question. Please tell me what meaning is conveyed by the first sentence that is not conveyed by the second sentence. Damburger 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That it was a "terrorist act" is not disputed. I see possible information creep here; "terrorist" gets removed, then "Islamic fundamentalist", then "suicide attack", leaving nothing but WP:WEASELs. I'd suggest leaving terrorist unadorned, and citing the others. Or perhaps:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1-100] suicide attacks[1-20] by Islamic extremists[1-22] on that date upon the United States of America.

showing the approriate weight (or number of reliable sources) for each phrase. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to actually answer my question? Damburger 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does an removing undisputed statement (although possibly in violation of a guideline) help? I don't see them as signficiantly different, although removing terrorist probably violates WP:WEASEL. 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

You don't have to justify the non-presence of words in wikipedia, if you did they would be filled with nonsense. You have to justify the presence of words. This should be a no-brainer. Damburger 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't told us what we are supposed to refer to the terrorists as...we can't just call them "those people" or the "men"...this is an encyclopedic effort which means all we need do is attribute what others have stated...those others must come from reliable sources, well known for not being biased. If the UN (which is not universally sympathetic to the U.S.), most fo the world's media and the preponderance of reliable references call the event an act of terrorism and the people who did it terroists, then you want to make this article into something it shouldn't be, namely, unencylopedic.--MONGO 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the question, Damburger, is that you cannot remove "terrorist" from The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks... because they were terrorists! Arthur Rubin is absolutely right. This is not in dispute, except by you. It's just getting ridiculous. As I've stated several times, if the official accounts of 9/11 are wrong (if the US Government had a hand in it, or if Islamic extremists didn't do it) the people who performed the acts of 9/11 were terrorists. Why can't you get this through your head? Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, so that's what his article says. Over and over you're arguing that "this was terrorism but not performed by terrorists." What the heck is that? Timneu22 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And each and every one of you dodges the question. Its not about removing the word 'terrorist', its about the justification for its presence in the first place. We don't have to 'call them' anything, as the perfectly readable alternative sentence shows. So, what meaning is added by having the word 'terrorist' in the sentence? Damburger 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove "Islamic extemists" from your introductory sentence because it is not POV: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America. Now, attacks by whom? The sentence is incomplete. Try this: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by terrorist hijackers on that date upon the United States of America. Now you have a good introduction. Timneu22 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This would be better:The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by airplane hijackers (primarily Saudis) on that date upon the United States of America. Now you have a good NPOV introduction. Mr.grantevans2 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, to keep on track I'll make those modifications:

  1. The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America.
  1. The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America.

Now, can someone please tell me what extra meaning the first sentence carries, and how that additional meaning improves the article? Damburger 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Damburger, a suicide attack and a terrorist suicide attack are two very different things. If you just take the the sentence out of context for a second, the first only implies that the authors wanted to kill themselves as well as those that were killed with them. The second phrase implies that the authors wanted there to be political consequences to the attack, which is exactly what the hijackers wanted (unless the only reason why they flew into the towers was for the 40 virgins in heaven....) Wireless99 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is added is unverified speculation on the motives of people who are dead? There is no way to know what those people were thinking, and if your argument rests on that, it is very weak indeed. Damburger 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What has been verified is that they were members of alqaeda, and that al qaeda'a purpose in sending them on that suicide mission was unreservedly politico-ideological. They joined al qaeda with this knowledge, and if all they wanted was the 40 virgins they would have to be pretty stupid. Also, and this is in now way an endorsment of al qaeda: but say what you want about them they are not stupid or naive. They are a very secretive organisation and would not recruit simpletons who are only in it because they think they will get to have sex with 40 pretty girls at the end of it. They recruit those who have some degree of intelligence, and with an unwavering commitment to their ideology. This is not really speculation here. Wireless99 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 33

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Straw poll

This debate can go on for a long time. But the aim here is to reach a consensus, not merely to agree we have different personal views on the matter. So a straw poll to try and help the debate along: to identify the main arguments and what support each receives.

I've tried to break down views into simple statements of a kind people will mostly support or oppose. There are a lot of them, because there are many views, and it might help to identify with precision, which exact issues we agree on, or disagree on, and how strongly.

Feel free to support or oppose all that apply, or (if necessary) add other non-complex and short extras at the end. Keep it short, and honest. Usual communal approaches for talk page "straw polls" apply in case of doubt.

Please comment or sign below each using #:* VIEW comment ~~~~ . I've added mine as an example on the first.

Main points and arguments raised - added by FT2


Terrorist/terrorism has multiple definitions. But judging by all (or substantively all) mainstream definitions, 9/11 would be considered a "terrorist" incident, and the perpetrators would be considered "terrorists".

  1. Support FT2 (Talk | email) 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Timneu22 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support--Cberlet 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, but this does not mean that I condone using the term in the article (I am, in fact, rather opposed to it). Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support If this isn't terrorism, what is? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support · AndonicO Talk 13:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support --PTR 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Stanselmdoc 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Bevinbell 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support--MONGO 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support JaakobouChalk Talk 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Billbrock 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. If these people weren't terrorists, who were? Their act was designed to terrorize a civilian population. Griot 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  28. Support Deeter063 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Orbitalwow 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Deigo 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The word terrorist in this case is used for a political agenda. We shouldn't use the word without adressing this issue. Geir 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist/ism is a term that carries an emotive meaning as well as being (ideally) a factual term as well.

  1. Support Haemo 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Geir 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Billbrock 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support An "emotive meaning." Meaning the word inspired peoples' emotions? That's true. Griot 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support It is factual and if connotation is meant by "emotive meaning", then yes, like most other descriptors, terrorist has an "emotive meaning" Mr.Z-man 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Nearly every word in the English language has both a denotation (factual definition) and connotation (emotive attatchment). Basic English class stuff, people. Sageofwisdom 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Its not a factual term at all Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It does not carry an emotive meaning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It does not carry an emotive meaning. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose With the exception of extremely basic words (articles, "go", "said", etc.) there are nearly no words without any sort of connotation. It was the goal of al Qaeda to terrorize the United States. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains

Terrorist/ism is a term often used factually, but is also used by one side to gain perceived advantage by casting their opponents as such.

  1. Support Haemo 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support One side may do this in cases where they feel public opinion needs to be swayed. However, I don't think anyone has argued that such is happening in this case. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Sometimes accurate, but not in this case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support In this case, terrorism is being used factually. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Geir 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support But is every true statement relevant to this article? Billbrock 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Griot 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Weak support I support the first part but who's the "one side"? Are we the "one side"? Is it the US gov't and the media? Mr.Z-man 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Half of war is propaganda. The United States barely realizes that. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  16. Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Terrorism is never used factually - because the word does not convey facts Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Terrorism is scarcely (never) used factually. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Believes This question Misleading Terrorism has an objective definition, and therefore should be discernible to people when it is used incorrectly. Deeter063 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Believes This Question Misleading The term is used both as a factual word to describe an event designed to terrorize civilians and as a propaganda term to define people or an event. Each individual must decide for him- or herself which one is being used. I aree completely with Deeter in this instance.Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV contemplates that terms used by reliable source consensus should be adopted by Wikipedia - if everyone calls it a duck, so should we.

  1. Support Timneu22 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Dispite Hameo's point, I think 'we' can overlook a minor gramorical error. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support NPOV is non-negotiable; we must state as fact things which are generally accepted as fact. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Wikipedia works well when it summarizes and conforms with reliable sources. That can be done objectively. It does not work well when we base what articles say on the arbitrary opinions of whoever happens to be editting the article... that leads straight to bias because Wikipedia's editors are not a very representative sample of the general public, academia, the press, etc. --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support If "everyone" refers to the reliable sources.--PTR 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Stanselmdoc 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Linguistically speaking, this is how "language" even exists, because a group of people decide on shared meanings of words.
  9. Support --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strongly Support Wikipedia can only draw from reputable sources. It is not possible to have completely NPOV. Overwhelming consensus of opinion has the strength of fact. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support While everyone is a bit of an exaggeration, we can't ignore majority belief. Anything else would be not be NPOV. Mr.Z-man 01:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I haven't seen a reliable source that claims this attack was not terrorism. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Bevinbell 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support--MONGO 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support On the one hand, Damburger is right that use of the term goes against a WP guideline, however, the changes he wants go against WP:UNDUE (99% of reliable sources call the events terrorism). One guideline is going to get violated here, no matter which side wins. Concensus should rule. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Billbrock 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  19. Support Sageofwisdom While I agree that it would be best to take as neutral a view as possible, in this case such a strategy would be nearly impossible. The best course is to report the facts, and in matters that are always matters of opinion to report what the majority of people believe, but in as neutral a way as possible. Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support We must accept what the mainsteram defines something as here on wikipedia, to do any less is original research Nickjbor 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose The policies and guidelines say differently Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose "everyone" is too subjective Haemo 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose · AndonicO Talk 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose there is no "everyone", and the general consensus among experts etc does not matter; we should at all times remain neutral. Melsaran (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not 'everyone' is correct Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV contemplates that terms should not be sidestepped or pussyfooted if accurate - a murderer should be described as a murderer if they murdered.

  1. Support Timneu22 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Same thing as above. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support if and only if the term has a precise meaning and a neutral connotation. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support in as much as that using an undue ammount of politically correct language is a form of bias. --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)--W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Supoort — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Stanselmdoc 20:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC) the word "murderer" might have been removed from some things, but the word "murder" has certainly not.
  7. Support Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support The connotation need not be neutral, but one should use the term descriptively rather than to elicit an emotional response. Billbrock 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  12. Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support [User:Sageofwisdom|Sageofwisdom]] The event fits the dictionary definition of 'terrorism.' If this is not a 'terrorist' even, what is? Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose The word 'murderer' has been removed before for this very reason Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose "pussyfooting" is a subjective call Haemo 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose "Accurate" does not mean the same as accepted by concensus. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV contemplates that terms should be used neutrally when there is doubt - a murderer could ideally simply have their victims and manner of death listed to document their acts, and the fact they killed.

  1. Support This is consistent with letting the facts speak for themselves (WP:NPOV) Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Mr.grantevans2 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, although inapplicable in this case. There is no doubt as to terrorism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support weakly Stanselmdoc 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Terms should be used neutrally, but here, there is no doubt.
  6. Support weakly for the same reasons as Stanselmdoc. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support on the same basis as Arthur Rubin. Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support on the same basis as Arthur Rubin. Billbrock 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support for the same reasons as Arthur Rubin. This event was meant to terrorize a civilian population, therefore it is terrorism. There is no doubt. Also, while I approve of listing the act and victims, it would be illogical to leave out the fact that this was a terrorist event. Would you list the proceedings of a criminal trial, but not the verdict, because the verdict was not reached by consensus? Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Wikipedia doesn't need reasionable doubt. This isn't a criminal trial. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose weakly... a bit too vaugue and could lead to some bias. Also it's just a bit spacey in general... we would say "FDR was an American President", not "FDR recieved a majority of the electoral vote in 4 national elections during years in which there was a presidential election". Sure people could draw their own conclusions... but come on... --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose weakly I agree with Tarage. If the assertions cannot be supported with facts, then they should be removed. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  1. Abstain I'm not sure that "murderer" is analogous to "terrorist". Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Abstain I don't think this applies to the current dispute. Even the opponents of using the term terrorism don't seem to "doubt" that the term itself is accurate. They only question its use in WP according to WP guidelines. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Best NPOV practice would be to avoid possible pejorative terms or avoid applying our labels to them whatever the case might be, even if there is only a question that they might be seen that way, because avoidance of pejoratives in Wikipedia's voice is what counts more.

  1. Support Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support of course. Wikipedia simply cannot use pejorative terms. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Mr.grantevans2 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Geir 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose pejorative is too broad a topic, especially when words can be used accurately, and sourced accurately.Haemo 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not a court. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --PTR 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Stanselmdoc 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Avoidance of pejoratives in WP's voice is not what counts more. WP should not be worried about hurting someone's feelings, but by reporting accurately what the rest of the world reports.
  7. Oppose --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose "whatever the case might be" - far too many problems; so if there is a video of a person killing someone and then saying "I'm a murderer" we can't call them a murderer? Mr.Z-man 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose If the term is sourced (especially as widely as this one), it's not being used as a perjorative. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose on the same basis as Haemo Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Avoidance of perjoratives is only one guideline; it cannot be used to trump others unless supported by concensus. Although I think the phrasing of the question is biased to make "being PC" seem overly tedious. In most cases, it isn't. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Griot 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. The proposition is framed naively. There is no way to make language purely denotative. NPOV is like utopia: worth striving for but unattainable. Billbrock 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Like I said earlier, there are nearly no words that have no connotations to them, whether good or ill. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  16. Oppose Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose It's not our job to re-write history Nickjbor 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS and if it was, we could do a better job at it then arguing about this.
  18. Oppose Strongly If the term is what is true, it should be listed. Period. Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Best NPOV practice would be to call a spade a spade, if the incidents were terrorist incidents, call them terrorist incidents, because the technical (dictionary, governmental, documentational, etc) meaning is what counts more.

  1. Confused Support if technical means "expert attest to technical use" then yes Haemo 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Stanselmdoc 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC) --Again, linguistically, this is the only way language can survive. We know a spade to be a spade b/c we as a community decided it was going to be called a spade. If one (or even more, but still a minority) stands up and says, "No I'm going to call it a flute", that does not make "flute" the accepted definition. Language as it exists would never survive if people were required to make way for everyone's different definitions.
  6. Support Damburger, I dispute the definition of a spade. I guess it's POV on Wikipedia now. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Especially since the disputes over the definition are not relevant to this debate. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support if a terrorist is not a terrorist, then what is a spade? Nickjbor 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The definition of a spade isn't disputed. The definition of a terrorist is. Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose WP is not a dictionary. It doesn't matter whether it is "logical" to call these acts terrorism based on the mere definition of the term. What matters are the descriptions contained within a concensus of reliable sources. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Abstain --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  1. Depends on whether there are agreable definitions of "spades". The line is of course blurry, but in the instance of "terrorism", it is obvious that the definition varies far too much. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Comment: this assertion assumes, in its statement, things which are disputed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Comment This is getting rather silly. I think the reason to call these incidents acts of "terrorism" is to note that their purpose was not so much to destroy the WTC as to elicit a certain response. Billbrock 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Best NPOV practice would be to call a spade a spade, if the incidents were terrorist incidents, call them terrorist incidents, because the popular usage is what counts more.

  1. Support Stanselmdoc 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC) see above.
  2. Weak Support We generally shouldn't set our standards by popular opinion, because people in large groups are dumb (as has been mentioned in the archives ad nauseum). But here we have virtually all reliable sources in agreement. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support just as history can change by historians and people changing thier view, so can the present and past events. If we are not to go on popular usage, then we are crossing into original research. Nickjbor 07:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Haemo 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Something we all agree on. Scary. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose yeah, and water boils at 100°C because the average housekeeper knows it from boiling eggs. Right... Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not popular usage, but all reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weakly Oppose Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose as per Arthur Rubin GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose We should not be appealing to the majority in WP. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  11. Oppose Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Abstain What matters here is not the popular opinion so much as the reliable sources. I would, however, oppose if the popular and official definitions differed. In this case, however, they do not.

There is a case that Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks and their perpetrators are not universally described throughout the world as "terrorists", and that a notable minority in the world reject this label.

  1. Support You won't likely hear from such people on wikipedia though, as most lack internet connections Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Of course their supporters call them "martyrs", not "terrorists". I don't understand where the "oppose" votes come from, don't you read newspapers ? Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Mr.grantevans2 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support of course, the world doesn't end with Europe/America. Melsaran (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support like Rama --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support weak. Geir 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support weakly al Qaeda calls us the "crusaders" and "imperialists," yet we reject that because of the facts. It is a fact that al Qaeda terrorized us to begin their plan to establish a new Caliphate. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  8. Weak support I agree with most of the statement, but this should not affect the article. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support and Oppose The statement is dead on, smack dab right. Some people do think that way. However that should have no impact whatsoever on what we here at wikipedia write. "some people" think the moon is made of cheese, but you dont hear arguments over that. Nickjbor 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per Arthur Rubin below. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Mixed There are some people who think that Al Qaeda are not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and possibly that Al Qaeda are not terrorists. There are no people who think that the 9/11 attacks are not terrorist acts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mixed Stanselmdoc 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Concur with Arthur Rubin
  1. Abstain This is a completely true statement. However, what a notable minority- chief among them the group that performed the deed, I'm sure- thinks does not change that this is a terrorist event. In fact, I belive that the hijackers themselves, if confronted with the facts, would agree that this was terrorist. They just would believe that their motives were pure.

If a notable minority did disagree, then we should abide by government descriptions and call them that anyhow.

  1. Weak support "Notable minority" of reliable sources, yes. The unwashed masses, not so much. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose if we in fact should abide by government descriptions, it wouldn't be because a notable minority disagrees. There is a problem with the logical formulation of the question. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Geir 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Governments are by definition political. We sould not be allowing politics to dictate what we say. Nickjbor 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Abstain --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  2. Abstain Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Confused What do you mean by a 'notable minority'? --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    A large enough proportion of people (or some specific group of people) to be a minority worthy of note - neither a majority or near majority, nor a "tiny minority" (in the terms of WP:NPOV). Basically "a minority, but a large enough minority to be notable", by whatever standard of notability you use. Basically the question asks (in simple terms) the stance you have on principle, about, "if enough of a minority did disagree to count as 'notable' by your criteria, then would doing XYZ then be right?" FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If a notable minority did disagree, then we should abide by that and avoid using a disputed pejorative even if almost all governments do.

  1. Support Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, but not applicable to this case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support See my answer above. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support if notable minority. Geir 18:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Confused Oppose Again, what is 'notable'? But still, typically if the majority of governments say something is something... --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We should call people what it is right to call them, whatever they think. What is right is not pejorative, and is not necessarly sympathetic or washed down either. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Doing so would be giving undue weight to the minority view. Mr.Z-man 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This is like bending to the requests of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and naming this document the "official conspiracy theory" page. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  5. Strongly Oppose This is ridiculous- exactly the same as a government where minorities rule. Namely, a dictatorship. The basic law of a democracy is, "majority rules." On Wikipedia, when a tiny minority and a massive (and representative) majority disagree, we turn to the facts. The facts are that this was a terrorist event. List facts, not opinions. Opinions include, "this was not a terrorist event," "9/11 was performed by the US government," and other statements of the ilk. We have evidence to support what we have now. We have NO substantiated evidence to support anything else. Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Extra questions added in a similar vein

In the intrest of finding out where we stand, without similar questions with slightly different wording, I offer these two questions.

Should the words Terrorism and Terrorist be totally removed from this article?

  1. Support Mr.grantevans2 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. No --Tarage 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. No. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. No. Timneu22 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. No. Haemo 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely not. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. No — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. No Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. No ATren 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. No --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. No Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. No Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. No Bevinbell 13:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. No Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. No --W.marsh 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. No not if we have to refer to them as "bad men" or some other less then accurate title.--MONGO 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. No --PTR 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Nope if everyone reliable source it a terrorist attack then... Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. No GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. No--GillesV 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. No --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  21. No Nickjbor 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Mixed Geir 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. No The term "terrorist" is used for a reason, which has been confirmed to fit those responsible, therefore, the word(s) should remainDeeter063 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. No The word terrorist applies to the event. Facts, people. Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the words Terrorism and Terrorist be partially removed from this article?

  1. Yes Geir 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose --Tarage 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. No. Timneu22 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. No. but I'm not clear with what a "partial" removal would mean. --Haemo 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely not. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. No Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. No ATren 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. No --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. No Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. No Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. NO Bevinbell 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. No Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. No--MONGO 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. No GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. No --PTR 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. No --GillesV 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm not allowed to answer my own polls. --Tarage 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. No --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
  2. No Nickjbor 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls

Please remember Polls are Evil"In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. ..In some cases, editors use straw polls during discussions of what material to include in various Wikipedia articles. Although such polls are occasionally used and sometimes helpful, their use is controversial. Where used, article straw polls should be developed in a way to assist in reaching true consensus, rather than in an attempt to silence an opposing opinion." Mr.grantevans2 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes no consensus can be reached. Picking up a blue pen and asking 100 people if it is a blue pen will get you the correct result. However somebody might say it's a red pen. You can't "compromise" on purple, it's blue. In cases where it's fact that's being disputed, consensus is very difficult to reach, and sometimes a majority has to come out on top.Nickjbor 07:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and comments

My apologies if any of these aren't perfectly worded (as haemo seems to feel). The spirit of them is probably what counts more, I accept some wordings used generalizations such as "everyone" that may be not exactly ideal. Feel free to propose better variations below! FT2 (Talk | email) 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I get what what you're going for with most of them. --Haemo 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
i found the exercise rather confusing ... Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the reason for dividing it up like this is. There seems to be some framing going on here. I still think that my question in the above section deserves a proper answer. Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a format fix that actually makes the poll easier to read, and tabulates the votes, is part of a manipulative conspiracy? Perhaps a conspiracy run by Cheney...or the Mossad cabal behind 9/11? Framing? How about the perceptual frame that this entire discussion is absurd on its face? Reality check time. Several of the vote questions are almost incomprehensible, and the vote serves no useful purpose since there will be contradictory votes and vote counts. How will results be tabulated? A mainframe for the billions of possible interpretations? If this is a discussion about text (as it should be), then there is only one question: should we use the word "terrorist" to describe one of the most significant acts of terrorism in many decades? This entire "vote" is fatally flawed. Anyone who has ever tabulated questionnaire results can see this problem.--Cberlet 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the editors on this debate have had roughly 6 years from December 2001 (the date of creation of the article page) to reach a consensus, and as yet has failed to do so, that suggests whatever kind of discussion has gone on, is not doing the job. The reason it's not doing the job is that the simple question you posit contains aspects that different people have issues with. In other words the question seems to be one question, but if unpacked would read something like: "should we use the term 'terrorists' and if so what definition, and making appropriate assumptions about minority views and pejoratives, and what wikipedia consensus feels is right in this case..." Its a mess of a question which is partly why nearly 4 years of talk page wordage have failed to answer it. The above questions are intended to help unpack it a bit, to examine what aspects we agree and disagree on, within that question, so we can gain a bit better understanding of the specific views and how representative they are -- in order to help editors here to focus in on the areas of disagreement. That's in part why some may seem duplicated - so that editors can show support or opposition to the different specific assumptions and wordings in the debate. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow... I doubt this strawpoll is going to silence any of us, reguardless of the outcome. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I might give up soon. Mr.grantevans2 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus isn't about "shutting people up". Nor - the other extreme - is it about having a right to make unilateral expectations. It's about working collaboratively and respecting that a consensus may emerge which we will partly like, and partly not, and in some cases completely like, or completely not, or even think is mistaken... and if it's a genuine consensus, to at times say "no can compromise even if everyone else does" and at other times to say "yeah, okay, I can see the majority thinks X, for reasons I disagree with but they don't". FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, some people, myself included, probably aren't going to give up so easly if their viewpoints aren't accepted. That is why I worry this will drag on and on without end. Unless, of course, we get a definant vote on something, and that can be enforced. But sadly, I don't think Wikipedia has anything like that. --Tarage 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I can believe some would wish to. Everyone has a little part of them that goes "I want it my way!" But that's just not an adult way to get stuff done. We have processes if that situation did arise, to resolve it in many non-childlike ways, using many other resources in the community -- whichever way it may be. To avoid using them, and instead try to tangle up discussion fruitlessly beyond a point of reason comes fairly firmly under WP:POINT -- no matter who does it... you, me, Jimbo Wales, or Santa Claus. That policy is there to say nobody has the right to disrupt reasonable Wikipedia process to make their point. But so far that hasn't happened. What has happened is much unfocussed discussion in circles. We hear many views but we don't actually have a solid basis to see what we think on it...  it's all wordage. The above poll is intended to help us see where we agree, and where we differ. Its a tool that should be able, with luck, to help us in this well-meaning debate. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the core tenets of writing a legitimate questionnaire is no complex sentences, and no ambiguity. I do not doubt your sincerity, FT2, but the above poll is totally without value in terms of finding a solution to editing actual text here on Wikipedia. This is not about polling the attitudes of Wiki editors. It is supposed to be about editing text. 99% of the recent discussion has been a total waste of time, energy, and bandwidth. It establishes nothing. And it violates the Wiki guidelines about the purpose and nature of discussion pages.--Cberlet 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oddly I was just adding a comment above on a very similar point at the same time as you wrote the above. Hopefully you'll find an answer in that comment. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
*1+2 does not =4.
*1:The definition of terrorist referenced often above is "an intent to cause fear".
*2: The section on motive in this article mentions punishment,Lebanon,Palestine,bankrupting America("'restore freedom to our nation','punish the aggressor in kind,' and to inflict economic damage on America") but does not mention even once the "intent to cause fear".
*4: By adding 1 with 2 we can not logically come up with 4 (that 9/11 was an act of terrorism). Mr.grantevans2 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
From the motive section:
Bin Laden said, "We swore that America would not live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America will not get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." --PTR 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that some of us don't believe that intent to cause fear is the only part of the definition of terrorism, or that it's the make-or-break issue. Stanselmdoc 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Mr.grantevans2, are you saying that because you think 2 sections in a Wikipedia article (might) conflict with each other billions of people all over the world, the UN and every reputable news outlet are wrong about it being a terrorist attack? If all those people are right, we should call it what it is. If they are not, there's a bigger issue than internal consistency in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps it would be better to fix the section? RxS 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To RxS; I'm saying the word "terrorists" does not fit with this article's explanation of motive; I'm saying there is a widespread compulsion (likely as a result of repetitive usage)to insert the "T" words where they don't fit,including into this article, just like the words "evil" and "suspicious" are being used inappropriately in many venues. Last generation, words like "Communist sympathizer", "outside agitators" and "socialism" were mis-applied so this is nothing new, just different terms. I'm also saying the "T" word(s) add nothing to the substance of the article. I'm also saying it is classic Orwellian doublethink to propose the "T" words are NPOV. Mr.grantevans2 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
To bring up evil as an example is a strawman. To plagiarize myself, terrorism has a much more specific definition that can be used factually, where evil is a much more general term. I think you might misunderstand what doublethink is if you want to apply it to a term used all around the world...it's not Orwellian to use a term in common use everywhere in this exact context. Though it absolutely is Orwellian not use a term in common usage in order to advance a political point/agenda if that's what's going on here. RxS 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Doublethink is the act of simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs while fervently believing both" Wikipedia. Mr.grantevans2 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV guideline doesn't mean to rephrase so as not to offend, it says: "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." It would not be NPOV to write the article without using terrorism or terrorist since that is what the reliable sources use. What is a contradictory belief in writing what the reliable sources have reported? --PTR 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To follow my example, many reliable sources in the 50s referred to civil rights workers as outside agitators at that time and could justify the term literally since most were from outside the community and they did, in fact, agitate. I suppose if Wikipedia had existed then, some here would have been insisting that the same terminology be used. I am saying that an encyclopedia should rise above the pejorative terminology of the day. But to answer your specific question, when the reliable sources are using the wrong word in the context of their own articles, it becomes a (sic) situation whereby that term should only be repeated when it's a quote. Mr.grantevans2 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So you don't want it removed entirely, just in X says Y format? --PTR 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
X says Y is fine with me. Mr.grantevans2 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that "X says Y" is very incomlete; it's A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, and a few more say "Te". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The question is not whether it's accurate to call the 11 September a terrorist act, but whether Wikipedia should use the term. Which comes down to asking whether the term "terrorist" can be considered to have one univocal, consensual meaning. And it is not absurd to say that this is not the case.
Your "If all those people are right, we should call it what it is" point is moot because it's off topic, and equivalent to "let's go say that Hitler was a bad person". Rama 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the 1 + 2 bit above where he says that because the sections ("an intent to cause fear") don't match up we shouldn't use the term. That's a little disingenuous I think. In general I don't buy that "bad" and "terrorist" are equivalent. Terrorism has a much more specific definition that can be used factually, where bad is a much more general term. RxS 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, again, the crux of this "argument" is that some people don't appear to believe that the word "terrorism" has any factual meaning; that is, it is just another term like "bad", "mean", or "evil" which cannot have basis in fact, and which cannot be anything other than a subjective moral judgment. Look at the "opposes" in the section above, for examples of this thinking. I, and every expert in the world would disagree most strenuously with this interpretation. Because something can be used as a pejorative doesn't make it impossible to apply it properly. There are people who can be called Nazis or terrorists without simply meaning "they're bad men". --Haemo 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not it at all. I accept this meaning given in Wikipedia: "Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror",..." Since the element of intent is included, I think it's just plain obvious that nobody knows anybody else's intent and since the hijackers were all killed, the only way the word can be appropriately used in this case is if there were authenticated statements(pre-attack) from the hijackers themselves as to what their intentions were. For example, "fraud" is usually described as the "intent to deceive". The only way we could call someone a "fraudster" here without getting Wikipedia sued would be if there was a court conviction or an admission by the perpetrators. The hijackers have not been convicted of terrorism and never admitted to be motivated by an intent to scare Americans. The only reason,really,that this and other accounts of the event are so anxious to call the hijackers by this term is because the people accused are dead and can not defend themselves plus individuals who insist on using the term are largely expressing their own quite natural human bias and anger towards the killers and by calling them names, it provides a little bit of a feeling of revenge. It's kind of like the victim impact statements at a murder sentencing where the family can call the killer terrible names; perhaps it makes the family feel a little better. Or maybe it's more like spitting on somebody's grave if that person hurt you in some way when alive. That's the way it seems to me. It's actually kind of disappointing (to me) to see the support for the term in 2007 on Wikipedia, especially since people at Wikipedia went to so much trouble to analyze and reject the use of the term some time ago. Mr.grantevans2 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> I'm not looking for revenge or to spit on anyone's grave or indulge in name calling. Wikipedia has not rejected the use of the word. I am here to assist in writing an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources. Wikipedia could call someone a "fraudster" if they were citing reliable sources. We are not here to parse the sources and decide they were wrong to term the act terrorism and the ones who carried it out, terrorists. We are here to present what the reliable sources say as WP:NPOV states, "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Remember, comment on the edit and not the editors. --PTR 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So, what's your principle here? You "opposed" the statement that "terrorism has both an emotive meaning, and (indeally) a factual one". Which part of that do you oppose? You don't believe terrorism is emotive — if so, then how can you claim that labelling them is out of "revenge"? Every expert on the subject says this was terrorism -- we know what their motives were from the men who trained them and sent them on their mission. We know what they were doing, and why. No one here is out for blood, and the fact that because the world no longer holds cadaver synods does not mean we should neglect labeling these men, or their actions, accurately because "they can't defend themselves". --Haemo 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think terrorism has or is meant to have a factual meaning; only a pejorative meaning..I think it's similar to "outside agitator" and, in fact, since it is so blatantly in the realm of bias, it's quite easy to stretch the pejorativity even further with obvious police statish add-ons like "could be inspired by terrorists", "suspected of facilitating terrorism", "terrorist sympathizer","associated with terrorist facilitators" or, the best I've seen so far on CNN: "the group is suspected of being associated with people linked to terrorism." Mr.grantevans2 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Then, quite frankly, you'd be wrong. There are entire careers of study devoted to terrorism, and the conditions which foster it. In fact, the UN explicitly explains that academia has a consensus version which is distinctly non-pejorative. You'd do well to look at any of the 109 different definitions of terrorism and find even one that has "only a pejorative meaning". --Haemo 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
X says Y is fine with me; and I think that's reasonable. Mr.grantevans2 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then I don't think any change is necessary. I think it is easy if you have only a few sources that say something is terrorism and a few that say it's something else but in this case we don't have that. We have a huge volume of sources saying it's terrorism. Why don't you give an example of how to write the first two sentences in the X says Y format? That would give a better point to debate. --PTR 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the multi-faceted definition of terrorism on the terrorism page? 1. Violence. Sept. 11 was certainly violent. 2. Psychological impact or fear - "The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to." I think this fits precisely w/ Sept. 11. And even if you disagree, it's only ONE factor that doesn't apply out of many. 3. Perpetrated for a political goal. 4. Deliberate targeting of noncombatants. 5. Unlawfulness or illegitimacy. I would say Sept. 11 fits 5 out of 5, and even if it only fir 4 out of 5, that's 80%! Also on that page: "In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." I would say this fits. There's even a picture of the WTC with smoke billowing out of it on the page.
And I don't think it's fair to say that use of the term gives people "revenge", nor do I think that if they were still alive, any defense they could offer would make me think "oh yeah, you had a legitimate reason to fly planes into building and kill masses of people. totally okay with it now. no WAY you're a terrorist. you just wanted the world to understand your cause." Normal people who can think rationally do not think that flying planes into buildings is a good or appropriate action. Stanselmdoc 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The only reason,really,that this and other accounts of the event are so anxious to call the hijackers by this term is because the people accused are dead and can not defend themselves plus individuals who insist on using the term are largely expressing their own quite natural human bias and anger towards the killers and by calling them names, it provides a little bit of a feeling of revenge."

I have come across very few people in this debate advocating actually calling the hijackers "terrorists". I thought the majority of the debate was about whether the act itself was to be called "terrorist". Which doesn't seem too difficult a decision to make really. Does it? Maybe it is. I would be curious to know, though, how much of this debate is still there because people are still confused as to the above distinction. Wireless99 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I dissagree. I advocate calling the hijackers terrorists. I advocate calling all of the responcible parties terrorists. And I do believe my two polls above this prove that I am not alone. Infact, it would appear that I am in the vast majority. I'll wait a while longer, but if things stay the way they are in those polls, I'm going to move that we end this debate because consensus has been reached. And no, this is not a call for both sides to go randomly call on people to vote. --Tarage 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please. Let's move forward. This has been a painful example of intellectual pointillism and postmodernism on crack.--Cberlet 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In response to PTR my suggestion would be;

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated attacks by 19 airplane hijackers (15 of them being Saudi nationals) upon the United States of America. The United Nations Security Council and many other authorities label the event as "terrorist" attacks. Mr.grantevans2 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many other authorities" is inadequate WP:WEASEL wording. How about "all authorities". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this, but why so wordy? We already source the terrorist claim with a footnote; no one is going to get confused by it. If we want to be super pedantic, we could do something like:
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America, and are regarded by all authorities as an example of terrorism.
Seems silly though. --Haemo 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with Arthur Rubin on the WP:WEASEL wording since it is all authorities. Have you read the reference from the UN? I also agree with --Haemo and wouldn't remove suicide or Islamic extremists or you could replace Islamic extremist with "members of the terrorist group al-Qeada".
It does seem kind of silly since we source the terrorist claim immediately with a footnote which should suffice for "these people say" in the X says Y format. --PTR 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think this is neccary or advisable. Concidering how many people oppose removing all, or some, of the 'terrorist' words, consensus was reached long ago. Lets leave the wording as it is. --Tarage 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to that. I just got here, and don't consider the wording honest. It certainly isn't neutral. It says: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[2] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States.... ... How about: The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of the alleged hijacking and destruction of four airliners, apparently resulting in the deaths of everyone on board, coordinated with the destruction of a group of buildings in New York City and damage to the Pentagon. According to the Bush regime, these were suicide attacks conducted by nineteen auspiciously fortunate Islamist freedom fighters. Wowest 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't going to take this seriously, then please leave the talk page. Jesus, why do we put up with these children? --Golbez 09:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I believe he is being serious. What he, and the rest of the minority of disidents need to understand is that consensus has been reached. I only have to look at my two poll questions to see that all but a handfull of people oppose changing the wording at all. Therefor, I am requesting that the page be taken off of protection, and all edits that remove terrorist/terrorism be reguarded as vandalism and be treated as such. Enough is enough, lets move on. {{editprotected}} --Tarage 09:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Might as well leave it on protection until the end of next week. --PTR 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what does this mean? "leave it on protection"? Also, to Tarage I don't like my comments being conflated with the comments of Wowest into an other of so-called "disidents"(sic); as I am trying to move towards the consensus which you claim already exists. In fact the concepts of consensus and other might even be mutually exclusive. Please don't do that again. Mr.grantevans2 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached in my mind. All I have to do is look at my two poll questions to see that in each case, only one person supported removing Terrorist completly/partially, when everyone else who voted opposes it. That seems like consensus to me. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it means the vast majority agrees. And we have that. --Tarage 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to FT2 and Tarrage for trying to identify our meanings and consensus!! Though for me this discussion is a little strange. Yes, we should look into how our leaders and we use the word "terrorist". But I'll call these acts for terrorist-attacks, though maybe not use the word terrorist. Geir 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll call them unsolved mysteries along with the murder of JFK and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident"attack", and the level of involvement of American politicians, Prescott Bush[89] and Averell Harriman in financing and supplying the Nazis; and,as with those events, more facts seem to come out as much time goes by (Bush/Harriman info kept classified for 50 years). Mr.grantevans2 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm ba-ack. I'd appreciate it if my comments were not combined with anyone else's as well. That isn't fair to them. What I'm pointing out is that even the first sentence of this article is straight-up Bush regime propaganda. Something hideous happened on 9/11. I think we can all agree on that one. We -- well, at least *I* -- saw people jumping out of windows to their death to avoid the pain and possible fatal effects of the fire. Then we all saw explosions propelling some sort of dust high above each tower. After that, we all saw each tower collapse, while commentators from news organizations stated that it looked just like controlled demolition. After that, we all heard some government propaganda about what happened, and most of us, including me, bought it.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc." That's a logic error. "After this, therefore, because of this." We believe that aircraft impact followed by fire caused the towers to collapse. More and more evidence, every day, indicates that isn't true. Dozens of witnesses have stated that there were tons of molten metal under each of the three buildings five or six weeks after 9/11. How did aircraft impacts and kerosene fires cause that?

We seem to have a certain kind of consensus here. However, the majority of Americans (51%) according to a recent poll, believe that we need a new investigation of 9/11. Hopefully, it will be one in which there are at least a few commissioners who don't have a conflict of interest. Wowest 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from general comments about the subject of the article. This isn't a forum for general discussion. If you want to talk about specific changes to the article, then cite your sources and explain what you want to change in detail — don't just engage in general discussion, soapboxing, or questions without some specific sources and a change in mind. If you want to discuss general 9/11 theories, there are innumerable forums for just that. --Haemo 18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

{{editprotected}}

Regarding the edit protected request. Is there a continuing need for protection of this page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct place is WP:RFPP, rather than here or an {{editprotected}} request. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I realize that; the template explicitly says that; but nevertheless the person who placed the template was asking for unprotection. I'll disable the template, and a request can be made at RFPP if unprotection is desired. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry... I must admit I'm not very wiki savvy when it comes to the code more experenced users throw around to make everything look fancy. I just saw "request unprotected, put this here", so I did. My appologies. --Tarage 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I just requsted unprotection. (hopefully it's agreeable). Mr.grantevans2 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Recation ?

Iranians React To 9/11 With Vigil, Prayers [90] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biontenagent2008 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view demands both stories side by side

That means both the terror terror story and that what actually happened. This also means there is no need to continue the debate about terror, as it is much more important to get the whole secondary explanation on the page. (Gaby de wilde 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

(See Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Gaby de wilde. It's easier to move to a subpage then to refactor most lines, as the formatting made replies appear wierd. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Again, this is frivilous soap-boxing. Please desist in making general comments about the topic of the article and instead talk about the article itself. The only actionable part of your suggestion is an aggregious violation of neutral point of view. --Haemo 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but soap boxing is appropriate as you have not addressed any of the content suggestions presented. How can you just ignore the secondary account? It's well documented, there is even an attempt to take the Bush administration to court. There are professors who claim the official story is bunk and they do so in Guardian. The FBI says Osama was NOT INVOLVED.

This means the current article is one big lie. And my questions about it go ignored. Every instance of the word Muslim does not belong on the page. I'm terribly upset by all this dishonesty. How do you justify this? By complaining about the format of my writing 100 times? I will then take the soap box, I have every right to. I'm sure you have the best of intentions here Haemo but who is not talking about the article it self here? You or me?

This sub topic is where I say the page is weasel wording, and you say I'm soap boxing huh? I'm talking about the article justifying the war on terror here? I'm not sure how I became the subject there. Could you please clarify that leap of logic? And how do you relate it to weasle wording?

I beg of you to explain, what part of Osama was NOT INVOLVED is so hard for you to understand? (Gaby de wilde 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

None of your facts are correct. However, even if they were, we could only use them if they were reported by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"I will then take the soap box, I have every right to." Wrong. Wikipedia is not a right. The internet is not a right. You do not in any way pay for this webpage. Sorry, but you have no rights here. Everything is at the whim of the owners. --Tarage 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If you persist in soapboxing, you will be blocked for disruption. --Haemo 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but soap boxing is appropriate... Wrong. Peter Grey 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters the article would not be a lie it would be false -there is a difference. We go on the best and most reliable sources to hand and construct the best coherent NPOV article we can from those. Alternative accounts can be found at the 9/11 conspiracies page. We are not being dishonest, and in fact if your accusations continue you may upset some people here. Yes, the article has some problems, but as can be seen from the extensive discussions above we are doing our best to fix them. Please join in constructively. The article's problems do not have a root in the motives of its authors. Wireless99 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless, it appears that Mr/Mrs Gaby de wilde is going to be blocked indefinatly, so I think we can move on. --Tarage 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering whether we can salvage this 1 source from de wilde as a possible reliable source specifying something other than terrorism? [91]Mr.grantevans2 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There's already an entire article which talks about this at 9/11 conspiracies. "Something other than terrorism" is not the same as "these attacks were a government conspiracy"; these people don't believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with them, and therefore have no strong opinion what they call something that didn't happen. They're not disagreeing with the terrorism label, they're disagreeing that they occurred at all as described in the article. --Haemo 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just read it carefully and I see what you mean and I agree. Mr.grantevans2 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You all don't understand... Osama WAS INVOLVED.

Pankuro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.252.192 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Is this page a vital article?

In the History, Renaissance to present section, I think it'd fit.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's on the expanded vital articles list...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Article is in dispute," because it is clearly known that the 'official story' is a complete set of lies. Side, by side, or delete any future mention of 'neutrality.'

70.232.46.165 10:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Tom-Scott Gordon, WTC -demo participant

How about no. We've been over this so many times, I won't repeat myself. However, your POV pushing is not welcome here. --Tarage 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD FYI BTW

Some editors here may wish to contribute to this deletion debate. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers

Article Title is Mispunctuated

I've reconsidered the position I took above where I said it was "not worth fighting over" the fact that this article is incorrectly punctuated. (It is missing a comma after the year; it should read, "September 11, 2001, attacks.") Consensus was recently reached on that point in the talk pages of the WP Manual of Style. [92].

There I cited dozens of authoritative sources for the general proposition that the year in the American month-day-year style is parenthetical and should be set off by commas (unless the year is followed by some other punctuation). I also provided dozens of authoritative sources for the specific usage, "September 11, 2001, attacks."

This point has been discussed before in the archives, and, although many editors are uncomfortable with the correct usage---in my opinion, merely because they have become so used to the incorrect usage---no one has ever cited an authoritative source (or even any rationale) to support the way the article is currently punctuated.

Although we cannot fix every instance of this error on Wikipedia due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia's autoformatting discussed on the Manual of Style talk page [93], we should fix it wherever we can, including the title of this article. In it's current form, this article is reinforcing a common, but clearly wrong, punctuation error for a whole new generation of writers. It's kind of embarrasing. Let's fix it. Thanks! Lowell33 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no objections. Even the 9/11 Commission Report uses the proposed punctuation. --Haemo 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No objections here. I think it is kinda trivial, but whatever. Atleast it isn't as bad as the debate we've had for the past few months... --Tarage 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The valid forms are "11 Semptember 2001 attacks" and "September 11, 2001, attacks" if they are identified entirely by date, "11 Semptember 2001 attacks" and "September 11, 2001 attacks" if the date is taken as a proper name in its own right, but the most common name is actually "September 11th attacks", with the ordinal number, but since that's ambiguous the form for an article title would be "2001 September 11th attacks". Fun, isn't it? Peter Grey 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I do not understand the distinction between (1) a scenario in which the attacks "are identified entirely by date" (in which case "September 11, 2001, attacks" is correct) and (2) a scenario in which "the date is taken as a proper name in its own right" (in which case, for some reason, "September 11, 2001 attacks" is correct). What's the difference between "identif[ying]" something "entirely by date" and using a date "as a proper name in its own right"? Assuming there is a meaningful distinction there, do you have any authority for "September 11, 2001 attacks"? I've never seen any, and believe me I've looked. Thanks Lowell33 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Brittanica uses "11 September Attacks", just FYI. --Haemo
So, is there a way to edit the title in a "global" manner so that links to this article elsewhere on Wikipedia are automatically changed? I don't know enough about it, and I don't want to mess it up. Thanks Lowell33 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you'd have to either manually or use a bot to change them. --Golbez 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you'd have to file a request with one of the redirect-fixing bots, or something. Which would be a pain. --Haemo 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Featured?

This article was once a featured article. Can't we just revert to that version to eliminate all these discussions? Timneu22 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely. When it became a FA it wasn't even called a FA so I think it should be obvious our requirements have changed significantly since then. If you don't believe me, take a look at the version when it was kept in January 19th for refreshing brillant prose [94]. It isn't even properly referenced! (Indeed I'm not sure why it was kept given that only 1 person appears to have supported keeping it but that's a different matter). Other then that, given that it was a FA in 2004 and it's been 3 years since then and given the nature of the subject matter there have been enough changes that even if our requirements were the same it still wouldn't be a FA since it would be rather outdated. Nil Einne 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. FA standards are much higher than they used to be, and the old version of the article would miss a lot of material which we really need to include. --Haemo 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead in of the FA version takes a far more neutral tone, and that is probably why the article is no longer a FA. Damburger 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this article move on yet?

How about the introduction of this article starting with the following:

"9/11" redirects here. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).
This article discusses the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 events. For other theories, see Alternate theories for the 9/11 events

It's just ridiculous that the CT's are dominating this article. They have their own article. This is the mainstream account and it should be noted as such. Timneu22 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't give them first say. They have their own article, linked where it belongs, in the conspiracy theory section. This is the mainstream account and it is noted by the fact that it is presented as the fact it is. --Golbez 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I agree with you 100%, I'm just trying to throw them a bone. :-) LET'S MOVE ON, PEOPLE! Timneu22 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No kidding. The concept that there is no "true" account of what happened on 9/11 is ridiculous. The one which experts on the subject and reliable sources have accepted as accurate is presented here. Alternative conspiracy theories are presented elsewhere. If consensus in these experts and reliable sources changes, then so will this argument. We don't need to compromise it by pretending there are two competing versions of reality, and we are somehow unable to tell which one is judged as accurate by experts. It's the same as putting a disclaimer on evolution saying "This is the mainstream view of evolution; for alternative views, see creationism." No disclaimers is a guideline. --Haemo 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it does say:
"Theory of evolution" redirects here. For more on how evolution is defined, see Evolution as a theory and fact.
on the evolution page. Sorta similar... Timneu22 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really; that's a redirect clarification to point to a similarly named article. You don't see "Alternative 9/11 theories" redirecting here. --Haemo 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent)What could a disclaimer say? "This article covers the mainstream view, and that article covers the alternative views" creates the impression that a WP:POVFORK exists. The 911CT article is not, and should not be, a POV fork of the main article. It's there to document a sizeable chunk of information which was broken out of this article for reasons of space, not in order to present a different POV. All articles are supposed to present all notable views, neutrally and giving them due weight.

If there were a disclaimer, it should say that this article fairly presents all notable views on its subject - in other words, that it is written according to wikipedia policies and guidelines, just like every other article should be. If it isn't, that should be fixed. But a disclaimer should not be necessary, either way. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I support a disclaimer saying something to the effect of "Before making an edit, please understand that due to the importance of this article, most if not all of the contentions with it have been discussed in detail on the talk page." And then on the talk page, something like "Before starting a new point of contention, please review the archives to make sure your point hasn't already been argued." That way there would be no excuse for people like WikiStenson and Gaby de wilde to soapbox. And in the unfortionate event that someone did soapbox, there would be consensus of trolling, and the instigator could be delt with post haste. That is my solution anyway. --Tarage 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we move on yet? Not quite, I think. Ignoring the trolls for a moment (which feels good, and is recommended), the issue which led to this page being protected was edit-warring over the use of "terrorism/ist" in the lead. I might be able to drum up a compromise solution that would work for everyone. First, let's see what people think... Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Protection Template

Is this article really protected or did someone just decide to put a protection template on the page. It didn't look protected to me.... Illinois2011 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Stupid mistake, glancing over stuff. Illinois2011 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
While this article IS protected (and has been for some time) constructive collaboration is still encouraged here on the talk page. — xaosflux Talk 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We've just about come to consensus(though I think we reached it a long time ago), so it should be removed soon. --Tarage 04:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I lifted it, in any case. If someone decides to start edit-warring before the aforementioned consensus is reached, I'd rather impose restrictions or direct censure on that person, than reprotect. Keep me posted. El_C 06:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The media isn't "all" using the word terrorst

So perhaps its time this page rediscovered objectivity? [95]

Of course, the mob (and their possibly sock puppets) are no more likely to be swayed by me demolishing this argument, than they were when I demolished their previous ones. Seems logic simply doesn't work around here. Damburger 16:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/sept_11/changing_faces_01.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3919613.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5335506.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540158.stm

--PTR 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also remind you to avoid personal attacks, and be civil — especially not to accuse other users of having sockpuppets without any evidence. I would also request that you cease edit-warring over the article, now that it's unprotected. --Haemo 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


"See Also" link?

What is the reason for not having a "See Also" link to 9/11 truth movement in the conspiracy theories section? Corleonebrother 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there are many 9/11 conspiracy theories and we don't talk about the 9/11 truth movement here at all? They are mentioned on the linked subpage extensively. --Haemo 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The 9/11 conspiracy theories page discusses the theories themselves. The 9/11 truth movement page discusses the people and organizations involved. People may want to read about one topic without reading about the other. Corleonebrother 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not the case. The 9/11 truth movement is one specific movement; there are other groups which question the account, but do not identify as part of this movement. --Haemo 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Does 'questioning the account' mean the same as a conspiracy theory? Corleonebrother 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, even the "official account" is a conspiracy theory, so I would suppose yes. --Haemo 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Even that seems to be a matter of opinion - see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Useful clarification removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories. Corleonebrother 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the attacks. The 9/11 truth movement is about people who support the conspiracies. The link should go on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. --PTR 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but the section is titled 'Reaction'. Reading it now, it could be that a few 'nutters' came up with a conspiracy theory, then it was debunked, and that was that. It gives no impression as to the number of people involved or the fact that it is still debated now, six years on, maybe more than ever. A whole industry has developed out of the 'Reaction' - we should at least have a wikilink to the page on it. Corleonebrother 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why should we give this one "industry" privilege over all the other groups which don't identify with them? They're supporters of a set of 9/11 conspiracy theories; they're not all supporters, and it's inappropriate to depict them as representing everyone. We can't give them context here, hence they are not linked -- that's what the currently linked article does. --Haemo 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any articles about groups that support neither the mainstream account nor the 9/11 truth movement? And if we need context even for a 'See Also' then we should alter the sentence slightly and put in an inline link. Corleonebrother 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge; but my point was that the context is inappropriate. We mention conspiracy theories every generally. It's inappropriate to choose one particular conspiracy umbrella movement and then include it — why not just link the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which discusses the theories and their supporters in general. --Haemo 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


No revert warring, please

Note that I am dead serious about there being no revert warring for, at least, a few days following my unprotection. I have blocked User:Damburger‎ for 24 hrs on that account and I urge everyone else to tread lightly. Thanks. El_C 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Carry the big stick, brother. --Golbez 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Understood, and thank you for the quick responce. Those who do not wish to participate in a civil manner don't belong here. Showing no intrest in taking votes, then suddenly attacking when the protection was removed is very malicious. --Tarage 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey; calling somebody malicious IS malicious and I don't think name calling belongs here. Mr.grantevans2 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me understand: according to your words you blocked him because he "reverted" when you "specifically warned against doing so immediately upon unprotecting". So why user:PTR was not blocked for the same reason for reverting him [96] just a minute before his revert?--Pokipsy76 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't actually agree with the block either but it wasn't my call. I think his reverts were more of a point issue. Since he knew consensus was against him, he knew they would be reverted. I assume the reason I wasn't blocked was because he made a change and I reverted once to the verbiage agreed by consensus. --PTR 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Because his edits were malicous and against consensus. We had just had months long debate on removal of words like 'terror' and 'terrorist', and found consensus that they should not be removed. Protection was removed, and he instantly started removing 'terror' and 'terrorist' against consensus. user:PTR simply reverted the vandalism. --Tarage 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not speak for other people. It was not you to block the user. See here for the motivation for the block. To make an edit without consensus is not a reason for a block and is not the reason that was given.--Pokipsy76 08:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am speaking for myself. I am allowed to give my oppinion. He did not simply make one edit without consensus, he repeated the same edit over and over again, which is clearly Edit Warring, and a violation of the 3rr. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who dissagrees with this finding. --Tarage 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
But what you say is false. Your "over and over again" are actually 2 reverts. In fact he was not blocked for WP:3RR which was not violated.--Pokipsy76 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
He was blocked for starting a revert war. In essence, he violated the WP:3RR. It doesn't really matter what you think about it, because it was upheld. Let's drop it and move on. --Tarage 08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, he didn't violated WP:3RR, it's not just "what I think", it's a fact anyone can realize reading the rule.--Pokipsy76 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the following sentences taken from WP:3RR are exactly what happened here:

Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

I'm sorry, but User:Damburger's behavior was definitely disruptive, especially since he has consistently disregarded the compromises and discussions on this talk page. But User:Tarage is also correct that this discussion should be dropped, because it's not about improving this article. Stanselmdoc 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry too but you quotation absolutely has nothing to do with this case where we have an editor who made just 1 edit, 2 reverts and no other edits before. People who think this discussion should stop should think better about the relevance of their contribution before posting.--Pokipsy76 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No other edits before? Damburger has made lots of edits to the article removing the words "terrorist" and "terror", starting August 13, from what I can tell.[97] This last time was just one out of many. And the reason I didn't think this discussion should go on was for Damburger's sake - since he isn't here. (I agree with Mr.grantevans2 below that it's not right) I was merely trying to explain to you why I thought El C chose to block him. But I understand that you want El C to respond and not someone else, so I apologize and will take a step back to let him respond. Stanselmdoc 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent)This quotation from the above quotation of WP:3RR exactly applies to the situation:

“ Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. ”

Damburger has been blocked before, we were all asked not to revert, and he reverted more than once. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable answer but I disagree that leniency was in play as leniency only applies when an infraction has been committed. You also state as fact that the edits were disruptive and I don't see that at all. This is exactly why El_C is the person who needs to answer the question. It's also inefficient for someone to answer on someone else's behalf unless that person is unable to answer for him/herself. I've noticed that whenever it happens that the discussion unnecessarily expands and the original question is rarely answered by the person to whom it was intended, which seems rather non-constructive to me. Mr.grantevans2 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Admins typically have many demands on their time. Luckily, any editor can discuss (and attempt to explain) wikipedia policies, principles or guidelines, and I chose to do so because, apparently, WP:3RR is being misinterpreted by various editors on this page, and a better understanding of it benefits us all. 3RR gives an admin discretion to block an editor, even if the editor has made 3 or fewer reverts in a day. Not blocking a disruptive editor is the "leniency" referred to above. It's clear from El_C's comment above, and the block announcement on Damburger's talk page, that the block is for edit-warring, which is by definition disruptive. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Irregardless of the validity of the block; I am finding Tarage's behavior extremely disruptive as he has for some time been making personal and aggressive comments about User:Damburger and anyone else he disagrees with and to do that when someone can not respond is especially annoying to me. I think he should stop it and those here who agree with Tarage on the actual article discussion should try to persuade him to stop with the highly charged and personally directed attacks. I am still interested to see El_C's response to Pokipsy76's question which is a reasonable question I think and was answered quite insufficiently yet deflected quite well by Tarage to whom the question wasn't even asked.Mr.grantevans2 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If the editors of this page really think that my behavior is extremely disruptive and annoying, then by all means I will stop. Concidering that you and Damburger seem to be the only ones complaining, however, I am less inclined to believe you. Pokipsy76 asked a question, and I answered it. It is hardly a crime. However, if you have a problem with me directly, you really should take it up on my talk page, and not here. Or, start a petition or whatever they are called against me. Either or. --Tarage 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about if we all just play nice? Edit warring on this page is unacceptable. You can, and will, be blocked for repeatedly making changes which you know are controversial and you don't have consensus for. The three revert rule is just a tool; users are routinely blocked for 2RR when it is apparent they show no willingness to avoid edit wars. I say this as an admin who routinely deals with three revert related issues.

In any case, this is not the forum for this discussion — if Damburger thought his block was unjust, he can request an unblock via the standard channels. If any users here think it was invalid, you can ask for a review on WP:ANI. This dicussion has nothing to with the article, and needs to end.

I also urge you all to be civil, avoid name-calling and don't edit war. If you have issues with a specific editor, bring them up that user's talk page privately. Airing your dirty laundry in public is unacceptable, unless you're willing to take it to the next level and start talking about some action — either bringing it to the attention of the admins, or filing a request for comment. This should be the end of this discussion. --Haemo 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr.grantevans2 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 34

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Exceptional Claim

I'm not happy with this sentence: "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders,...".
"Virtually all" is an exceptional claim when refering to scientists. It is undeniable that hundreds of scientists, including some of the most prominant scientists in the US and indeed the world, do not support the mainstream account. The sentence should read: "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists and political leaders and most scientists,..." or else replace the words "virtually all" with "most". Wayne 02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. If you want that changed, you should talk to the fellows on that page. --Haemo 03:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahhhh thanks. I just checked it out and that statement has been changed to read:
"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accepted the conclusion that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the attacks and the resulting destruction, and civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account that the impacts of jumbo jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."
This page needs to be updated to reflect that change. Wayne 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, it's too long for this page. I'm honestly not in love with the current wording, but we have to be careful of undue weight in writing this. --Haemo 03:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Apparently the "virtually all" claim was from a single source so the above sentence was the result of considerable discusion and consensus. My proposed version for this article is true to the 9/11 conspiracy theories version and is exactly the same number of words as the sentence it should be replacing:
"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accept that responsibility for the attacks rests with al Qaeda and civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account for the cause of the destruction.”
Anyone have objections to this replacing the second sentence of the summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Wayne 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I do, it's speculative.--MONGO 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You dispute that U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accept the official theory? The section is a summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page (I have been told) so should do just that which it does not atm. This suggestion does, so how can it be speculative here? Argue the point on the 9/11 page, although that sentence was reached after consensus so you should have done so then. Wayne 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My objections would be that it's misleading. Why "U.S."? Do Canadian officials believe something else happened? Do Canadian structural engineers disagree? Why not just "agree"? Why are talking about civil engineers at all? There's no context for talking about them. Why "generally"? Why not just "agree" or "virtually all agree"? Is there a substantial doubt about who says what? Which ones "generally" agree? What's the difference between "generally" and "virtually all"? Are we ignoring the distinction between "scientist/expert in the subject area" and "physical chemist who believes the Pentagon was hit my a missile"? What's the rubric here for who constitutes an expert or "researcher" in the area? --Haemo 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement is a result of consensus so it makes no difference if you think it misleading. Besides this article is not for exploring conspiracy theories so we are limited to a short summary in the appropriate section. You can't use POV language to spin the summary just because you dont agree with what is being summarised. Wayne 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading because our article doesn't give any context for it. You can't cherry pick a fraction of a summary of a much larger article, and then pretend it's all okay. The lead of that article summarizes their article. Our summary here should summarize the lead of the other article, and not just select out-of-context parts from it. I mean, why "civil engineer"? Furthermore, citing "consensus" on another page is a poor argument -- if something is poorly written there, it does not compell us to include poorly written material here. --Haemo 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a very poorly worded sentence. As was said above, it is US specific when it should not be so. Also, why "independent researchers" - do the majority of others researchers disagree? "civil engineers generally accept" - why just civil, why not structural engineers, construction engineers, aerospace engineers, architects, etc.? Also, define "generally;" how is that any better than "virtually"? If anything, this is taking something that is fine as is and replacing it with something that is worse. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so let's see this:

These theories are generally not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, and political leaders...

This would make the wording consistent with that of the other article. Ok now? (Do anyone have a reliable source to support the statement about mainstream jourmnalist personal opinion?) --Pokipsy76 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem: if you write "...journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda" it make no sense to put the footnotes about the analysis of the collpase of WTC because:

  1. the belief in the official account about the tower collapse is consistent with the belief about (for example) the governament foreknwledge and responsability in many other ways,
  2. structural engeneers are not journalists, scientists or political leaders.

--Pokipsy76 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to avoid deletion of this article - change the name

The idea to have an "neutral" or "objective" account of the 9/11 events is frankly ludicrous. We all have our more or less severe delusions about the world, from which we interpret both history and current events. With an explosive topic like this where the political implications are huges and the idea on what's true divdes the americans (and nonamericans), it would be unvise to argue that you present a neutral account of these events. It would also be dishonest and fraudulent.

I suggest that the article is namned The September 11, 2001, attacks - the official conspiracy theory. (ZEROpumpkins Lolled at this - ZEROpumpkins 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

We have to remember that whome ever are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, they are guilty of a horrific conspiracy on the american public.

With such a name you would not have to worry about choice of words because it is just an account of the official explaination, not the the unquestionable truth. WikiStenson 10:55, 9 September 2007

You are right in that the name of the article should be, "The September 11, 2001, attacks - the official conspiracy theory", as that is, grammatically, exactly what it is and is what even Pres. Bush called it. However that title is too long and it would probably be disputed for appearing to give equal weight to the alternative conspiracy theories. I suggest putting it into the lead somewhere instead to avoid a possible edit war by POV editors who don't really understand the English language. Wayne 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What part of the facts are you disputing? Everything is cited and referenced to reliable sources.--MONGO 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hear an answer to that myself. There's some people here and in the real world that would like you to think there's a real question about what happened, but there really isn't. All there is is a very small group of people generating a lot of heat but it's gained no more traction then it did 3 or 4 years ago. Whatever mainstream coverage it gets is driven by the fact that it's a cultural phenomenon, and not by any real suspicion that it's got any solid foundation in the truth. In fact, a couple newspaper folks out west and a local public radio commentator I know have told me at various times that this subject draws nothing but snickering among journalists and the only thing that keeps them from openly mocking conspiracy theories on this subject is their daily struggle to keep a neutral voice in their work.
What does this have to do with this article? It should be clear, in the real world where we all live there is no weight given to conspiracy theory and so it needs to be kept to a minimum in this article. And those who fight this fight on a daily basis should start refusing to get involved in these "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments that fill this talk page. There is a factual and neutral way to present this material and we have a good approximation of it at the moment here. CT'ers will try and argue that it's dishonest and fraudulent to present leave them out of mainstream coverage (even while squabbling among themselves about what they accepted as real CT theory, no energy beams please), but it's not. It's just being responsible and neutral which of course is toxic to their politically motivated hope of increased coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theory. RxS 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk about off topic lol! No one is disputing anything other than the title. The official account is, using correct English grammar, a conspiracy theory! Even George Bush called it that and he's as illiterate as they come. It was a conspiracy to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. WikiStenson was clear on that and I thought I was as well. I say keep the current title as it is shorter. Wayne 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No one is disputing anything other than the title? Yikes, this whole talk page (and archives) is filled with people disputing just about everything except the background color the page displays. And if you read the first post in this section, it's claimed that an attempt to provide a "neutral" or "objective" description of these events isn't possible. Which is "frankly" "ludicrous". In any case, I don't know how what I wrote was "off topic" as you say, you yourself talked about "appearing to give equal weight to the alternative conspiracy theories". My point is that we should be fighting the never ending efforts of POV pushers to add CT fluff into these articles. RxS 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC) by the way, writing in bolded text gives the appearance of yelling, this page is heated enough without the yelling
I say keep the current title because it's 100% redundant to call it anything else. This article is about the 9/11 attacks; they just-so happened to be a conspiracy by a number of terrorists. However, the article is much broader than just the conspiracy, and to call it "official" is ridiculous — because reality conforms to what our reliable sources and qualified experts says on the subject is not a knock against those sources. WikiStenson makes it abundantly clear that he's not suggesting a name-change because of any serious belief the current one is grammatically incorrect — but rather, because he has a point of view. It is just as clear that any such name-change would not be more "accurate" but rather blatant POV pushing. --Haemo 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Stenson. Never gonna happen.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I say give it up. I side with Morton Devonshire. We should call this issue over ASAP. WhisperToMe 23:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is a separate article specifically for Conspiracy Theories anyways. This article focuses on the events as it happened reported by the media and the government. KyuuA4 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Stenson is correct in the sense that there are several equally supported (scientifically) theories including the one put forward by the US government within a few hours of the attack. This article specifically presents that US government theory and for the sake of honesty that should be disclosed in the title. Perhaps this would work ; "The September 11, 2001, attacks - the official version". Mr.grantevans2 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminder. This is not the place to debate what happened and who did it. Neither is this the place to argue against the overwhelming majority view. Stick to what the reliable sources report, in proportion. Repeatedly advocating for extreme minority views could be considered disruptive to the discussion and result in blocks to prevent the disruption. Vassyana 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any renaming of this article happening. The two things that are pretty much beyond dispute are the date, and that attacks occured. Anything else is going to get less support - and probably for good reason.
Including the word "conspiracy" in the title seems like a violation of WP:WTA, and I don't see how it adds to the neutrality of the piece. I can see why some conspiracy theorists would want to see "conspiracy" added to the title, since it might be seen as adding legitimacy to the idea of conspiracy theories in general, but for precisely that reason I don't think consensus will ever support such a change.
There is no good reason why this particular article title should be burdened with a postfix such as "the official version". Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally present facts, weighted according to their level of acceptance, which means in general that we present the generally accepted mainstream view, with all notable exceptions. It adds nothing to start calling articles "The Moon: the materialist view" or "Biology: the mainstream position". Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Sheffield Steel is correct. There are so many topics with stuff that is generally accepted which might be totally wrong that to try to portray the doubt in the titles would be arcane. I'll change my mind on this and agree with Sheffield; "The two things that are pretty much beyond dispute are the date, and that attacks occured. Anything else is going to get less support - and probably for good reason." Mr.grantevans2 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
At least we've got that much. --Haemo 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sheffieldsteel if (as you say) <<Including the word "conspiracy" in the title seems like a violation of WP:WTA>> why this does not apply to 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Pokipsy76 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to propose a rename of 9/11 conspiracy theories, then go right ahead. If you present a good argument that the title is not a neutral description of what the article covers, I may well support you. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that WP:WTA can be violated in that case?--Pokipsy76 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting or proposing any violation of any principle or guideline. I am merely pointing out that this talk page is for discussing improvements to this article. Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories is the place to discuss the name of that article and any proposed changes to it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing improvements as well as for discussing arguments given by the users to support their position when discussing improvements.--Pokipsy76 07:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Released: September 06, 2007

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment 67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

According to a 2006 Pew study, the vast majority of the world's Muslims do not believe that Muslims carried out the suicide attacks. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253

The most recent results by the Pew Global Attitudes Project show the United States being held in continuing low regard in Europe. In a survey conducted in 2006, in Germany, the percentage of people with a "favorable opinion" of the United States fell to 37 percent, from 61 percent in 2002; and in France the percentage with a good impression of the United States fell to 39 percent, from 63 percent. The first survey had a margin of error of 6 percent, and the latter, of 4 percent.

The first paragraph of the current article represents an extreme minority position. Wowest 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we have little intrest in polls... --Tarage 07:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "terrorism" or "terrorist" in the lead

Should we have no mention of these words, or should they be in the attributed form ("terrorism according to X") or presented as fact ("this was terrorism").

  • Please write your opinion in as few words as possible. A concise argument is an elegant argument.
  • Instead of commenting on other editors' opinions, put your best case in your own section. We already have plenty of rambling arguments on this page.

Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a poll above that makes asking for individual comments simply redundant. The poll indicates zero consensus for not calling the terrorists, terrorists.--MONGO 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin

Presented as fact. There is no WP:RS which says it was not terrorism / a terrorist act. Even the conspiracy theorists agree. Calling it anything else qualifies as WP:WEASEL. Alternatively, we could say "generally considered to be terrorism"[1][2][3]…[100]…[1000]…, where we must add all governments and quasi-governmental organizations which call it terrorism, a selection of news media (including al Jazeera), a number of conspiracists, and probably a few other appropriate sources. Although the latter would make editing unwieldy, there's no other way to indicate the level of support for that statement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


User:Aude

There is wide consensus among reliable sources that 9/11 is terrorism, from Al Jazeera, the Government of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, Governments of Brazil, India, New Zealand, to Japan, and news media around the world from Ghana, South Korea, Germany, France, and we could go on for a long while with more sources. The view that 9/11 is terrorism is not only an American view or "official U.S. government" view. 9/11 is broadly considered terrorism by governments and reliable sources around the world. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we simply need to say terrorist. The single U.N. reference that's there now more than suffices as a compromise for those who want some form of attribution. We are violating Wikipedia policy if we do anything less than that. No need to change anything now. It's time to close the discussion. --Aude (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Haemo

It's all been said before; the style guidelines encourage us to attribute in the "X says Y" format. However, doing so in this particular article is near-impossible due to the universality of who "X" is. As a reasonable compromise, either an intensifier like "universally" could be used, that that would certainly be rejected by later editors. As such, the current inline note is by far the best solution available. --Haemo 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That "attribution" section in the MOS is for quotes. If this article were a bunch of quotes, then it would suck. In the main body of the text, we are supposed to state facts and provide references in an NPOV manner. That means we should be conservative in our use of words that imply anything. Just state the facts and let the reader decide if other labels (such as terrorism) apply. Our language should be clinical and objective: that is a good way to get NPOV text that is of maximum utility to the reader. Whether this or that violent act in an extended conflict is terrorism is a judgment call that we do not need to make.--Simongar 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarage

This is a temporary posting, since I am currently suffering a kidney stone attack, so I'll be brief. All I have to do is look at my two poll questions to see that an overwhelming majority reject the idea of removing any of the terrorist mentions. Lets face facts people, we have consensus. We've had way too many circular discussions, and all of the voting has proven that we agree. Lets move on already. --Tarage 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man

Terrorism or terrorist should not be removed anywhere from this article. Mainstream media and pretty much every government call it a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are done by - terrorists. Attributed form is not necessary here. The reference to this as a terrorist attack is widely known and accepted. Having an X said Y here would be like if the Microsoft article began with: "Microsoft Corporation, according to ... is an American multinational[1][2][3]...[120] ..." - its just not necessary. Either call it as fact, which is the majority view or list all the major exceptions which would be unwieldy and probably WP:UNDUE to include in the lead. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timneu22

It was terrorism. There is no debate. This article is a sham if "terrorism" doesn't appear. Timneu22 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lendorien

Keep - I find this argument silly. It's like saying The Japanese attack on Dec 7, 1941 wasn't really a sneak attack just because there's a conspiracy theory out there that suggests Roosevelt knew and let it happen.

There is a wide consensus around the world that September 11 was an act of terrorism. It has always been PRESENTED as an act of terrorism by governments around the world, experts and the group that allegedly did it. Not to mention that the great preponderance of actual facts strongly supports that version of events over that of the conspiracy theorists (who's evidence is circumstantial at best). To call it anything else would be silly. Besides, just because there are groups out there who believe the US government was behind it does not make it any less terrorism. Blowing up huge landmark buildings to make people fear something and motivate them into acts they would not generally support through that fear is an act of terrorism, regardless of who did it. Even the conspiracy theorists would agree with that. I say keep it in the lead. It would be ridiculous to remove it. --Lendorien 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Japs did a "surprise" attack on the Pearl. Just like Washington did on Trenton (except that he was already in a war). The standard word is "surprise attack". Just like the Jews did on Osirak. "Sneak" has negative connotations that are unnecessary if our goal is to provide the reader with the facts. We only need to use words like "sneak" if we want to impress upon the reader our value judgments. Is that what we are here for? NPOV is supposed to be clinical and objective.--Simongar 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanselmdoc

Presented as fact. For all the reasons everyone else has said. Stanselmdoc 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Damburger

Attributed form of course - the rules on this matter are quite clear. The fact there is a false consensus here (actually a vocal minority, many who have been induced to come here for the very purpose) has no bearing. Objectivity has suffered because of this mob. Damburger 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hiddekel

Presented as (referenced) fact. Enough already. The allegation that there's no consensus on this is baseless. Even if there is a "silent majority" who disagrees with 9/11 being labelled "terrorism", it doesn't matter: silent people don't count and are in fact uncountable, by definition. Based on every quantifiable measure, including the straw poll above and this rfc, the consensus is that the current attributed assertion that it was terrorism is the best way to go. --Hiddekel 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WLRoss

I have no problem with calling the attacks "terrorist attacks" but prefer using the word hijackers instead of terrorists. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise. This subject came up on another page where consensus was to NOT use the word terrorist despite the subject being found guilty in a court of law of committing terrorists acts and the subjects own admission that he was a terrorist. The only difference is that the subject in question is currently protected by the US government despite the US Justice department saying he is "an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks" who should be jailed. I myself supported calling terrorists just that but now I see it is more important to be consistent and NPOV. Calling someone a terrorist is very POV if you only use the term for those you do not like. It saddens me that I see some of the same editors supporting use of the word here who opposed using it in the other article. Wayne 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Clpo13

Presented as fact. As others have said, there is a boatload of evidence from reliable sources showing that this was indeed a terrorist attack, planned and executed by a known terrorist organization, which also took credit for the attack. Of course, we could always have a compromise, saying "The attacks of September 11, 2001 were acts of terrorism according to every government in the world." If it's semantics we're arguing, a terrorist is someone who commits an act which causes death and destruction with the intent to cause terror (the intent bit is rather important). By that definition, the people who caused 9/11 are indeed terrorists. People will always disagree but it's a plain fact that an act caused by a known terrorist organization recognized as such by an overwhelming number of nations is terrorism. --clpo13(talk) 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mascus

Attributed form. 9/11 is closely associated with the the idea of terrorism in the public mind and in government policy, and this should definitely be mentioned with attributions. Terrorism is irregular warfare carried out by bad people. Despite being non-state actors, the French Resistance were not terrorists because the Nazis were the bad guys in WW2. Despite tagetting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, the atomic bombing of Japan in WW2 was not a terrorist act because either the Japanese were the bad guys or because the action was carried out by the US government who by definition cannot be terrorists. In most large scale violent acts, there is a group of people who feel the action was unfair and criminal, meanwhile there is a group of people who support the action as a legitimate response. Calling an event or a group 'terrorist' is just a way of saying you don't feel their actions were justified. On 9/11, some buildings in New York were attacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by suicide hijackers attempting to advance their cause. Millions of Islamists around the world considered this a legitimate response to US actions and policy in the Gulf. If the article states as fact that this was a 'terrorist' attack committed by 'terrorists', the POV of the authors is clearly revealed: that attacking New York on 9/11 was wrong. Wikipedia readers don't need the article to tell them if the action was wrong or right, it just has to present the facts and we can make up our own minds. Mascus 10:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:M3n747

Keep "terrorist attacks", remove "Islamic extremists" - for all we know, it could've been the US government behind the attacks, which were later used as an excuse to invade the Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.116.54 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nr9

No mention of the word. We don't know what are the motives behind the attack. Why must it be terrorism? How do we not know that the attacks aren't carried out just to destroy infrastructure? Nr9 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't answer the most important questions

This article doesn't answer nor pose the most important questions, while it should at least pose them.

1. The towers were constructed to withstand airplane attacks and large extra safety margins were taken into account against these threads. What miscalculations did the engineers make according to proffessionals who should know?

2. How can it be that building 7 World Trade Center collapsed because of a little debree and a little fire? While the structural design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand ernormous damages before it would ever collapse, if ever. And why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire, like it should?

This article doesn't need to answer those questions as they are contained in subarticles 7 World Trade Center and World Trade Center. KyuuA4 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No they do not! They just make statements about what happened. But they do not prove how it could happen that these things that according to scientifically sound engineering priciples should never be able to happen! They do not question these statements and they do not mention other theories nor compare theories against eachother on the basis of reliable data and testimonies.

(And how come that building 6 World Trade Center, Which was much weaker than building 7 and which was situated next to and in between tower 1 and building 7, was damaged but did not collapse and had to be demolished later on?)

Of course we don't — that's what the article Collapse of the World Trade Center is for. --Haemo 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, it is not Wikipedia's job to prove how something could happen with suppositions (which is the only thing they can be) as to why they occurred, our job is merely to report the events. The towers collapsed. That is the fact. If you are looking for theories that are not accepted by reliable sources, please see 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. If you would like to suggest a real edit to this article, feel free to begin a discussion on it. Stanselmdoc 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking conspiracy and i'm not asking you to use unreliable sources, that's on you. But if things happened that could not have happened under sound engineering principles than this article should have a note on that and it should present the facts on where engineering failed and why. For instance, which mistakes were made in engineering and constructing building 7 so that it collapsed and building 6 did not while building 6 was hit harder and should have been weaker. Where are the facts about that in your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.136.108 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the attacks. The article Collapse of the World Trade Center is about the collapse of the world trade center. Discuss it there, not here. --Haemo 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Asked and answered. This article is about what happened not why. It's not about buildings 6 and 7 - they have their own articles. If there is something specific you would like to discuss about this article, open a section. This is not a blog or chat room to discuss various theories. --PTR 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And where are the sources to back up what you claim are "facts?" Mr.Z-man 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Building 6 was right next to tower 1 and was heavely hit by debry but did not collapse. Fact. Building 6 was situated between tower 1 and building 7 and must have been hit harder than building 7. fact. Building 7 was much stronger than usual because it had numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned. fact. Building 7 had a sprinkler system as obliged in all buildings of this side. Fact. Building 7 still collapsed while building 6 did not. Fact. This could never have happended if engineering and constuction were according to sound principles. Fact. In a investigation of events of this caracter there must be conclusions about engineering and construction faults. fact.

Al these facts can be found in the wiki articles, and are according to the laws physics and normal legal procedures. Still nothing about engineering and construction faults in building 7 can be found in the articles. While it should be. I don't have the reports, but they should exist. If not than it may really be time to start thinking conspiracy.

Okay, that's enough of this. If you want to discuss this, do it on Collapse of the World Trade Center or Controlled demolition hypothesis. Not here. This is not a forum for general discussion, nor is this the correct topic area to begin with. --Haemo 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A lack of sources is not a reason to put "facts" into an article and call it a conspiracy. Mr.Z-man 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There were no known engineering or construction faults. In fact NIST could not make the buildings collapse in their simulations (NIST Report: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th,"). They eventually did by excluding the Hat Trusses from the simulations and so assume these trusses failed in some way but, as they didn't (nor anyone else for that matter) investigate to find the possible cause, could not comment on it which is why the articles don't have much detail. Because the buildings actually did collapse, NIST based their conclusions on that and not the result of their simulations. The official theory is supported mainly because the alternatives are less likely (Ocams Razor). Wayne 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The towers were not designed to withstand aircraft attacks, they were designed to withstand aircraft impacts. According to Collapse of the World Trade Center, they were designed in the 1960s to withstand an impact of a Boeing 707 at 180 mph, in the event one was lost in fog. The Boeing 767s that hit the towers were longer, wider, taller, could carry more fuel than the 707, and were traveling 440-540 mph. Also, "design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand enormous damages" - that's not necessarily true. After the first couple floors, buildings more than 5 or 6 floors generally have all their floors and structure built the same way up to the roof. The building could have been 20 floors, 47, or 60 floors, the way modern skyscrapers are designed it would have been just as stable in any configuration. "why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire" - Sprinklers are not designed to put out fires just to slow them down, if they were to put out fires, NYC and other large cities would not need so many firefighters. Sprinklers cannot repair structural damage and if the pumps were damaged or the water pressure was low, they would be not be as effective According to the article for 7 World Trade Center, firefighters pulled out around 3:30 due to low water pressure and structural concerns, the building collapsed at 5:20 after being damaged and burning for almost 7 hours. Mr.Z-man 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:911 victims.jpg

There has been some disagreement over the inclusion of this image. Arguments in favor of removal have been that it is "mawkish sentimentality" and "makes the page looks like a memorial". I tend to disagree, and instead would explain that it's the only reasonable way to visually depict the victims of the attacks, along with the scope of the dead. This is an important encyclopedic goal, when it comes to explaining the attacks and the reaction to them. Anyways, let's discuss this here, rather than edit warring. --Haemo 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this particular image never seemed a good fit for the article, but my opinion is not strong enough for me to remove the image myself. It's more suitable as a trial exhibit to show the jury. Without this image, I think there are still plenty of images in the article. Or, I think we can find some better image to include. Some places to look for images include WTC (FEMA) and Pentagon (FEMA). Here's one of my own - Image:911_ladder10_flag.jpg, taken on 9/11/06. Though, it may be more appropriate for the page about the 9/11 memorials. Other pictures of mine are on Flickr tagged with "911", though only some appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Willing to upload particular ones if they would be useful. Here are the Moussaoui trial exhibits [98], though not everything there has acceptable copyright status. Some of the best possibilities may be from FEMA, such as this. I suggest we come up with a list of possibilities, including Image:911 victims.jpg and other options, and then make a decision. --Aude (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Flyers of those missing posted along a fence near St. Paul's Chapel
Flyers of those missing posted along a fence near St. Paul's Chapel
While I'm mentioning these links, it would be good to get FEMA photos on Commons. There are a lot, 806 for the WTC and 967 for the Pentagon, just from FEMA. I can't figure out a way to batch download them, but only download one at a time. Then, the trial exhibits, more pictures taken by DOD, etc. Some are already on commons - commons:Category:Moussaoui_trial_exhibits and commons:Category:9/11. Maybe something useful for the article is already on commons. --Aude (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, this article has too many pictures — so a reasonable discussion that ends with removing this one is okay with me. --Haemo 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be fine with simply removing it. But, there are plenty of choices for images, with suitable copyright status. FYI - here are DOD images [99]. Already have some on my computer, but its simply time consuming to upload to commons and organize them in categories. --Aude (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article is cluttered with images so I'd be in favour of removal. Mr.grantevans2 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The only qualm I have is that this particular section is the least cluttered already! --Haemo 04:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be removed not because of it's "sentimentality" but because, if it did not have a caption, it would be impossible to know it was even related to 9/11. No disprespect, but it looks like my computor screen did after my graphics card fried a few weeks ago. I think the taxi could go as well. The rest of the pics I feel are excellent and I dispute that there are too many pics on the page. How many are too many? I feel one per appropriate section is ok. Wayne 06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I know it may not be politically correct, but I saw the events on TV and the image that burned into my mind was the 2 people jumping from the WTC to escape the fire holding hands as they went down. Is there a reason that image or one like it can not be used? Those people choosing to jump, I think, expressed the horror and reality of the event best of all. Mr.grantevans2 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's too specific; those people may be iconic, but they're not representative of all victims or even most. I do, however, agree that without the caption this image would appear totally unconnected to the events. --Haemo 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion here, I have removed the image from the article. Regarding the Falling Man photograph, that's a possibility. Though, it is a copyrighted image and would be used here under fair use. I generally prefer free-use images, but think there may be justification for fair use here. To the right is a photo taken by someone at FEMA, thus it's public domain and no issues with using it here. I'll always remember the numerous flyers posted everywhere for those missing, as shown in the photo. It seems a good fit for the section, though Falling Man would also fit. What do others think? --Aude (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The posters seem too "after the fact" to me. Mr.grantevans2 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That particular photo was taken on 09/12/2002, so I don't totally disagree. Searching Flickr is another option. We can only use pictures from there that are licensed under Creative Commons-Attribution (CC-BY) and Creative Commons-Attribution-Share Alike (CC-BY-SA).
  • [100] - this was taken on 9/18/2001
If there is something else on Flickr or elsewhere that does not have an appropriate license, it's always possible to ask them if we can use it here under a suitable license. I don't have a strong preference for either missing posters, Falling Man, or something else. --Aude (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Falling Man is the best by far. Almost everything else is a reaction to the event whereas the Falling Man is part of the event. Mr.grantevans2 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm more and more supportive of the origional picture. It didn't push any POV, it only illustrated the victims of the attack. Surely that is better than a picture of someone moments away from their death, as powerful as that is. --Tarage 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts

It seems to me (just stumbled across this page) that the arguments seem to be about facts. somebody's facts are different from someone else's facts. These are always difficult arguments to solve. Sometimes I like to say that in a way we are all colourblind, and the world is like two colourblind people arging about weather a green stick is blue or yellow. Both are wrong, and yet both are right. Facts are never known, because the entire world can not witness every single event. I could tell you that I did not hit the backspace button once while typing this. Or I could say I did it 100 times. How is anyone to know? At the moment I'm at work (security) and on camrea. Someone could watch the video and say 50 times. Someone else could edit the video and say 75 times. someone else could claim to have the real video and say 25 times. The end result is that nobody will ever know the true facts.

So, what do we do about it?

Wikipedia should follow it's own precedent. Where there is a factual argument, however wrong it might seem, "the majority" wins. Look at the deep throat article. I bet there were people who were sure felt was the guy, but if they had posted that when "the majority" had no clue who he was, that post would have been deleted. Even if he had presented "facts". In the end it turns out he would have been right, but wikipedia is not about being right, because we will never know who is right. Wikipedia is about being as right as you can be at the time and at this time, the majority of news soruces have a single view on what happened, and so that's the view we should follow. Nickjbor 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really difficult to find news sources that disagree about the facts: the difference is instead in the focus given to the specific facts. This happen because news sources are generally politically and culturally biased. Wikipedia instead must have a Neutral Point of View and not the Point of view of the "majority" of the sources.--Pokipsy76 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You are misreading WP:WEIGHT. In the abstract, if almost all reliable sources have one opinion (about facts), and a few sources have a different opinion, we may give a few lines to the other opinion. In the case of 9/11 we give entire articles to the other opinions, but this article should primarily have the mainstream view. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Opinions? Weren't we talking about facts? To have a neutral point of view facts must be presented in a neutral way, and it is not necessarily the way of the majority of news sources (which can be politically and culturally biased).--Pokipsy76 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we're discussing here. Was there something in the article you wanted to edit? --PTR 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The "facts" are disputed by the 911TM people. We should include the facts as reported by the majority, with due weight given to minority interpretations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Which is about zero. This article is based on the proven record of course, not fantasies.--MONGO 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Per Pokipsy76, we merely need to properly follow our own policies and everything will be all right. --John 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I agree with MONGO and John, but not Pokipsy76. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's not rehash this argument again. Ths is basically the same as above, and I don't see it going anywhere productive. We've got a couple of places already where you can express opinions of this nature, and I'd prefer not to drag out the discussion across this page indefinitely — though said hope is probably quite vain. --Haemo 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on Osama bin Laden | backup by CIA in the 80's

To have a more balanced account on Osama bin Laden, the events during the cold war should be mentioned.

I have added the following sentence; I hope it does not get deleted immeadiately by some patriot. Please let us discuss this issue

It is irony of fate, that Osama bin Laden received backup of both CIA and ISI as well as US-$ 3 billion when setting up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1980's to fight back the Soviet occupation of the country. <ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199 |title=How the CIA created Osama bin Laden|publisher=GreenLeft News |date=2001, September 19}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#.22What_a_Wonderful_World.22 |title=Bowling for Columbine }}</ref>

--Benjamin.friedrich 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR (irony of fate), and the second source is a Wikipedia article, which cannot be used as a source for anything. Only its sources can be used. I'm not sure about greenleft.org.au as a source, either, but that would require some research — probably more than the previous editor did in generating it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A preliminary search of http://www.greenleft.org.au at [101] doesn't say it's a "news"paper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"I hope it does not get deleted immeadiately by some patriot."...that is all very nice. There isn't a lot of reason to go into a long in-depth analysis of why Osama felt compelled to order the attacks of 9/11. In fact, I think this article is entirely too long and much of the stuff about motivation, etc. should be branched to other articles so we can stick primarily to the events that happened on 9/11 more specifically.--MONGO 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is too "original research-y" for this article. As a straight fact it is totally irrelevant; its connection to 9/11 is made by implied synthesis. Can it be proven that money from the CIA went to fund the attacks? It belongs in the Al-Quaeda, Osama bin Laden, or articles about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where there is a direct connection to the subject. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we have an entire article about Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Osama Bin Laden. Surely those are more appropriate locations for this material, given it's extremely tangential relationship to the attacks. --Haemo 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Where should this go?

Nigel Inkster, the director of transnational threats and political risk at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, and a former director of the British secret intelligence agency commonly known as MI6, said there was much debate within al-Qaida after the attacks, which led to the invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and to the removal of a safe haven in the southern part of that country. According to Mr Inkster, many al-Qaida supporters believed that the attacks were a "tactical error" for this reason. [37] I'm prepared to accept that this material is not exactly related to the events of the day. However, I believe it is notable, neutrally presented, reliably sourced, and relevant to the subject. Is there a related article that would be a better place for it? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this mentioned in the Al Qaeda article? --Aude (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda's perspective is an important element of the story, but this particular item sounds rather speculative. Peter Grey 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously we can't check Inkster's sources because, at the time, he was part of the intelligence community. The source for the text above, however, is an article in the Guardian newspaper, which easily meets WP:RS due to their fact checking and editorial oversight.
I guess I'm surprised that I couldn't find a good place to add this text - and that the main article does not contain more information about the context for, and effects of, the attacks. There's a lot of documentation of the health effects of concrete dust fallout, and very little on the figurative fallout that affected the rest of the world. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe it belongs somewhere, but not sure it does in this article. Perhaps it is best in the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks MONGO. I was able to find a good spot for it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph has some problems

We read:

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[130] These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all[citation needed] mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

Problems:

  1. the phrase "concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda" still do not rule out the belief on a "conspiracy theory", you should say something like "rest exclusively with Al Qaeda".
  2. is there a reliable source to support the phrase "not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists"? I strongly believe there is not such a source and therefore the phase can't be stated.
  3. The footnotes at the end refer to the collapse of the WTC and therefore are not relevant because we are speaking af "conspiracy theories" in general.

--Pokipsy76 11:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We do need to clean-up the sourcing, I believe. However, some valuable sources can definitely be found, with a little bit of poking:
  • Professors of Paranoia? By: Gravois, John, Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 6/23/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 42 : explains that conspiracy theories are a "fringe crusade" and that academic support for a given theory is "dead on the vine".
  • Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories By: David Coady International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2003 : explains, specifically, that 9/11 conspiracy theories are part of a broad group of conspiracy theories, which run contrary to a body of work with general imprimature by "authorities" on the subject; i.e. governments, scholars, mainstream media, etc.
  • Dangerous Machinery: “Conspiracy Theorist” as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion By: Ginna Husting & Martin Orr Symbolic Interaction Spring 2007, Vol. 30, No. 2, Pages 127-150 " summarize the mainstream academic and journalistic use of the term, with reference to 9/11 theories, as dismissive and unsupported.
Anyways, these might provide some good sources, even for the "virtually all" or some variant thereof claim. --Haemo 19:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
These books cannot support the wording "virtually all mainstream scientists and journalists" unless they cite some kind of scientific poll about the opinions of scientist and journalists on 911 and give a percentage that can be interpreted as "virtually all". If this thesis is just asserted by the authors of the books and not proved then it does not count as a source for the claim *as a fact*, but only as an opinion of authors who have not a special authority on the matter.--Pokipsy76 12:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed "virtually all" to "most" several times some time ago but it just kept getting reverted which is why i put the tag on it. To me "virtually all" is a POV opinion to help discredit the conspiracy theories by making them seem like fringe theories. Some are fringe but some are just as plausable as the official theory so it is POV to lump them all in the same bag. I did read somewhere last week that a rough poll found that if you exclude scientists/engineers etc who admit to not knowing enough about the claims to have an informed opinion, the remaining scientists/engineers etc are split roughly 50/50. This seems to explain why the majority of the most highly qualified who write on the subject are supporters of the 9/11 truth movement which seemed odd considering the widespread support for the official theory among those with lesser qualifications. This majority may not fully support the conspiracy theories but they do call for an investigation to prove or disprove them. Of course, right wing media MUST support the official theory so that could possibly be virtually all. Journalists on the other hand may support the official theory in public but not privately as they can, and have been in the past, fired for not vocally supporting a view held by their employer. Whatever the case may be, nuetrality demands that "most" should be as POV as you can get without polling all scientists/engineers etc. Wayne 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't actually looked at polls on this before so just checked Zogby. Support the offical theory?: 48% yes, 42% no. Should there be a new investigation to find if US government was involved?: 45% yes, 42% no. That "virtually all" looks pretty tenious. Wayne 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that poll was of random people off the street, not scientists and engineers specifically. As such, it's not relevant to this particular issue in the article. -- 68.156.149.62 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another non-NPOV problem is with th word "theories": why this focus on the "theories"? We do not have so many theories that assert something specific about what happened, and the few "alternative theories" don't have even so much poluparity. We instead have many people who challange the official account and suggest it is not believable without trying to provide any specific theoriy. This skeptic POV is more popular that the POV of the specific theories. The focus on theory seems to be an attempt tu push a bias on the matter. If you have said: "A number of individual did not accepted as credible the official account on the facts" it would have been less compromising. If the paragraph would have the title "Skepticism about the official account" it could have not the negative connotation that people seems to want it to have.--Pokipsy76 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rallies and Support

I recall going to an outdoor gathering a day or two after the attacks on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. (of about 100,000 people!) I believe that similar events occurred in other cities. Where would be the most appropriate place to add that information? Or is it present elsewhere? Alaney2k 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this section: September_11,_2001_attacks#Memorials Also, in the linked subarticle. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
While you typed that in, I noticed, and tried to retract my comment. Too late! I entered my initial comment because I thought it was missing from 'International Response', but it is in 'Memorials.' Alaney2k 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not my day. That should be 'International reaction'. Alaney2k 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Adjustments for Neutrality Purposes

This article expresses a specific viewpoint on what happened on September 11th. It is not Neutral. Please see the NPOV tutorial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial The entire article needs to be revised to comply with NPOV. Please assist me in doing this.

One of the underlying tenets of all articles on Wikipedia is that a consensus must be reached to make claims such as "coordinated terrorist[2] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists" There has never been an independant investigation of this. Although it is quoted as a fact in many reputable magazine and newspapers, there are also many reputable sources that disagree with this "offical account of events".

Using the "Attribution" from the NPOV tutorial should be changed to something in line with -

"According the United States Government and the majority of American's ... was coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists."

OR

"The United States Governement has accused Islamic Terrorists of... and the majority of Americans as well as media and news organizations agree with this accusation."

JohnDavis2 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion above and post any reputable sources that disagree with this official account of events. Also read the reference (2) noted in the sentence. It is not only Americans and the US Government. --PTR 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we've just had this discussion. Repeatedly. See the above discussion. Or the archives. --Haemo 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The consensus among editors here is that the article is currently NPOV and does not need to be revised. I'm suggest we mark this section as {{resolved}} --Aude (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
They never cease to come out of the woodwork to they? I'm very tired of the constant NPOV wars, especially from people who don't bother to read any of the archives and just assume their point is new and exciting. Is there any way we can stop this? Can this be concidered disruptive editing? Can we block users for this? --Tarage 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It's the cost of doing business the way we've chosen. It's tiring but not disruptive or blockable though. Just point them to the archives I guess. RxS 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
We concur with your exasperation, Tarage...and it should be noted that the vast majority of those that keep beating a dead horse are often single purpose accounts or new editors with little or no prior contributions. There are a few however, that really do believe in some sort of conspiracy theory regarding this event and have good meaning intentions about trying to add speculations they have read somewhere else, much of which is oftentimes written with some really wild claims, that to the less informed, can be both fascinating and alarming.--MONGO 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am personally offended by the responses to my comment. If you would please take a look at the NPOV tutorial as this will give you a better understanding of how wikipedia articles are intended to be written. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

It seems that you are all upset with the issue that I brought up because of the multitude of related complaints. If the article remains biased then it makes perfect sense that other editors will continue to complain. The article is clearly violating many of the core principles of wikipedia.

Recent polls indicate that 30-40% of Americans don't believe the "official story" of the September 11th attacks. While a near consensus of the major editors of this article may have taken place, that doesn't not indicate that there is a consensus in the outside world.

There was no independent investigation of September 11th as the Executive Branch of the US Government would not allow one.

The unfortunate reality, as exposed by many reputable newsources, is that the FBI/CIA is attempting to control of many of the articles in Wikipedia. I can imagine that this makes it very difficult to edit articles. I will find out once my 4 day period has ended and I can begin to make changes.

If the editors would like me and others to stop writing about the blatent bias in this article, then please supply an answer as to how this article doesn't not violate the NPOV tutorial. Or I challenge those of you not working for the US Intelligence Community to make changes to the article. JohnDavis2 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am offended that you think we editors are somehow government plants. If this is how you truely feel, and believe to be the case, then you know already that arguing with us will not change anything because WE ARE THE LAW!.
That sillyness asside, I really wish we could concider this trolling. At the very least, when the next incarnation of JohnDavis(figurativly of course) appears, can we simply delete the repetative talk sections they create? That would perhaps encourage the user to atleast ponder why their comments were removed. Or think we are evil government plants even more, but that makes me giggle. --Tarage 04:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd think this was something new, and interesting, but it's not. Luckily, Wikipedia is not "the outside world", which is a very good thing, since we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. If you have some actual suggestion to make for the article, I suggested you make them. However, I strongly encourage you to read the archives and the previous discussion because literally all of your points have been discussed ad nauseum. Suffice to say that the consensus is that neutral point of view supports the current version of the article. --Haemo 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, you can make changes right away; there's no waiting period on your account. --Haemo 23:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I find it juuuust a little curious that Mr. John Davis has made only two contributions to Wikipedia, ever. And his very first contribution, he chose to write how this article violates NPOV? Stanselmdoc 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The nature of a wiki is that newcomers might repeat stuff and/or new info might come to light, this isn't a puzzle to complete and frame. Mr.grantevans2 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in theory that's why we have archives, but apparently no one reads them before commenting. --Haemo 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Routinely here comes people who read the article and find it is not NPOV trying to discuss the matter in this page. They get some responses from different user saying it is NPOV and that this is the consensus. So the complaining person either:
1) try to discuss/edit the page experiencing stonewalling, reverts and eventually a block and then goes away or
2) immediately goes away.
On the other hand we have the "defenders" of the article that are more or less always the same and seem to have a lot of time to spend here. This is why the article is like it is. If the many people who have different ideas about the concept of NPOV and that routinely come here would have had the same constant presence and monitoring of the article without getting frustrated by the sonewalling the situation could have been different.--Pokipsy76 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who come to complain that the article is NPOV never produce any resources to back up their assertions that there are "plenty of reliable sources that don't support the official version"; they don't provide links to these polls that show people don't believe the "official version" (except Damberger and that poll question was shown above to be a combination-either/or question); they don't usually don't provide possible rewrites here on the talk page that can be discussed; they don't read the archives; they wikilawyer over small print; they are not here to improve the encyclopedia but to make a point; and they usually aren't willing to support their points without being rude, accusatory and argumentative. Does that sound frustrating to you? It is to me. I don't work for any US agency. The article is the way it is because it is supported by the sources. The article is NPOV because of the sources. --PTR 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are generalizing a little bit too much? It is interesting to observe that when some of the user that find some paragraph not NPOV do behave in the correct way discussing the subject and suggesting specific rewrites they find no collaboration or even consideration (see for example the sections "exceptional claim" and "this paragraph has some problems"). This apparentely suggest that the people here are not really interested in NPOV issues.--Pokipsy76 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Both of those sections received responses and discussion on the second section is ongoing as of yesterday. Is there a rewrite of that paragraph that you would like to propose? Have you looked for sources? --PTR 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pokipsy76. Generalization is a faulty approach to most all situations, I think. I'm trying to completely stop using the words "always" and "never" and replace them with "likely" and "not likely". Perhaps an inherent nature of this venue is that the more experienced and persistent participants can and usually do carry the discussion points largely by their presence and persistence. There are also many quite helpful veterans who quite sincerely seek out a consensus based upon open-minded analysis (Haemo as an example) but the forceful rhetoric of self-appointed majority spokespeople often chases away observations which might have been useful in improving the article. I think assume good faith is the key to the whole thing and I am annoyed every time I read anyone questioning another's motives or right to present an opinion. The contributing problem is that some of us are hard wired to think competitively in any venue; at least I know I am. Mr.grantevans2 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Generalizing is a faulty approach and I apoligize to grantevans2 and pokipsy76. I'm blaming it on a bad mood. I am also annoyed when I read anyone questioning another's motives or right to present an opinion.
Editing while in a bad mood is a bad idea to begin with. --Tarage 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have compiled some websites that verify the claims that I have made and will shed some light on the subject. Clearly there is no consensus on the official story and the wikipedia article needs to be drastically revised.

I have Bachelors and Masters Degrees both from Ivy League Schools in Applied Mathematics. I have experience at Army Defense Contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. I am well read in many fields and a critical thinker analyzing what the mainstream media says before believing it.

Please stop discrediting me as I have valid points and contributions to make.

While it is nice that you claim to have such an extensive education, that has nothing to do with anything here. The wounderful thing about Wikipedia is that everyone, reguardless of their education and experences, can be productive here. Origional research, however, is not helpful. Keep that in mind. --Tarage 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Polls 31% of Americans do not accept the official explanation for September 11th CNSNEWS More then 33% of Americans suspect foul play 16% of Americans speculate that explosives caused the twin towers collapse. ScrippsNews 67% of Americans fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of WTC7. 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks. Zogby

CIA and FBI Editing Wikipedia BBC News Reuters

9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists" This Website lists hundreds of Senior Military/Gov Officers, Professors, Engineers, Family Members, and Media Professionals that don't believe the official story. PatriotsQuestion911

Here is an example: Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.

Article 7/10/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it ‘the dog that doesn't hunt.’ ‘I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,’ he said."

JohnDavis2 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion as what you think needs to be revised. We already have a whole article about the conspiracy theories. This article is about the official account. While the Zogby poll data is interesting, it still shows a majority of people still believe the official accounts. Also, that is a poll of Americans only, while this happened in America, it affected the whole world. Wikipedia is supposed to be international; what do the citizens of other nations think? Not to mention the fact that we are using what the majority of sources say. The majority of governments, media outlets, and the UN agree with the official story. Furthermore, your credentials are irrelevant, what matters here are sources and consensus. Also, please stop this FBI/CIA are controlling Wikipedia crap. We already know that people in the FBI and the CIA have edited Wikipedia articles; they are not controlling the articles and by trying to get this article changed you are not fighting against the government, you are dealing with regular people. By bringing it up multiple times, it just makes you look more like another conspiracy POV pusher instead of someone who is genuinely interested in improving the article. Mr.Z-man 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Track down and read the actual questions and results from your polls. "Hundreds" is still a fringe. This article was not mentioned in the article about the FBI and CIA editing. --PTR 18:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I would also strongly advice you against making any further allegations that other users are government agents, or what have you. It's grossly incivil. Also, this brief summary of the previous discussions might help you out. --Haemo 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
16%? Try again. It's now 4.6%, according to a recent Zogby poll commissioned by 911truth.org. [102] The other numbers in the poll don't look promising for "the truth" either, even with the poll worded in a way to positively spin things for the "truth" movement. Also, web traffic to popular sites like 911truth.org has been dropping sharply, compared to 2006. [103] (look at the 3-year graph) Though, there will always be new people who come along. In this article, we have devoted more than enough space to the theories. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we need not change anything else in the article to give more weight to theories. The article needs to be based on reliable sources as currently listed in the references section. Anything else changed in the article needs to adhere to WP:RS and other policies. --Aude (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I really do not see the relevance of the traffic of 911truth.org lowering in the last year in discussing this article.--Pokipsy76 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The smaller interest in conspiracy theories, as indicated by polls and other measures, means less reason to give any added weight to them in the article. If anything, the section on conspiracy theories is too large. Though, I'm willing to accept the article, as-is, with the current paragraph about conspiracy theories. --Aude (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. I'm still waiting for my check from the CIA! --Aude (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So am I. You would think with all the hard propaganda I'm spewing into this article to keep it POVed, I'd be rich. But that's government for ya. --Tarage 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Whew, I thought I'd get in trouble for double-dipping, but with the CIA slacking, I really need the stipend the International Jewish Conspiracy sends me every month. --Golbez 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You guys need to switch to the FBI. Er... on second thought, I haven't gotten my check from them either. --PTR 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Polls refers to American people, wikipedia is not intended to be representative of American culture. If - as you seem to suggest - the space in the aticle for a theory should have a weight proportional on the popularity of the view between the pupulation you should have dedicated about a half to the "official aoocount".--Pokipsy76 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You left out some of the most prominent members of Patriotsquestion911. General Wesley Clark is notable but more tellingly, the chairman of the 9/11 commission Thomas Kean, the vice chairman Lee Hamilton and 7 other board members are all members. Thomas Kean said that the 9/11 commission was "set up to fail" and was prevented from performing a proper investigation. They were also "denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials" to the extent that the commission contemplated laying criminal charges against officials for obstruction and deception. So we see that "virtually all" of the 9/11 commission that is supposed to debunk the conspiracy theories actually supports them. As for the article concentrating on what Americans believe, that is neccessary to keep the conspiracy theories a "fringe" view as such theories are a majority view in most other countries. However this doesn't mean they should get more space allocated in this article but it does mean that what is allocated should be more nuetral than it is now. Wayne 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read through the archive and understand that this topic has been discussed many times. However, it has not been resolved correctly, which is why I have started this conversation and am continuing it.

It has not been resolved correctly, or it has not been resolved in a manner that lets you get your way. I think the latter. Enough of this. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The attacks on September 11th were and continue to be an UNSOLVED MYSTERY. As such the article should be written accordingly. Let's take for example the Wikipedia page entitled "John F. Kennedy assassination" the introductory paragraph is written very well and complies with the NPOV tutorial. Read how it talks about who killed JFK and why it is believed he killed JFK. This should be the same for September 11th!!!

Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza, according to the conclusions of multiple government investigations, including the ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963-4 and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1976-9. This conclusion initially met with widespread support among the American public, but polls, since the original 1966 Gallup poll, show a majority of the public hold beliefs contrary to these findings.[1][2] The assassination is still the subject of widespread speculation and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories (even the HSCA, based on disputed acoustical evidence, concluded that Oswald may have had unspecified co-conspirators), though these theories have not generally been accepted by mainstream historians and no single compelling alternative theory has emerged.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories myself, however I have a very hard time believing the US Governement in its explanation of September 11th. Also, I don't understand why the executive branch would not allow an independant investigation. Why wasn't there any explanation made for the WT7 collapse and why wasn't the entire video footage of the "airplane" that hit the pentagon been released?

Maybe there wasn't a video to be found? Are you aware of the costs that would be required to keep cameras running to look at every possible terrorist target 24/7? I don't, but I know I don't want to pay for it just so conspiricy theorists can have one less thing to theorize about. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be cleared up that the videos of Osama Bin Laden are most likely not authentic. Besides the obvious, that his messages are increasingly political and counter Bush bringing us back Bush's infamous quote, "Your either with us or with the terrorists". Bin Laden was allegedly visited by a CIA agent months before September 11th at a US hospital in Dubai. A quote from the Le Figaro article translated to English,

describing a serious medical problem that could put his life in danger because of "a kidney infection that is propagating itself to the liver and requires specialized treatment". According to authorized sources, bin Laden had mobile dialysis equipment LeFigaro

UnitedPress Guardian I find it hard to believe that he has been surviving in the caves of Afganistan with sever kidney and liver problems. It's also surprising that in the most recent video he looks much healthier then 6 years ago. Not to mention his apparent "reverse aging" with the beard no longer being grey. Reuters

Finally, according to reliable sources many of the the 911 hijackers are still alive. BBC They have not been removed from the US no-fly list. BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavis2 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because we haven't learned *anything* more about Sept 11 in the 5 years and 51 weeks since the BBC published that. --Golbez 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This page should be revised and I am asking for all of the editors to take part in this large scale effort. I will begin to revise the article first here in the discussion to get your input. I will submit a new introductory paragraph shortly, please be patient.

JohnDavis2 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And we editors are saying no to you. Consensus has been reached. Stop trying to restate the same arguments over and over again. You are not going to get your way if you continue to throw these temper tantrums. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Except, with the JFK assassination, no one saw Oswald or whoever on the grassy knoll fire the shot. With 9/11, plenty of people did see planes crashing into buildings. The health of bin Laden is irrelevant. Whether he planned the attacks from a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or a hospital in Dubai, anything trying to relate his health to the planning and execution of the attacks would be original research, which is not allowed. Notice also "CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden" - we should not be giving much weight to allegations. And again, we can't be sure if the CIA met with him or if he was actually at the hospital (as the hospital denied it) so we can't make a direct connection or any fact-based connection at all to 9/11 without an improper synthesis of facts. With all due respect, I don't care what you "find it hard to believe." We should not let our own opinions and speculation creep into how we present facts. We can only present facts as other sources have presented them. Even if the conspiracy theories that say the twin towers were destroyed by space lasers are true, if the vast majority of the mainstream sources and most governments believe the official story, this article should be about the official story.
Also, in reference to your BBC link about the Hijackers still being alive, that story was posted just a couple weeks after the attacks and IMO is the worst piece of reporting I've ever seen from the BBC. It just vaguely references journalists, press releases, Arab news sources, and even "suggestions". In a later story, linked to from an editors' blog post, they clarify their position: "There is some doubt about four of the people named as some of the hijackers may have been travelling on false documents." (emphasis added) As to the other article about the no-fly list, did you even read it? It says it was "compiled hastily" - even Saddam Hussein was on it after he was in custody. Not to mention the fact that that article was written almost a year ago. Mr.Z-man 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I will begin to revise the article first here in the discussion to get your input. I will submit a new introductory paragraph shortly, please be patient. I can almost garentee you that whatever you come up with will be rejected. This is not an issue of POV pushing, you have simply refused to listen to any of what we have had to say. You continue to push your ideology over and over again, when consensus has already been reached. You can cry, you can scream, you can call us CIA/FBI workers(which I have yet to see ANY form of appology from you about), but that doesn't change the fact that any edits you attempt to make to push your POV will break consensus. I will say this one more time; let it go. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

drivers license of highjackers

There was something in the news shortly after the 911 attack that some of the highjackers had gotten drivers licences from a state license branch. A woman employee of that state license branch was murdered in the branch parking lot shortly after 911. Nothing is mentioned in this article about that dead end link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.163.55 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two of the hijackers got their licences legally and the others after presenting legal documents obtained using false information, so it had nothing to do with the DMV who acted properly in issuing them. It's possible the woman was murdered by idiots blaming her for issuing them or it was for non 9/11 reasons. Either way there is no need for a mention in the article. Wayne 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More Background?

After reading the section above on drivers' licenses I realized there is little info in this article on the events and preparations preceding the attack. The first item is

  1. 1 The attacks

I see that in the attack on Pearl Harbor article we have quite a bit of background:

  1. 1 Background to conflict
  • 1.1 War
  1. 2 Prelude to battle
  • 2.1 Intelligence
  • 2.2 Planning
  1. 3 The strike force
  2. 4 United States' preparedness
  3. 5 Breaking off negotiations
  4. 6 Attack

Perhaps we should consider doing more in that area regarding the 9/11 attack? Mr.grantevans2 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. With Pearl Harbor, there are plenty of historical books written about the planning, probably because the Japanese had plenty of records and there were plenty of people after the war who may have talked to historians. With Al-Qaeda though, I doubt there is as much primary source material available to historians and therefore less secondary source material available to us. Perhaps we could have a summary section in "Responsibility"? Mr.Z-man 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
oh,ok, thank you. Mr.grantevans2 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and minority POV

I agree that the "conspiracy theories" are minority view. I would also point out that generic skepticism on the official account is a view that is more common than the belief in a specific theory. So in order to do the due weight why do we dedicate a paragraph to "conspiracy theories" (fringe minority views) instead of dedicating it to "Skepticism on the official account" (slightly more common view than the previous one)?--Pokipsy76 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The term "conspiracy theories" is so loaded with crack-pot, anti-government and UFO association that it should be used much less often and with much better applicability."Skepticism of the official account" might be improved upon but is already much better than the trite and grammatically inaccurate "conspiracy theories" tag. Mr.grantevans2 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is a case of 'call 'em like you see 'em'. Then again, thats just me... --Tarage 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify: I'm not saying "let's call the conspiracy theories with another name", I'm just saying to dedicate the space actually devoted to the "conspiracy theories" to present the less controversial "skeptic point of view".--Pokipsy76 13:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. You want to replace the conspiracy theory section with a section called "skeptic point of view" and not mention the conspiracy theories on the page? Do we have sources for the skeptic point of view? Could you write up what you want to change here so we have a point to discuss from? --PTR 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that last statement by Pokipsy76 does make sense to me. There is too much WP:WEIGHT in this article about the conspiracy theories, and not enough about general dissatisfaction with the official reports. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest to avoid speaking about "theories" and just mention people questioning the official account and asking for deeper investigations.--Pokipsy76 15:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to expand on conspiracy theories. This article is an account of what happened, not what some people think happened. The article is well referenced and is an accurate accord of the events. The conspiracy theories are well addressed in other articles.--MONGO 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately culprits of the attacks on September 11 remain a mystery to this day. The official explanation has not been independently investigated and the US Government is withholding crucial information. The wikipedia article needs to be changed to reflect this reality. I will begin this effort shortly. Please also read my comments above in the "Adjustments for Neutrality Purposes" topic. I will rewrite the introductory paragraph within the next few days. Thank you for your patience.JohnDavis2 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is only a mystery to those who don't want to read the factual evidence.--MONGO 16:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The reality is that all the evidence is not available to the general public. There are many unanswered questions that have been avoided by the administration. Factual evidence is not something that is read, it is something that is found during investigations that have not taken place. It's a sad reality that relatives of September 11th victims are forced to put intense pressure on the US Government for an investigation. The era of "innocent until proven guilty" has been amended with a racial motivated and politically driven caveat creating, "innocent until proven guilty unless you’re Muslim" JohnDavis2 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Origional Research is not allowed here. Unless you can back up what you claim with factual reports(and numerous ones, concidering how many point against you), then your points will be rejected. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. Please stop making incendiary claims like "innocent until proven guilty unless you’re Muslim". They do nothing but make people more upset. --Tarage 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read what I said above you can see that I'm not suggesting to "expand" anything, I am suggesting to avoid speaking about somethings (theories) to speak about something else (people questioning) that deserve more "weight".--Pokipsy76 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The title of the other article is "9/11 Conspiracy theories". If you want to get the title of our section, in line with summary style changed, I suggest you get the other article's title changed first. --Haemo 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that there is an article with that title but I can't see how it is relevant in connection to my suggestion. I am not just suggesting to change the title of the section, I am suggesting to change the subject of the section to give the due weight to views that are more common than these "theories".--Pokipsy76 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not in line with the summary style. Our section here is supposed to be an upper-level summary of the given sub-article. Unless the sub-article changes, and that includes the title, our section should not change. Upper-level articles are not changed first; sub-articles are. If you think our section needs to details some nebulous division between "alternative theories" and "conspiracy theories", then it needs to be treated on the sub-article first. --Haemo 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"Factual evidence is not something that is read, it is something that is found during investigations that have not taken place." - Do you work for the FBI/CIA/NSA/MI5/MI6, etc.? How do you know what evidence they have and do not have? If they say they have evidence to support X, and X is reported in secondary sources (the news), we include X in our article. We don't say: "According to the FBI and the news, X happened, but we have not been able to independently verify X due to a lack of publicly available evidence." "the US Government is withholding crucial information" - And they're withholding information on the construction of thermonuclear weapons too, does that mean we should amend our articles about them as well? Mr.Z-man 20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Then what we may be left with is a conundrum; an encyclopedia written by the Government and parroted by its lazy co-dependents(main stream media) who crave and need access. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; just that it may be reality. Mr.grantevans2 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If the government, the news, and other reliable sources aren't all lying to us, it isn't really a problem. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you acusing us of being either the government, or parrots FOR the government? Mr.grantevans2, I had more respect for you than that. I guess my judgement was missplaced in you. --Tarage 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, this is not a government(like the USA) nor access-dependent main stream media (like CNN) but I think we rely heavily upon those sources which creates a conundrum when we profess NPOV. It's just a thought,that's all. In terms of Mr.'s comment, it's not necessarily a case of lying but rather conformity of "reliable source" reporting; e.g. The sinking of the Maine "While the cause of this great tragedy is still unsettled, contemporary American popular opinion blamed Spain, and war followed within a few months." Mr.grantevans2 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you really believe there is nothing to question in this matter then you seriously have a problem. Even the official story is a conspiracy theory if we follow logical thinking. And since the official story has serious flaws I find it upsetting when people view it as the absolute truth. This entry is very much what people think happened, nothing more, nothing less. --Ingeborgsjon 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unless you can back up what you claim with factual reports". What’s the point? They are provided and ignored by POV editors. As said earlier. The chairman of the 911 commission said "The commission was set up to fail, were starved of the funds needed to do a proper investigation, denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials". The majority of the commission are now what you call conspiracy theorists and members of 911 truth organisations. That alone indicates there is more to what happened than what we were told.
"It is only a mystery to those who don't want to read the factual evidence". Maybe it wouldn't be such a mystery if factual evidence was actually supplied to the public. I have no problem with scepticism or even the blind acceptance without question of what the government tells you to think but an encyclopaedia is supposed to be neutral not a fan site. Maybe the official theory is true, but how will we ever find out when POV editors exclude whatever they don’t like by calling it consensus when that should only be used when there are no cites available, not used to overrule cites. Wayne 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we've crossed from "editing" to "discussion" at this point. If you're not going to suggest some actual changes to the article, complete with reliable sources then please don't use this page. General griping about the POV cabal which controls this page is neither productive, nor helpful. --Haemo 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"POV editors" eh...well, this article is well referenced by the known facts of the case. There is a lengthy article that examines the superstitions already and there is no reason to expand on such superstitions in this one.--MONGO 04:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are we STILL arguing about this?! How many times do people have to say consensus has been reached before you stop the POV charade? You keep claiming that somehow there is this vast concpiricy to keep real information out of the public's hands. Fine. Lets for a minute pretend this is the case. Even if you claim to have a mountain of evidence being hidden by the government, unless you can PROVE it exists and SHOW US, then in the eyes of Wikipedia, it DOES NOT EXIST! I have ecidence that the moon is made of cheese, yet the government locked it away and refuses to show the public. Should I edit the moon article to say "there is a vast government conspiricy to keep people from the truth about cheese"? No. This is the exact same thing. True, more people believe that the official 9/11 report isn't completly accurate, but unless you can provide enough proof to override the mountains of evicence and factual reports supporting it, then in the eyes of Wikipedia it isn't worth anything. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. --Tarage 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there are people that say it is a problem to remove a section named "conspiracy theory" because there is an article with that name (and we apparently consider more important to follow the guideline on the summary rather than follow the policy about due weight... I find funny how people that wanted to ignore the guideline about the words to avoid now are so strict wit WP:SUMMARY). However there still is an issue about due weight: the views of people questioning the official account and asking for investigations is surely far more common than the view of people that believe in some specific "alternative theory", this is obvious also if we consider the that the second group is a subset of the first one. So why the more common views is not mentioned while the fringe minority one do have a subparagraph? If you are not willing to avoid speaking about these "conspiracy theories" you should at least be willing to devote an equal space to the views of people that are just skeptic and questioning (see WP:WEIGHT).--Pokipsy76 09:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone is really objecting to including a paragraph titled "Skepticism of the official account" which covers the skepticism without promoting other theories. Does anyone object to such an addition? Mr.grantevans2 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, please write up a paragraph on this discussion page - with sources - of what you propose to add. There is no way for the other editors on the page to discuss what you have in mind until it is presented to them. --PTR 12:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Your comment also implies that the term "conspiracy theories" is not the general term for so-called "alternative theories". As a number of the academic papers I posted above explain, this is distinctly not the case and therefore undue weight is not the operative issue here. --Haemo 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comments of 78.0.78.35 because they were malicious and harmfull to the editing process. --Tarage 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the above rhetoric is at all relevant to this article, until and unless it is discussed or documented by a reliable source. No matter what sort of cover-up may be going on, wikipedia is not the place to set matters straight. Our job is to document the information that is verifiable. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Pokipsy76 would perhaps be kind enough to write something up with areliable source (I think there are many) along the lines of "Skepticism of the official account". I think there is a continuing mis-understanding of Pokipsy76's simple,practical and logical suggestion as being equivalent to the issues of cover-up,conspiracy theories, pov cabals etc. I don't see those 3 issues as being relevant at all to the discussion of Pokipsy76's simple proposal but rather I see his proposal as being an attempt to move away from conflating conspiratorial claims with the well documented and reliable sources which show skepticism of the official account.Mr.grantevans2 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you believe there is a POV cabal here, then there is no reason to continue debating, as your mind is already made up as to who we are. Reguardless, unless you can cite quite a number of verified sources, this is, once again, moot. --Tarage 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that, if there are enough sources, then there should be some mention somewhere of the skepticism of some Americans of the mainstream account. However, besides that Zogby poll sponsored by 911Truth.org, are there any sources for that? Why is devoting one section of a 113kb article to the conspiracy theories all of a sudden undue weight? The conspiracy theory article gives a whole section to the mainstream account. There are plenty of sources to document that the theories exist and that a significant number of people believe in some of them. Also, where is the line? At what point does a skeptic become a conspiracy theorist? I don't think the poll successfully answers that. Mr.Z-man 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - Conspiracy Theories

Various 9/11 opinion polls have shown that a significant number of people reject the mainstream account and believe there has been some kind of cover-up. Some conspiracy theorists have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks.[38] These theories are not accepted as credible by many mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

Corleonebrother 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems a little stilted, to me. I like this one better, though it needs some clean-up:

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[39] More than a third of the American public suspects a 9-11 government conspiracy,[40] although these theories are not accepted as credible by most mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[41][42][43][44]

Specifically, with respect to the references. But, I've got some academic sources above which might help. --Haemo 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The first proposal from Corleonebrother is perfect in my opinion, it includes all the points in the right way and is fluent to read. Granted, it still needs references, but that shouldn't be the problem. Ravain 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Numbers from the Summer of 2006 are not current. The past tense should only be used with those. It's important to note how the numbers have changed. How there was a peak interest in the theories in 2006, but interest has been subsiding. This also mentions LIHOP and MIHOP theories.

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[45] Some theories suggest that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them. Others theories suggest the government carried out the attacks. Belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories reached a height in the summer of 2006, with a 16 percent of Americans indicating belief in controlled demolition theories.[46] Those theories have since been debunked,[47][48] and a September 2007 Zogby poll found that only 4.6% believe the theory.[49] These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[50][51][52][53]

I have tried to incorporate these points in the above text. --Aude (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aude's is good, but it would be nicer if it incorporated some of the general "skepticism" from recent polls. Something like:

Opinion polls have suggested that up to a third of the American public are skeptical of the official account of the attacks.[54][55] Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[56] Some theories suggest that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them. Others theories suggest the government carried out or assisted Al-Qaeda with the attacks. Belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories reached a height in the summer of 2006, with a 16 percent of Americans indicating belief in controlled demolition theories.[57] Those theories have since been debunked,[58][59] and a September 2007 Zogby poll found that only 4.6% believe the theory.[60] These theories are not accepted as credible by the majority of mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[61][62][63][64]

Its significantly longer, but it incorporates more of the skepticism. It could stand some cleanup for style/flow issues. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like parts of this, but I tend to feels it's too detailed. The last line is perfect — I think it summarizes the situation well, without being too inclusive, or exclusive. However, the dichotomy raised in the types of theories is misleading, while the controlled demolition section is off-topic and too specific for my tastes. --Haemo 19:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of the polls could be left to the subarticle. It's simply problematic to mention the 2006 poll alone, (especially in the present tense) when the numbers have been changing. LIHOP/MIHOP is the typical terminology used by conspiracy theorists, but discussion of them can be left to the subarticle, I suppose. --Aude (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Zogby poll is a problem too. It was commissioned by 911truth.org, with wording to produce favorable results as possible. 4.6% is probably a high estimate, but not for us to say our own opinion here about that. --Aude (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Haemo - I agree with Aude about that statistic not being current. Aude - I think that's too much detail about the polls. Why not just link to the dedicated article so that the reader can see the trends in the polls for themselves? Corleonebrother 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm against using oppinion polls because they are almost always tilted to one POV or another. I'm against using statistics like "Over a third of people..." because, just like oppinion polls, these two can be corrupted. I would advise against using hard numbers and percentages. --Tarage 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the poll out of the article. Let's come to an agreement on what the section should say, but it's clear from the discussion here that it should not mention polls and specific numbers. --Aude (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur that polls about whether the facts are right or not seem silly. Opinions shouldn't trump the known evidence...and that is all polls are, opinions. When polls are requested by biased entities and worded to deliberately obtain the response they want, the entire poll results are tarnished anyway.--MONGO 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have agreement that no specific polls or numbers should be mentioned. But the paragraph must somehow give a sense of the popularity of the skepticism and theories; I feel that an inline link to the 9/11 opinion polls article is the best way to do this and will be useful for readers, if they are interested. It is not for us to decide whether or not individual polls are "reliable" or "meaningful"; the dedicated article gives a wide range of polls with all the information necessary for the reader to decide for themselves whether they have any value. Corleonebrother 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

5% is a large number equalling 15,000,000 people. So I wouldn't discredit it as being so small. Also, saying that the % dropped because those theories were "debunked" is an opinion. The % dropped most likely because the question was asked differently within the two polls. Finally, the last sentence serves only as a purpose to discredit alternative theories and should be removed.

JohnDavis2 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice that it does not say the percent dropped because the theories were debunked. It says the theories have been debunked, fewer people believe the theory. It does not explicitly give a reason. Saying "The % dropped most likely because the question was asked differently within the two polls." is an opinion too. And how does "These theories are not accepted as credible by the majority of mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda." serve to discredit conspiracy theories? This article is about the mainstream account, it would be undue weight and would make no sense if we put the mainstream account and the conspiracy theories on the same plane. Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone believe that the mainstream media, governments and politicians, and scientists who believe the official account are in a minority of their respective group? Mr.Z-man 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I removed the poll data readded to the article since we had not come to a consensus and it is an article synthesis of a poll and not the raw poll data with questions asked and percentages. I'm not sure if poll results are optional for this section but I'm flexible. The problem is that the data is whatever percentage of the 1010 people they were able to get to answer their questions. Other questions were part of a newspoll.org survey which, I think, is an online polling site. --PTR 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the love of pete, people, please don't edit war over this. It's getting a wee bit ridiculous. --Haemo 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed to leave it out it until we reached consensus on what it should say. Isn't that what the discussion page is for - to reach consensus before adding contested material to an article? --PTR 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. As it stands, we have no consensus. --Haemo 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And I've had to block someone for violating the three revert rule. Wonderful. --Haemo 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, you didn't have to. 7 reverts in 52 hours, but never quite 4 in 24. (I decided to rephrase to match the actual article, rather than reverting it, this time, although I'm not really sure it belongs here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing something like 4 in 30 hours, which is pushing it especially given that they're been warned repeated against edit warring, and haven't engaged in discussion here. --Haemo 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be mentioned about skepticism. After all the smaller percentages are only the number of people who believe in "specific" conspiracy theories while more than 80% of the public do not believe the official theory in it's entirety. Wayne 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

80%?! Wow... nice twisting of polls. This is exactially why we should leave out all polling data. If you were to ask the public if the sky is blue, most would agree. However, the more specific variations you add to it, you will find that some think it is blue, other's teal, ect; to the point where no one actually believes the sky is blue. This feels a lot like this claimed 80%. Again, unless you can back it up with sources, preferably mainstream and easy to check exactially what questions were asked and how, then that poll is invalid here. --Tarage 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think we need to include poll numbers, but I've edited the page to take out inaccuracies and "current" poll numbers, which are actually outdated and over a year old. I suggest take out the poll entirely. --Aude (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --PTR 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Anything is better than the fabled 80%. --Tarage 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok i finally managed to stumble over this discussion, sorry for causing a bit of a mess without looking properly.
Disagree, the section conspiracy theories is only needed, because there are a significant number of people "doubting the official account" or whatever, so this should get some mention, although polls of course aren't ever perfect and vary somewhat it still is relevant and interesting information.
Having read it, I vote for Corleonebrother's version. (That would have been a worthier text to revert to ;)) Ravain 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Define significant. Also, without refrence to how the polls were taken, what questions were used, where the polls were taken, who sponcered the polls, ect, they are meaningless numbers. This is why polls in an encyclopedia article are a bad idea. As mentioned above, Wayne believe 80% dissagree with the official story. Are you sugesting we put that number in the article? --Tarage 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
80% ??????? Gimme a break. I think things are already being pushed too far with infoboxes like this one. Wikipedia seems to be giving a great forum for these unverified claims. How nuts are all these people? Timneu22 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you try to be civil and stop calling people names just because they do not share your view of the world. I also find it offensive when you push obvious inaccuracies (ie:"unverified") to support your POV stance in replying to people.
I will point out where I got the 80% from. In a New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11. In case you spin that the poll wording skews the result here it is: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth (16%), are mostly telling the truth but hiding something (28%), or are they mostly lying? (53%)" A CNN poll asking the same question found 89% think the government is hiding something or lying. Zogby was even higher. Obviously there is a lot of skepticism and while i dont feel polls should be included the article should indicate that skepticism is not a fringe idea. Just from reading the article it appears that skepticism is restricted to believing the government did 911 or thermite brought the towers down. The problem is that a few people here equate any skepticism at all with believing specific conspiracy theories which is not the case. Wayne 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The opinions expressed cover everything from "Bush helped the Jews blow up the WTC" to "Someone made a mistake and didn't admit it". --Haemo 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
After dealing with the likes of Gabe De Wilde, you'll have to excuse my sarcasm when dealing with outragious claims. Reguardless of what that poll says, it is clear to the majority of us here that 80% is entirly too high of a number to actually represent anything remotely accurate. Reguardless, whatever conspirity theory a person believes in, unless they can come in here and back it up with enough credible sources supporting their idea to trump the vast numbers we have against, then they should simply accept that it will not get more play in this article than it already does. --Tarage 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With what authority do you support "outragious"? OR? Your majority is against specific conspiracy theories. Polls are recognised as accurate by governments, scientists and statisticians within the margins given so on what basis is your claim they are not "remotely accurate" based on. Do you only count people who agree with you? Polls are only disputed by those who don't like the result or when they are taken without following accepted standards. Give me a RS that state polls are not remotely accurate. The government did 911 or controlled demolition brought down the towers may be minority views not supported by what is public knowledge but it is factual on the balance of evidence that there is some coverup. Even the 911 commission found that the government lied and covered up. What they covered up is the big unknown. Wayne 05:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, polls are very easy to shift towards one idelology or another. I'd rather this article be based on facts presented in well documented sorces. It would appear you cannot find enough of said sources, so you rely on 'only realivant the day it was taken' polls. Face it, people's oppinions change faster than the weather. --Tarage 07:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again...read what people write before jumping on a bandwagon. I have said several times I don't support including polls in the article. I found 4 independent RS polls taken over a 12 month period with the latest only a few months old. Yet you still persist in posting misleading garbage to support your view by saying "not enough sources" and only "relevant' for a day. Is it any wonder people find it hard to accept your view as credible?. If POV pushing Bush apologists tried to be a little more NPOV most conspiracy theories would die a natural death and there would be no need for topics on them. Wayne 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice persional attack there buddy. Now I'm even less inclined to keep debating this with you. --Tarage 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive this page?

Isn't this getting a bit long? Timneu22 10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I archived everything prior to Sept 12. --Haemo 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest users to mark their section with {{resolved}} when they think they've been addressed, or a consensus reached, so they can be archived. --Haemo 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Schools

The following has been removed from the article. This didn't really fit in the section, and lacked references.

In the suburbs around New York City many schools closed for the day, were evacuated, or were locked down. Other school districts shielded students from watching television because many of their parents held jobs in the World Trade Center towers. In New Jersey and Connecticut, private schools were evacuated. Children in Maryland schools, those nearest to DC, were sent home. In Montgomery County, Maryland schools were let out early and closed the following day. Scarsdale, New York schools closed for the day. Greenwich, Connecticut, about 20 miles (32 km) north of the city, had hundreds of school children with direct ties to victims of the attacks. Greenwich and nearby New Canaan, two of the wealthiest towns in the area along with neighboring Darien, had more residents killed, as a percentage of total population, than any other Connecticut town.

Now, I'm not sure which subarticle to put this in, if any. I don't think it fits anywhere. Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like the most likely place for it. However, I'm not really sure it fits there, either, as that section focuses on the psychological effects on children. Until someone finds sources I'm not sure that that section should go anywhere. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Too specific anyways, as all schools across the country closed down for at least the day. KyuuA4 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I was in high school at the time, and we didn't close. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Many schools across the country did close. I was at Western Illinois that day, and all classes were canceled. Point is, school closing on that day wasn't limited to the New York metro area. KyuuA4 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose I was nitpicking a little bit. I think, at this point, it's agreed upon that the section should just be inserted anywhere in any article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Article lead

Hi. I'd like to ask a question about the article lead. Compared with other articles of a similar nature, I'm struck by how little of the article's subject matter is mentioned in the lead. Article leads are intended, as I understand it, to provide a concise summary of the main points of the article. Looking through the material which follows, there are significant subjects which are not mentioned at all in the lead. Do others agree, and if so, would you be happy if I amended the lead in an attempt to address this? SP-KP 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a re-write of the lead here, but be aware it's entrenched soil, so you'll need lots of discussion before moving forward. Also note that the body of the article is currently in something of a state of flux, so it might be more productive to focus on sub-sections first. --Haemo 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice. Perhaps if I start by stating which subjects I feel are missing and then if we can get a consensus around those, we can take things from there? SP-KP 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here goes. I thought the simplest way of doing this was to produce an analysis section-by-section.

Reflected well

  • 1 The attacks

Not reflected

  • 2 Responsibility
  • 3 Reactions
  • 4 U.S. Government response
  • 5 Long-term effects
  • 6 Memorials

Not applicable to the lead (in my view)

  • 7 Media
  • 8 See also
  • 9 References
  • 10 Books
  • 11 External links

SP-KP 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The 19 Hijackers

Media (BBC) reported long ago that several of the alleged hijackers are alive so I'm wondering why this entry still claim that there were 19 hijackers? The mention of the 19 hijackers should at least be removed from the top of the entry since it isn't verified information. The mention of the 19 hijackers should be mentioned further down along with the different sources. I think it is better to just use the word hijackers since it's not verfiable that there were 19 of them --Ingeborgsjon 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We just went over this not a few weeks ago. Consensus was reached, and the status of the 19 terrorists will probably not be able to be questioned for quite some time. Please read the archives before repeating claims that have already been dealt with. --Tarage 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm new to wikipedia as a contributor although I've been using it as a source of information for several years. But without having read all the rules I have to say that either the rules are poor or you have made a poor decision on this matter. I've a long experience in argumentation and philosophy and I find it astonishing that you keep the number 19 as an absolute truth although there are credible sources that claim this number to be false. I don't really care what the rules are at this point because it is very unscientific and biased to keep the entry in the form it is in today. I will of course read all the rules as soon as I've got some time over. But right now I'm in a bit of a hurry. --Ingeborgsjon 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oudated information such as the BBC link above you provided have long since been readjusted wiht new information. The fact that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes is no longer disputed by any credible source.--MONGO 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you in a hurry to edit this article to fit your views? If anything, you should realize that trying to get consensus from people is not a quick and easy task. Even if you came here with... 10 sources to back up what you claim, they would have to go under peer review from the people here, and most likely 10 sources pointing out contrary beliefs to yours would be found, and the process would continue. Do not edit on Wikipedia if you want fast change; it doesn't happen that way. --Tarage 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So your argument is that since 1 BBC article (from 6 years ago) and probably a few conspiracy websites say that some of the hijackers are still alive, every other source that says different is wrong? Mr.Z-man 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The only way for conspiracy theories to remain conspiracy theorists is not merely to think their story happened; they have to willingly ignore the volumes of contrary evidence. --Golbez 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget, they also have to believe that everyone who argues contriary to their views are either 'in on it', or so blinded to the truth, they are nothing more than sheep. --Tarage 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Official story criticism

The official story has many flaws and believe that the current entry is trying to avoid to mention that by moving all of that to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. The fact that even the official story is a conspiracy theory doesn't seem to bother anyone. The word conspiracy has a bad reputation because it has been miss used by many. The entry is very biased as it is today. --Ingeborgsjon 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archives of the talk page before questioning this article further. Dispite your persional POV, consensus for the majority of this article has been reached, so it will most likely stay in this form. Please concider this before you post again. --Tarage 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well as I said above I've not had the time to adjust to the rules. Although I actually read alot in the archives before posting both these issues. Still I believe wikipedia has a major problem when it puts the US government as a more credible source than the laws of physics. I know there isn't up to the wikipedia to draw conclusions but as it is right now you are lifting the official theory above all other theories. This is very against free, open and critical thinking. --Ingeborgsjon 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for origional research. Wikipedia is a consensus of the majority without trampling on the minority. As things stand now, this article complies with both of the above. Reguardless of how you persionally feel about the issue, the majority of Wikipedians, as well as the majority of people total, support the notion that on 9/11, four planes were hijacked by terrorists and three were flown into buildings. Unless you can provide well sourced information to the contrary(not that 9/11 didn't happen the way we have it now, but that the majority do not support the current wording), then it will stay this way. Try to understand. --Tarage 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong references

At the end of the "conspiracy theories" section we have these references:

  • Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. (March 2007) "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 133(3), p. 308-319. On page 309, Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).

to support the claim "These theories are not accepted as credible by most mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda".

But the references are not connected to the claim (as explained also in other part of this page they are all related to the controlled demolition theory, not to conspiracy theories in general) so I suggest to remove them... Do anyone disagree?--Pokipsy76 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The references relate to the claim. The claim may need to be reworded, since it implies that the group who do not accept the conspiracy theories are the same group that assign responsibility to al-Qaida. Common sense suggests that the engineers cited in the sources are part of the former group, but not the latter. But that does not mean that the sources should be removed. Far from it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggested a number of academic sources above which would be more appropriate. I'm honestly not sure why we're sourcing it at all, given that it's a summary of a sub-article. --Haemo 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are speaking about the books on "conspiracy theories" by psychologists you mentioned some times ago I already explained why they are not related to the claim:
These books cannot support the wording "most all mainstream scientists and journalists" unless they cite some kind of scientific poll about the opinions of scientist and journalists on 911 and give a percentage that can be interpreted as "most". If this thesis is just asserted by the authors of the books and not proved then it does not count as a source for the claim *as a fact*, but only as an opinion of authors who have not a special authority on the matter.--Pokipsy76 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The references are not related to the claim for a very trivial reason: the claim could be false even if we accept the references as valid. The references just suggest that structural ingeneers concluded that the WTC did collapse by the fire. This has no relation to the belief in Al Quaeda responsability and no relation to the "mainstream journaluist and scientist"'s belief in general.--Pokipsy76 13:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you're agreeing with what I said. The sentence needs to be split into two claims: one that says the theories are not accepted as credible by most mainstream journalists and scientists (the sources back that up), and a second sentence that says journalists and political leaders have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda. Maybe we need sources for that, but (as Haemo pointed out) this section is a summary of another article, and criticism of it should be based on whether or not it adheres to WP:SUMMARY - in other words, whether it provides a concise and neutral summary of the 911CT article. Whether it does or not, I can't see why we would want to remove sources from the article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Here I am not discussing the wording of the section, I am just discussing the references that are not appropriate to the text.--Pokipsy76 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to removing all the references, provided we ensure that the section remains a concise summary of the main 911CT article. I'm a bit concerned that editors may assume that it's okay to add unsourced material (or make other unsources edits) to that paragraph. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose to removing these references?--Pokipsy76 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose removal if the plan is to not find other sources to back up the claim. I think we should do that before we start deleating things. --Tarage 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
But it is not reasonable to keep wrong references idefinitely just because some claim cannnot be sourced. If you don't like unsourced claims you can put a fact tag or remove them, you shouldn't add (or keep) wrong references!! Do you (or anybody else) have any reasonable objection to removing these wrong references?--Pokipsy76 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User:Mascus from above section

Comment copied here for context

Attributed form. 9/11 is closely associated with the the idea of terrorism in the public mind and in government policy, and this should definitely be mentioned with attributions. Terrorism is irregular warfare carried out by bad people. Despite being non-state actors, the French Resistance were not terrorists because the Nazis were the bad guys in WW2. Despite tagetting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, the atomic bombing of Japan in WW2 was not a terrorist act because either the Japanese were the bad guys or because the action was carried out by the US government who by definition cannot be terrorists. In most large scale violent acts, there is a group of people who feel the action was unfair and criminal, meanwhile there is a group of people who support the action as a legitimate response. Calling an event or a group 'terrorist' is just a way of saying you don't feel their actions were justified. On 9/11, some buildings in New York were attacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by suicide hijackers attempting to advance their cause. Millions of Islamists around the world considered this a legitimate response to US actions and policy in the Gulf. If the article states as fact that this was a 'terrorist' attack committed by 'terrorists', the POV of the authors is clearly revealed: that attacking New York on 9/11 was wrong. Wikipedia readers don't need the article to tell them if the action was wrong or right, it just has to present the facts and we can make up our own minds. Mascus 10:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you really trying to compare armies in WWII to Al-Qaeda? There's a massive difference. Besides the whole declaration of war thing, the Allies and Axis were killing each other to capture (or recover) territory, they were not killing to cause fear and destruction just for the sake of fear and destruction or to "advance their cause". The French resistance is different too; they were fighting to assist the Allies in regaining control of their own country. War is bad, but war != terrorism and soldiers != terrorists. And the atomic bombing - Do you know what the alternative was? It could have been much worse. "Millions of Islamists around the world" - I'd love to see a source for that. "there is a group of people who feel the action was unfair and criminal" - I'm pretty sure hijacking an airplane is a crime in the US and most other countries. Mr.Z-man 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mr.Z-man for moving your comments here. You make a number of points, so I will go through them. I am comparing the events of 9/11 to the atomic bombing of Japan. Both events involved the specific targetting and large scale killing of civilians to frighten the wider population into submisssion. The motives of the Japanese bombings are well documented here:[104]. The only difference I can see between the legitimacy of the two acts was that the American armed forces had the mandate of the representatives of a sovereign state whereas Al-Qaeda is a transnational populist movement. Both have the support of millions. You believe that the alternative to nuking Japan was worse which, presumably, leads you to conclude that nuking Japan was justified. I think this is a reasonable opinion but certainly not an uncontestable fact that can be included in Wikipedia without attribution. the legitimacy of an action cannot be neutrally determined by Wikipedia, certainly not where there is any debate about that legitimacy.
You believe that there was no declaration of war by Islamists. Are you forgetting the Jihad?
You state that the attack was carried out 'to cause fear and destruction just for the sake of fear and destruction'. I don't see how you can state this as a fact. Al-Qaeda's presumed motives are not entirely clear but they are discussed in the Motive section of the article. You can see that, like the French Resistance, the recovery of territory is amongst their presumed aims.
You state that war is not terrorism. I didn't make this claim but I would say that many acts of war are indistinguishable from supposed terrorist attacks like 9/11. If you can tell me how to determine a soldier from a terrorist I'd love to hear it.
You request a source for the assertion that 'millions of Islamists around the world' considered 9/11 a justified attack. The 2002 Gallup Poll of the Islamic World surveyed Muslims in 8 countries. 9% of those polled believed that the 9/11 attacks were justified. As there were 406m muslims in the countries surveyed, this represents around 36m muslims who held this view. Clearly this represents a significant number of people who dissent from the Western view that the attacks were unwarranted. If the article states as fact that the attack was terrorist, it is presenting one point of view as fact and violating one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Mascus 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I agree with in the above is that there were instances of terrorism in WWII. Pearl Harbor for instance. Also, I sugest you go back into the recent archives to read our discussion about the word 'terrorist' itself, and it's sugested removal from this article. There are quite a few great arguments that don't need to be repeated here that support the use of the words in this article. Please read that, and don't bring this up again unless you have something new to add. We're all a little sick of this debate. --Tarage 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not suggest removal of the word 'terrorist' from the article. I suggested that the word be use in the attributed form as recommended by Wikipedia guideline WP:WTA. I have read the archive and I didn't come across the 'great arguments' for making Wikipedia sound like Voice of America. I didn't resurrect this topic. I added my comments to a section above inviting user comments. I will of course bring up any relevant topic whenever I please regardless of how sick you are of the debate. This page is startling to a neutral observer. It's a very prominent Wikipedia page and yet it falls far short of the neutrality found in an average article. It clearly expresses the opinion in its lead paragraph that 9/11 was a very bad thing done by very bad people. Mascus 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia guideline WP:WTA. I have read the archive and I didn't come across the 'great arguments' for making Wikipedia sound like Voice of America. I will of course bring up any relevant topic whenever I please regardless of how sick you are of the debate. You are sounding more and more like a troll to me. Reguardless of the consensus that has been reached over and over again, you feel that your point trumps all of ours, and your way of seeing things is clearly superior. Well, apperently you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Please go back and read the archives again, because you completly missed the point through your rose tinted glasses. --Tarage 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I accept that there is a non-unanimous consensus of editors of this page who believe that the article should state in its lead paragraph as fact that 9/11 was a terrorist attack carried out by terrorists. This is why I am not editing the article to read as I would like it to. I am curious as to whether there is any rationale behind this consensus or whether this is an example of systematic bias in favour of a US patriotic viewpoint (that people who attack America are self-evidently bad people). I will continue to discuss on the talk page. Feel free to answer any of my points above. Mascus 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you've read the archives you'll know that that point was brought up and that there are other articles on WP using the words terrorist and terrorism involving countries other than the US since the vast majority of reliable sources for those incidents, as this one, use that terminology. You'll find links to some of those articles in the most recent archives in response to User:Damburger posing the same issue. --PTR 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This used to be one of the few articles that was opinionated enough to use the adjective 'terrorist' without attribution but I can see that other articles such as 7/7 and the Bali bombings now use 'terrorist' in the narrative voice and in the lead section. This was not the case in the past so I guess Wikipedia is moving in this direction. There's some work to do yet because articles like Church Street bombing and Omagh bombing don't tell the reader that these were 'terrorist' events. Maybe that's because the ANC and the Real IRA are good guys. Reading those articles, do you have any difficulty making up your mind whether these were terrorist attacks? Would you prefer is Wikipedia help your hand and told you as a fact the these were unjustifed terrorist attacks? Would that add to or take from the article? Again, I am not opposed to the use of the words 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' in Wikipedia articles. I am opposed to Wikipedia articles stating as fact that that some events are terrorism and others are not, rather than saying who calls the events terrorist.Mascus 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I was simply answering your concern that this was systematic bias. --PTR 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Also note the use here of a citation of the United Nations Security Council[105], unanimously denouncing the terrorist attacks. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very relevant that the UN issued this statement and the information should definitely be included near the top of the article. However, when the UN security council holds a unanimous opinion this does not make that opinion a fact or a neutral point of view. We have NPOV not UNPOV. The UNSC described the events of 9/11 as 'horrifying terrorist attacks' so why have we left out the word 'horrifying'? Would that be NPOV? What is so wrong with using the attributed form and saying that 'the UN security council described the events as horrifying terrorist attacks' ? Terrorism is a deceptive word. It sounds like it means something neutral but after a while you realise it's just a pejorative way to characterise other people's violent actions as unjustified. The lead section is also tautological: apparently 9/11 was a terrorist attack carried out by 19 terrorists. It comes across as really weak. Maybe the idea is that if the article says 'terrorism' enough times it will become true.Mascus 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't just the UN, so the article can't read that way. Again, please read the archives. Your points have been raised and addressed. --PTR 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't think this is going to drop easly... again... Why can't people accept consensus when we reach it? This is really annoying.--Tarage 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:CABAL --Tarage 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BIAS --Mascus 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:STOPTHROWINGABBREVIATIONSATEACHOTHERANDDISCUSS Mascus, there is a multitude of sources describing 9/11 as a terrorist event. You have yet to provide a single source that says it was not a terrorist event but rather something else. You seem to suggest that terrorist is just a POV insult that cannot be defined. That does not matter. We have dozens of sources and could find thousands more that call 9/11 a terrorist attack. You say we should use attributed form, should we attribute it to every source that calls it terrorism? If there are tens of thousands of major sources that call it terrorism and a few dozen that call it something else, how would basing major statements in the article on the minority view be a neutral point of view and how would it not be undue weight on the minority view? Mr.Z-man 21:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think our point of difference is that you believe that if an opinion is held by a huge majority of sources then that makes it a fact that Wikipedia can assert without attribution. Under your rule, it's OK to state the opinion that something is ugly or evil or wrong as a fact so long as nearly everyone holds that opinion. I think that these are unverifiable value judgements derived from facts and that it is best to let the reader form his own opinion based on the uncontested objective facts. If you look at the WP:ASF of the NPOV policy, there is a clear explanation. Am I right that this is our disagreement? Mascus 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not my point of difference or the reason I disagree with your arguments. I don't think saying something is terrorism is a value judgement. Terrorism is a tactic. That particular tactic has been used many times and is still being used. The earth is flat. There are instances of terrorism. If you were describing a bank robbery you would say the bank was robbed. You wouldn't say, "armed gunmen went into the bank and requested money at gunpoint" just to avoid using the word robbery. You also wouldn't say, "according to the police, the taking of the money from the bank was robbery." --PTR 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Terrorism is widely used - but the problem is that the word only tends to be used against enemies of Western government, and not universally. This is where the bias creeps in. It's not inaccurate to say 9-11 was terrorism, but the word has wider meaning. Concise Oxford Dictionary: Terrorist: a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community. So, Bush's threat and subsequent deployment of "Shock and Awe" against Iraq/ Saddam Hussein makes him a terrorist. But can you imagine this word being correctly used in an article on him? This is where the POV comes into play - in practice, only enemies of the US government can have the tag applied, so its use is biased.
I was interested to read above that an example of terrorism in World War II was the attack on Pearl Harbour (ie against the US). Of all the attoricities committed from the fire-bombing of Dresden, air raids against Germany, bombing of ships and submarines etc, that particular one was singled out and called Terrorism! 81.96.161.52 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "terrorism" is often used to advance a POV, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an objective meaning. The definition you're using is not prescise enough; the requirement is that the person perpetrating the act not be a a representative of a government. Otherwise, every military force in the world would be considered a terrorist. The killing of civilians by a sanctioned military force during wartime can be described as War Crimes, but not terrorism. Besides, we've mentioned other articles in this discussion where the targets were not Western but the attacks were still labeled terrorist. Dchall1 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarage, just a quick response to your thought "Why can't people accept consensus when we reach it?". I have followed this debate with interest (despite the fact that the issue questioned here has been raised previously). My main comment, and I know it won't bring this discussion either forward or backward, is that people can't accept consensus because human beings will always question things. They will question other thoughts, past events, why the sky is blue, why an apple will fall to the ground, etc. This is the main motor behind the evolution of human societies. What consensus at some time will hold for granted can later be questioned and sometimes found to be untrue. I don't see anything wrong with Mascus bringing an old issue up again and whereas he will be proven wrong or not will only contribute to him and others learning. I hope I didn't disrupt your discussions too much. Another thought I have is on the word terrorism. If, as Dchall1 explains, "The killing of civilians by a sanctioned military force during wartime can be described as War Crimes, but not terrorism." then surely the Pearl Harbor attack will not be regarded as an act of terrorism. Moreover, this word is not used in the Wikipedia article for the Pearl Harbor attack. Be careful using it here as an example of what terrorism is ("there were instances of terrorism in WWII. Pearl Harbor for instance." as stated by Tarage). Mojaloxo 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I will be the first to say that Pearl Harbor was not an act of terrorism. Labeling it as terrorism only adds fuel to the charge that a terrorist attack is anything targeting the West. However, I don't see how any reasonable person could argue that the 9/11 attacks were anything but terrorism. Dchall1 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Dchall1 for your response and no, of course, I was not arguing against the fact that 9/11 was an act of terrorism but simply against the one that Pearl Harbor was! I just felt the need to point it out. Mojaloxo 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I avoided voicing my opinion on the Pearl Harbor attack - which I believe to be an unprovoked act of war, rather than terrorism - because I felt it might sidetrack the debate. I just wanted to add a counterpoint to Dchall1's point: if the 9/11 attacks are not terrorism, what is? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And similar to SheffieldSteel's question, if the 9/11 attacks are not terrorism, what are they? Mr.Z-man 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to get into the Pearl Harbor debate on this page. I just needed to disassociate it from the term "terrorism" as, if it was indeed to be connected to that word, it would change the whole implication of what a terrorist act is and thus cause confusion for readers of the particular story that we are discussing. I do apologise as I am the one who felt the need to point that discrepency out and therefore bringing that whole subject up. However, I don't think Dchall1 was implying that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorim. Mojaloxo 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop grasping at strawmen and get back to the point of this? Jeeze, I'm sorry I even brought Pearl Harbor up. --Tarage 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good that you brought up Pearl Harbour as it helps us clarify what we are talking about when we use the term. I would like to respond to the above comment,
"Yes, "terrorism" is often used to advance a POV, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an objective meaning. The definition you're using is not prescise enough; the requirement is that the person perpetrating the act not be a a representative of a government."
I agree that's how the word is often intepreted, but is it what the word actually means? I guess I am saying that is not the objective meaning, but the subjective meaning. There are countless examples of words being widely mis-used and so far as I am aware, there is no reliable definition of 'terrorism' which differentiates between government and non-government. Also, politicians don't adhere to such a distinction when they refer to terrorist states, and there is such a thing as state terrorism, and the justification for such things as economic sanctions sometimes hinges on the idea that a government is somehow involved in such attacks.
So I think there is possibly an inherent POV in the use of the term. It's not wrong to use it here, but it should be applied across the board, which it isn't. Therefore, although it is factually correct it may be better to avoid using it because of an inherent POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite get what you are saying. It isn't wrong to use it here, but since we don't use it elsewhere, it is wrong to use it here? Mr.Z-man 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I made this on 9/11. I chose black as the color to represent the death, and sorrow, and I chose the picture because the Statue of Liberty came off as symbolic to me. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelofdeath275/UBX/September 11, 2007
While that is nice... I don't think it belongs in this talk section. --Tarage 02:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfair behavior of an editor

User: Tom harrison is reverting edits (often without explanation) that are (or have) being discussed here without ever taking part to any discussion in this page. I strongly invite this user to discuss his arguments here before edit warring.--Pokipsy76 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see is him resisting attempts to put in unverified and/or POV content into the article. We should applaud him for that. There are some things that don't need discussion in order to revert, the implication that explosions caused some of the collapses for example. Anti-consensual POV pushing can always be reverted. RxS 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--MONGO 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever he is doing he is not doing it in a fair way. It would be fair to discuss changes here and not edit warring, this is the way wikipedia should work I think. For istance: before doing my edit I have opened a discussion, explained my arguments and waited days to let people do objections about it, I also explicitely asked to raise objections if anyone did have, so if there are people that disagreed it would have been fair if they explained their argument here instead of just edit warring. Am I wrong about how wikipedia should work?--Pokipsy76 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, I didn't consider it necessary to object because your agruments had been discussed and rejected by consensus previously. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
To his defence... he did try to talk about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Wrong_references but only I and a few other authors even noticed it and responded. His edits were in good faith, but I don't have the justification either way to call them right or wrong. I sugested finding replacements before just deleting them, but there was no consensus either way. You guys might want to check that section. --Tarage 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify. User: Tom harrison did indeed remove POV polling data, but he also inserted back in what User:Pokipsy76 had deleted because he thought no one objected to the removal of what he claims to be incorrect refrences. Just wanted to point that out, that Tom did more than just undo Porkopsy's edits, and Pokipsy, as far as I can see, did not insert that 9/11 polling data in his last edit before Tom's. --Tarage 02:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Please User:Arthur Rubin could you show me when my arguments were rejected and by whom.--Pokipsy76 17:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. You've made many arguments, most of which have been rejected. But I'm not sure which argument supports the edit in question; or, for that matter, which edit is in question. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapse

Hello. Not trying to start anything here. There are 33 archives and whew the commentary is interesting. It would be great to be able to search the archives else I wouldn't be here asking. And no I did not check all archives although I was checking for a search function for all of them.
Anyway, when I checked the Investigations subsection of the article under Collapse of the World Trade Center and I checked reference #153, the page that popped up said, "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."
To my question/comment... It seems there is not any information provided relative to physics regarding metals, burn temperatures, building design, and what not that provides an alternate view regarding the actual collapse of the buildings (not getting into conspiracy theories here rather just dealing with science). It seems some alternate views on the collapse of the twin towers buildings that are based on science are significant enough under NPOV to be included. What am I missing with my thoughts? Is there a specific archive I should check? Thank you. Rkowalke 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll check the reference later, no time now. There should also be a see also pointing to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article in that section. Someone should add it if they have time. That article might be more of what you're looking for. --PTR 22:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added the link to the main article, the link is indeed broken. I'll look for a backup or an alternate location for that. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
And I've found another copy of the article and fixed the ref. Mr.Z-man 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Great. Agree the other site does address some of the scientific concerns. One of the ones that is especially interesting is the heat and smoldering for months thereafter. Wonder what caused that? Anyway, looks like my comments are best served at the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.
Thank you.
Rkowalke 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the article about the collapse of wtc7? Is there a detailed article about that significant topic? Where is it? If you could point to it? 78.1.97.255 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center? --Haemo 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No NPOV In Sight

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently made many comments on this discussion page to start a conversation changing the article to make it NPOV. Since there was no independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 it is not correct to blame Muslims. The unfortunate reality is that, what caused the twin towers to collapse is still a mystery to the general public.

I was planning on rewriting the article in collaboration with other Wikipedia editors. However, I received many personal messages where I was viciously attacked and threatened. The responses in the general discussion were very aggressive and many editors were not willing to give me any respect. Instead of making valid points, they preffered to use insults. Also, the comments that I wrote in the discussion were commonly vandalized to discredit me.

Unlike the government officials that are paid to keep this article under control, I do not have the time or the energy to make this article NPOV. That said, I encourage other editors to make changes as this article clearly violates NPOV.

JohnDavis2 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how you think I'm paid by the government. How much am I paid? --Golbez 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You accuse others of attacks and insults yet you call everyone who disagrees with you a paid government official? Also note, the article does not blame Muslims in general as you seem to imply. The article reports what the vast majority of reliable sources says: the attack was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda considers themselves Muslims and most sources consider Al-Qaeda to be a Muslim extremist group. That does not mean that all Muslims are like Al-Qaeda, and the article does not come close to suggesting that. We even have a section that states: "Top Muslim organizations in the United States were swift to condemn the attacks." "Also, the comments that I wrote in the discussion were vandalized to discredit me." - I don't recall anyone changing your comments - can you point to a situation where this occurred? Mr.Z-man 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of being "paid government agents" is completely unacceptable. You've been warned about this before, and if you persist I will block you for personal attacks. --Haemo 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anyone of anything that isn't warranted. It's been well publicized that the CIA and other government agencies are extensively editing Wikipedia as I gave many of sources previously. September 11, 2001 is a very sensitive topic to the national security of the United States, so to think that no government employees are being paid to control this page would be disastrously naive.
Within days of the collapse President Bush and others were already claiming that it was the Islamic/Muslim terrorists. This was then published by all the media that they were culprits of the disaster and then there was never an independent investigation. This then lead the United States to declare war on Afghanistan and later Iraq.
It is important that future generations understand the events and the difference between facts and widely held opinions. Wikipedia is founded on the concept of NPOV, so if there are clearly other points of view and no clear answer then they should be included.
JohnDavis2 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Heck, no. I'm telling you stop calling other editors government agents without rock-solid proof. I'm talking IPs editing from the Pentagon or Puzzle Palace. If you persist in accusing other editors of this, I will block you for personal attacks. --Haemo 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where Wikipedia requires independent investigations for an event to be declared as fact. The 9/11 attacks are likely among the most heavily-documented events in recent history, and the burden of evidence points to the conventional theory (19 hijackers affiliated with al-Qaida brought the towers down with airplanes). For those who disagree, there is a massive article on alternative theories. And while goverment employees may well edit Wikipedia, there is no rule that they can't so long as they abide by community guidelines. Speaking of which, accusing other editors of being government shills is bad form and unlikely to earn you any allies. Food for thought... Dchall1 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there John2Davis! I appreciate your honesty here. This article is clearly NOT NPOV. Since the Kennedy Assassinations started, people have increasingly been rejecting the cover-up stories. It took me years to reject them, since I was inhibited by the "conspiracy theorist" defamation put out by the conspirators, until very recently. Recently, in the JFK assassination, we've had at least four reliable witnesses come forward, finally, and acknowledge that LBJ was behind it, but the media seems to be ignoring that.
We have been mis-educated in school to GUESS if we're not sure about the answer. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. The irony of the situation is that it has been created by the secrecy of the Bush regime, and that if they are actually telling the truth, they cannot prove it. Does that mean they are lying? Not exactly. We know they're covering something up, but we cannot prove what it is right now. There IS enough physical evidence to warrant a new investigation, and that will be on the ballot in New York City shortly. There may be more people in New York City who believe that 9/11 was in inside job than in the rest of the country combined. Meanwhile, though, please don't guess, and please don't accuse other people unless you have evidence. That's evidence of a kind of paranoia. So is accusing others of paranoia. Name-calling doesn't resolve anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Another redundant section full of recycled arguments by people who can't accept that the majority of people don't agree with them. Add in the good old cabal argument, and you have the makings of a good ol' fashioned troll fest! I'm not going to argue this one anymore. A quick peek in the archives clearly points out the consensus, and since nothing new has been added here, I nominate this entire section to be deleted, as it is nothing more than trolling. If no one objects within... lets say 48 hours, then I will delete it. That fair? --Tarage 05:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the majority of people agree with? The majority of people voted for Richard Nixon AFTER the Watergate burglary was made public. Then we had to go through all those months of congressional hearings that went nowhere until Tricky Dick resigned. Religious cults FLOURISHED during that period. People couldn't STAND reality.
Wowest 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That last comment was clearly ridiculous. Yes, Tarage -- archive/delete this section ASAP. Timneu22 08:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the section could be archived without harm to the project. It contains too much WP:SOAP and not enough WP:TALK. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a load of soapboxing with no reliable sources in sight. Mr.Z-man 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that archiving WP:SOAP is pointless. We have plenty of that already, and dispite more WP:SOAP from Wowest, there has been no argument to keep this. I said 48 hours, so I'll wait a while longer. --Tarage 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we include videos in articles here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJJIYWMZlY Wowest 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, YouTube isn't the best source. I don't know specifics, though, about why YouTube links are discouraged. There's probably a policy page on it somewhere... --clpo13(talk) 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
We have the article. We have "editing talk." For something this controversial and emotional I would propose a third category -- for arguments about the topic. Even then, though, we're going to have .... content wars. Both sides of this argument are, apparently in good faith, convinced that the other side is being deceived. Wowest 18:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no place for us to argue about the subject because this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. We're not here to debate the subject but to document the debate by notable parties. The only thing we should be debating is how to handle the source material, in according with wikipedia's principles and guidelines, in order to create the best article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Go create your own 'wikipedia' if you want an arguments section. We don't have one, so we won't push such a section onto this talkpage. Please see WP:SOAP. --Tarage 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV as I originally stated. I'm surprised that Tarage would suggest removing this topic. NPOV is an important tenent of Wikipedia.

JohnDavis2 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions to improve it? If not, I'm archiving this section as totally off-topic. --Haemo 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
YOU think this article is NPOV. The vast majority of us do NOT. Why does your oppinion void out all of ours? Learn to troll better. The clock is still ticking... --Tarage 04:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarage, I think the article is NOT NPOV. Your comment shows that you don't understand what NPOV is. NPOV = Neutral Point of View. You should read up on what this is. The changes that need to be made would be an entire revision of the article to make it clear that the attacks on September 11th are a mystery to this day.
Here is a possible first paragraph, "The attacks on September 11th 2001 resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Americans and later were the rational behind the new "War on Terror" which resulted in the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq. Within days of the attack President Bush claimed that it was Muslim terrorists and the popular media has repeated those claims. However, there has never been an independent investigation and there are many other plausible theories."
JohnDavis2 14:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about the day of the attacks so it should probably include a little more in the first paragraph about the actual attacks. You might be more interested in the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks article. --PTR 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, JohnDavis2, you completly miss the point. YOU think this article is NPOV. YOU think September 11th is still a mystery to this day. YOU are trying to void all of our arguments because YOU think we are wrong/plants for the government. What I am trying to say is YOU are the minority, both here and in general. So please, one last time I will ask, why should YOUR oppinions void out all of ours?
Since this section has balooned dispite my best efforts to point out that this is nothing but trolling, I am no longer asking for deletion. However, the behavior of JohnDavis2 should not be rewarded. Therefor, unless anyone can come up with a valid reason why we should continue this, my 48hour deadline still stands. If nothing noteworthy happens by tonight, I'll simply ask this be archived and we move on. Is that okay with everyone? I have yet to hear an objection. --Tarage 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarage, instead of attacking me why don't you provide some constructive critism or a valid argument as to why the article is NPOV as it is now. By the way, you are still claiming that I think the article is NPOV, when in fact, I think it is not NPOV. Again, I suggest you read about NPOV to understand exactly what it is.
Where does this 48 hour deadline come from? I don't understand why you are saying a discussion of NPOV only deserves 48 hours? This is one of the most important tenents of Wikipedia.
Of course there aren't any other editors that are on my side, because you have silenced them, deleted their quotes, and threatened them. When they change the article they are considered "vandals".
Please stop being so aggressive and actually listen to what I have to say and make valid arguements to back up your claims.
JohnDavis2 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that is my mistake. When I said NPOV, I meant not NPOV. I was, for some reason, thinking that the N meant not... but I digress.
The 48 hour deadline was created by myself because you have said nothing new. Every single point you have made, or tried to make, has already been argued to death in the archives. Consensus was reached, so unless you have a new argument with new sources, you are simply rehashing the same tired argument over and over again, and none of us want to hear it. Again, just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean you should be allowed to continue to bring up the same defeated argument whenever you feel like it.
No one has silenced anyone. If you believe deleting/archiving a redundant argument that has already been defeated is 'silencing' and 'threatening', then you really don't understand anything about those words. If you want us to give you valid arguments to back up our claims, you first need to bring new/different arguments to back up yours. If you cannot do this, and continue to insinuate that somehow editors like me are trying to supress the truth, or are government plants, you will be blocked from editing. I think everyone here can understand that malicious namecalling is not to be accepted.
To summarize, come up with an argument that has not been argued to death in the archives, or your argument will be ignored as redundant. Is that clear enough? --Tarage 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Suggestions for improving the article

We just had an edit -- Arthur Rubin (→Conspiracy theories - "many" is particularly ambiguous because of the negative phrasing, removing. An alternate phrasing might be "These theories are considered incredible by many...."

It was awkward, and it's still awkward. It's too much of a passive sentence. I'm not going to touch it right now, but I'll suggest "Most mainstream ... explicitly reject or simply ignore such theories." Wowest 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were opposed to "most" without a reference to that effect, which I can understand. But now you're suggesting it.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the context. I am not trying to create a situation in which nobody can say anything about any topic. Most Americans in any category are unaware of this issue. They saw people jumping out of windows on television. They got emotional and some of them went speeding up and down the boulevard until they felt better. Most experts haven't thought about CTs, or were too patriotic to even look at the evidence. They "simply ignore" such theories. A few explicitly reject them. The less honest they are, the more angrily they reject them.
Most American school children start out as unquestioning patriots.
To even consider alternative theories on 9/11, you have to give up unquestioning belief in governmental statements and/or media opinions. That can be pretty scary. You have to trust someone or something to function in this world. Both sides of this issue think the other side is misguided. Both sides find the position of the other side threatening and inexplicable. I think the most important thing is to accept that other people have contrary opinions and accept them rather than insulting them -- to have some compassion for differences and assume good faith. Also, please see Pseudoskepticism.Wowest 00:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were objecting to the term "most" (of an indeterminable number) without a reference to a WP:RS. Again, that makes sense, and I could see editors, regardless of their belief as to what actually happened, agreeing on that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I object to "most" in some situations. "that" is vague. I'm assuming it's a compliment Wowest 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Many people have "considered" a variety of "alternative theories", and then rejected them for legitimate reasons. Some "theories" are simply wrong, and demonstrably so. Some are possible but extraordinary, and are lacking in evidence. To reconsider an "alternative theory", it's not unreasonable to demand new evidence. Peter Grey 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I find this discussion and even the remark about the word "many" pointless given the fact that we are accepting to say something like "These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders" without any reference to support the claim. The entire phrase should be removed as long as nobody il able to provide a reference.--Pokipsy76 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I realise I may have said this before, but: the conspiracy theories section is, per WP:SUMMARY, a summary of another article. If you have a criticism of that article - regarding sourcing, its lead paragraph, etc. - then make it on that article's Talk page. The only changes that should be made to this section are those necessary to ensure it remains a concise, accurate, neutral summary. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Also in the conspiracy theories section is the "Opinion polls" sentence. While this too is a summary of 9/11 opinion polls, it is far too weaselly worded.
Some 9/11 opinion polls have shown that a number of people question the mainstream account and believe there has been some kind of cover-up.
"Some," "a number," and "some kind of" should be replaced with slightly more concrete terms. "Question ... and believe" also may not be NPOV - did all of the polls indicate that a significant number of people don't believe the official story and believe there was some cover-up? The way it is worded suggest that all of the people who believe there was a cover up also question the mainstream account. I'm not sure if that is the case, especially since most of the polls in the other article don't mention "questioning the official account" only cover ups and investigation. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded it to avoid weasel words; it nows says "A number of 9/11 opinion polls have established that there is disagreement in the general population as to the veracity of the mainstream account." I think this is sufficiently nebulous and neutral as to accurately and neutrally explain what they demonstrate. --Haemo 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Much better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption of the picture in the infobox is mistaken...

It says: "The towers of the World Trade Center burn shortly after United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower on the right."

The crash into the South Tower was much closer to the middle of the tower and there is no indication of any smoke coming from that midsection area which happened immediately after the crash and continued until the building collapse. The first crash into the North Tower hit quite close to the top and the smoke came from quite close to the top.

This pict must have been taken after the first crash but before the second crash (about a 12 minute period). I looked into the history of the graphic and no where does it say it was taken shortly after the second crash. Did the person originally writing the caption really know the factuality of what they typed? 207.190.198.130 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Quickfail

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on October 16, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars or is the subject of a future event

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. Obviously, per both the edit history and the talk page, this article is not very stable at the moment. Also, NPOV issues have been raised on the talk page as well, another quick fail criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there will always be someone raising an NPOV issue, even if one does not exist. The article is quite stable, dispite attempts to compromise it. The only ones who seem to be fighting are the ones who don't understand the consensus that was reached. While I understand you only gave this a quick review, it might be worth looking into who is actually raising the NPOV issues, rather than solely their existance. --Tarage 02:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I was surprised at how well the article was done, given the subject. Stability, sadly, seems to be a problem whether or not the concerns are legitimate. If stability can be demonstrated over the period of one week, I suggest that this article be renominated. Cheers, CP 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we have two different definitions for stability. In my mind, we have stability, but I do see where random people editing in a way that doesn't fit consensus could be concidered as unstable. Unfortionatly, with an article on such a hot issue with many people, there are bound to be those who will continue to edit war even if it means pushing their own POV reguardless of the consensus. This may not allow us to have a 'good article', but I appreciate that you think we are doing a good job at maintaining it. --Tarage 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a link to add

Why not add this link? It is a Houston Press article about 9/11: http://www.houstonpress.com/2001-09-13/news/no-safe-place/ ? WhisperToMe 05:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your wishing to add to this article, and your asking here rather than simply editing it in, I don't see how that article would add anything. Don't get me wrong, it was a great read, but it doesn't add anything that hasn't been already said, nor is it needed as a cite for anything we've said. And because it is so localized, it wouldn't cover the broader range that this article probably needs. Sorry. --Tarage 07:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Facts & NPOV

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the interest of keeping politics out of Wikipedia whenever possible, why not stick to the simple facts in the opening sentence of this article. The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda. For those unfamiliar with al-Qaeda, there is plenty of discussion of their motives and world view both in this article and in the linked article. It's best to keep it simple and factual. Far from being NPOV, "Islamo-facist" is just as contentious as calling them "freedom fighters" or "martyrs." Nor is it mainstream or the prevailing description of the organization.Menaus 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the opening sentence is both too complicated and inaccurate. We know that terrorist events took place at three buildings in Sept. 11: WTC-1, WTC-2 and the Pentagon. Everything beyond that is a conspiracy theory. The official one says Osama bin Laden did it, and the FBI says there is no hard evidence linking him to the events. Saying that it was Osama bin Laden is pure politics. Wowest 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the first comment: "Islamo-facist" is POV - that's why the article does not use that term, nor does it use the term facist. As far as I can tell, Al-Qaeda does not either. I haven't a clue where you got that from. In response to the second comment: This article is about the official (and widely accepted) theory. You want 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mr.Z-man 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Islamo-fascist? George W. Bush uses that term. It's part of the OCT.
To be fair to high school students writing papers, then, this article should begin with the explanation: "This article contains only official propaganda from the Bush regime, as reported, unquestioningly, by mainstream corporate media. If you are concerned about conspiracy theories about 9/11, see "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." If you are concerned about the truth about what happened on 9/11 see "9/11 Truth Movement." Would that satisfy you? Wowest 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Your POV has a section for conspiricy theories already. The official report is not a 'conspiricy theory'. That would make every event in history an 'official conspiricy theory'. If you want keep soapboxing, do it somewhere else. None of your arguments are new, all of your arguments have been discussed to death in the talk pages, therefor you need to come up with something new, or leave. Plain and simple. --Tarage 16:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Not only is this an inappropriate use of an article talk page but this has been discussed to death. I'm archiving this section so we can stop wasting time (though I have a feeling it won't help...). Mr.Z-man 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ARCHIVE NUMERO 35

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Source

In the lead, the source for the act been done by "Islamic terrorists" is: Security Council Condemns, 'In Strongest Terms' Terrorist Attacks on the United States. United Nations (September 12, 2001). Retrieved on 2006-09-11.. Can someone provide a quote of where exactly the terrorists are descried as "Islamic". Thanks.Bless sins 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This source by the CBC, about bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks calls al-Qaeda a "militant Islamic group." This source is used about midway through the second sentence of the article. There are probably many more sources in the article that describe the perpetrators as such. Mr.Z-man 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
An asside... isn't it funny how when something like this happens, the group most closely linked to the people involved continue to question over and over again who actually caused the event? Example, Germany/Nazis and the Holocaust. So much "Are you sure we did it? I don't remember it... perhaps you could provide more evidence..." Anyway, sorry, just going off on a tangent there. --Tarage 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Funny? Hardly. It is essential that "the group most closely linked to the people involved" in the attrocities of 9/11 continue to blame the nineteen alleged hijackers and Muslims in general. They promised war in Afghanistan two months before 9/11. They had their troops positioned. All they needed was the pretext to avoid having it called a "war of aggression." Yes. You are right. There is a parallel with Nazi Germany. Hitler made a deal with Stalin to partition Poland. He needed a pretext for war. The SS, under a program called "Operation Himmler" staged two dozen raids on Germany, pretending they came from Poland. For the final event, the Gleiwitz incident, the SS dressed a prisoner named Honiok in a Polish uniform, shot him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz after they seized the station, broadcast in Polish for fifteen minutes, urging citizens of Upper Silesia to revolt against the Nazis, and then "took the station back." Honiok's body was PROOF that Germany needed to protect itself from state sponsored terrorism, and the next morning, three thousand German tanks, which were coincidentally, positioned on the Polish border, rolled into Poland, starting WWII. You can look that up on Wikipedia. Upper Silesia? That's where Prescott Bush, "Hitler's American Banker," set up factories, with slave labor from the concentration camps, to manufacture war materiel for the Reich. That's how the Bush family fortune was made. Funny? Hardly. We could improve the article by listing the Bush family's intimate connections to Hitler's rise to power. Source? http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
Wowest 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh stop it. This is not the place to discuss politics or to promote your ideas - get a blog. Does the article blame Muslims in general? No. Mr.Z-man 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? I didn't bring up any "politics." Just documented, historical facts, nor did I being up any of my own ideas, except to suggest improving the article by pointing out the Bush family's connection to the financing of the Third Reich. If our readers have access to all the facts, they can draw their own conclusions, don't you think? Wowest 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You and the rest of us have a vasly different idea of what 'historical facts' are. You are spouting conspiricy theories trying to link the Bush family to Hitler, as if there is any corilation at all. Again, if you wish to soapbox, take it elsewhere. We're sick of it. --Tarage 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the book -- "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography." There is no "conspiracy theory" involved in pointing out Prescott Bush's Nazi affiliation, but he wasn't unique. A bunch of American companies including ALCOA, Ford, DuPont and GM sold weapons and war materiel to both sides of the conflict. The book is online. If you can't be bothered to read it, what are we to make of your opinions? Wowest 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we now took one source as the official 100% truth. Why... if I wasn't mistaken, we could also say the same thing about the 9/11 comission report! You can't have it both ways, my friend. The VAST majority of sources do not back up that 'Bush is a Nazi'. You seem to play free and loose with the lable 'conspiricy theory', throwing it onto anything you don't agree with, yet arguing with it when someone uses it on something you believe. I think, once again, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not your soapbox, you need multiple sources before barging in here with outrageous claims, and before you bring up something you feel is 'new', you need to check the archives. Nothing you have said is new, well sourced, or anything BUT soapboxing. Please cease this disruptive behavior. --Tarage 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not discussing politics? From the bottom section: "Islamo-fascist? George W. Bush uses that term. It's part of the OCT. To be fair to high school students writing papers, then, this article should begin with the explanation: "This article contains only official propaganda from the Bush regime" Mr.Z-man 04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to quote me out of context, there is nothing else for me to say, is there? "haha" you say? Interesting. The paragraph I was saying contained no political statements contained no political statements. Wowest 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Calling this article 'official propaganda from the Bush regime' implies that we editors who support the current form are somehow connected to the Bush regime. Can you say Cabal? Again, stop the soapboxing, stop the poorly sourced arguments, and stop the redundancy. We aren't asking much for you to atleast attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines... --Tarage 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am really annoyed by the fact that supporters of the official story quickly labels anyone who questions or doubts or realizes the vast amounts of anomalies, inconsistencies, coincidences (in fact too many coincidences.. if anything it is NOT a coincidence that there are too many coincidences) and improbabilites in the official account, as "conspiracy theorists". Do bare in mind the official account is ALSO a conspiracy theory - the official conspiracy theory. The word 'official' makes it sound sane and reasonable and logical because the word 'conspiracy' sounds crazy and something bordering on lunacy. Keep this in mind: There is a difference between someone who is doubting the official story AND someone who is advocating an actual ALTERNATIVE (as opposed to the official CT) conspiracy theory. In fact, alternate CTs are just simply labelled as Conspiracy Theories - further making the associations to alternate theories as very negative and something idiotic, while the official theory gets the label 'Official Story' and staying away from that dirty word 'Conspiracy'. If one were to doubt the official government theory of the aluminium nose of Flight 77 ripping through the steel-reinforced concrete of three rings of the Pentagon, then that is a justified stance. However, if one were to answer to someone who, upon hearing one's doubts regarding the plane's nose ripping through 3 rings of the Pentagon, then asks the doubter as to what hit the Pentagon then if it was not a plane that caused it, the answer to that question would be a conspiracy theory. I hope this stops people going around labelling anyone who has something to say that is contrary to the official story (having full of gaping holes) as 'conspiracy theorists'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful source, report on fox news about israelian intelligent agency and their knowledge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo --Englishazadipedia 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To repeat what Tarage said before his edit was reverted, YouTube is not a citeable source. I won't go so far as to remove the link, but it should be known that this shouldn't be used a source based on current Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --clpo13(talk) 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

References change

There are currently 181 cited sources on this page. This takes up lots of space, so I think that we should change the references section to a scrollable divider, an example is on the Michael Jackson article. All you do is add the following text.

<div class="reflist4" style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px" > {{reflist|3}} </div>


What do you think? Noahcs 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that repeatedly undone because the scrollbar doesn't work universally, I think. --Golbez 03:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Hijackers

It says nothing in the article about the hijackers being muslim. I think that this is an important fact that should be include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.161.6 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point this seems would like such an important and obvious element of the events, but the means of exactly how hijackers over took the planes seems to be highly overlooked, in this article and the sub-sections.How exactly did they take control the planes?, simple brutality seems highly unlikely.They must have had something with them that they used to intimidate or threaten the passengrs and crew, but what could they have had that couldn't be stopped by security?.Did they manage to sneak some type of weapons or devices past the checkpoints?, they were already under closer watch at that point. Rodrigue 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The official story is that they used box cutters. This should be in the article or a related article somewhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
   And they brought fake bombs to scare the people on the planeJuanfranciscoh 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who coined the term 9/11?

I am sure the term wasn't espontaneously used by everyone all of a sudden. So, who coined the term? Shouldn't that be add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.243.77 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm... not sure how important 'who coined the term' would be. If anything, it would go in a trivia section, and Wikipedia has been frowning upon such sections lately. --Tarage 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Since 9/11 is just the date it happened on, and not a totally new word, it would probably be next to impossible to determine who first used it to describe the attacks. If I had to guess, I'd say it evolved as shorthand from the phrases "the attacks on 9/11" and "the 9/11 attacks." But that's just my speculation, I doubt there is a reliable source for that. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It was probably a news station that first used it to refer to the attacks during the period when these were the only things on the news. It was probably used intentionally as a meme. --Xer0 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article not open to all to edit?

Why am I unable to edit this article? And why are so many facts overlooked? Sfkismet 08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What facts are those?--MONGO 08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many facts, and other statements of varying degrees of reliability, considered in the talk page archives. If something has actually been overlooked, please identify it. Peter Grey 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editing has lead to vandalism. If you wish your edits to be seen, simply talk about them here(which is what you should ALWAYS do before editing such a high priority article), or register an account(Which isn't a lot to ask). --Tarage 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I find the decision to not allow to edit this very biased article preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add (in the section about wiretapping): The declassified "Transition 2001" report by the NSA reveals vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups. The report says that the "Director of the National Security Agency is obligated by law to keep Congress fully and currently formed of intelligence activities." But that didn't happen. News of the NSA's clandestine domestic spying operation, which President Bush said he had authorized in 2002, was uncovered in December of 2005 by the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.209.70 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to "Kamikaze" article removed

What occured on 9/11 had nothing to do with the suicide attack tactics of the Japanese kamikaze pilots in the Pacific Theatre of World War II. The kamikaze were uniformed members of the Japanese military. The kamikaze attacks rarely (if ever) targetted civilians delibrately. Despite their politics and choice of alligiences, they should not be put in the same category as the perpatrators of 9/11.

For the record, I am not Japanese.

Roswell Crash Survivor 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no link to Siege of Vienna?

The battle of Vienna on Sept. 12, 1683 was the key battle that ended 1000 years of Islamic armies trying to take over Europe. Osama Bin Laden picked Sept. 11 because he wanted to continue a holy war that has been going on for a long time. The date Sept. 11 was not an accident. Shouldn't it be mentioned? Glenn, Texas, Nov. '07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.81.252 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can find a WP:RS to the effect that bin Laden picked the date for that reason, list it here, and we'll certainly consider the information. However, with so many dates in Islamic history to choose from, we'd be sure that the whatever date chosen would be near (note, it's the day before — the same day or the day after would be more appropriate for a continuation) some significant date. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
For those who want a shortcut, the relevent article is Battle of Vienna. — Arthur Rubin |


Bin Laden "admitted" involvement?

I'm sorry,but I just do not see that in the sources' transcripts. It seems some summaries are saying that but the actual transcripts do not. Mr.grantevans2 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What the sources' transcripts show is his admiration,praise and maybe even foreknowledge but they do not include an admission of responsibility by bin Laden. Mr.grantevans2 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He admitted involvement multiple times:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken...I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind...So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs.

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

[106]

--Aude (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden admitted involvement, but he has also been evasive as to the extent of his involvement. Lots of people seem to read a little too much into his statements. Peter Grey 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Those translations have been disputed by independent translators. They claim those parts are inaudible in the tapes and according to them "wishful thinking" on the part of the original translators. There is no authenticated statement by bin laden that indicates foreknowledge. Wayne 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yet somehow I suspect that if someone ever translated a video of his to say "I had no involvement," you wouldn't hold the same doubt. --Golbez 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
From the comments above, and assuming the original translations are the best source(which I have no opinion about), I'd suggest the word "claim" rather than "admit". Since Bin Laden has been self-contradictory as to his responsibility, I see no reason to assert that his claims of responsibility are truer than his denials, which is what,I think, the word "admit" confers. Also, "claim" is the better opposite to "deny", I believe. I will try the "claim" word and see how it reads. Mr.grantevans2 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, let's be real, here. Osama bin laden's obituary appeared in various Afghan and Egyptian newspapers, according to Fox News and the BBC, indicating that he died from a lung infection on the way out of Tora Bora in 2001, and was buried in Afghanistan in an area which was subsequently bombed. Various foreign officials stated that this was probably true, because he was on kidney dialysis in conditions in which he couldn't obtain sterile water easily. Several translators have indicated that the U.S. Government took inappropriate liberties with the translation of the "Osama" "confession" video. Nothing in the original Arabic on the tape even indicates foreknowledge of the events. Additionally, apart from the hat and SOME of the features of the beard, the guy in that video doesn't really look like Osama. Thirdly, Kevin Barrett PhD, who has transcribed earlier tapes of bin Laden indicates that the voice on this tape and subsequent audio/video tapes "of bin Laden" are not bin Laden. This does not prove who made them. The last word from bin Laden was around October, 2001, when he criticized the attacks and said he had nothing to do with them. The U.S. government prevented that tape from being played in the U.S. claiming it might contain codewords to tell sleeper cells to launch additional attacks. The last video -- the guy with the black beard looked a lot more like Osama than the first impersonator, and nobody would have noticed if there hadn't been the earlier fraud, but his nose is noticeably wider at the nostrils than Osama's. Also, people who speak Arabic indicate that besides not sounding like bin Laden, the speaker on the tape doesn't use Osama's "flowery rhetoric" and doesn't talk about any issues that concerned bin Laden. Instead, he goes out of his way to sound like a liberal Democrat. You tell me why radical Islamists would create a fake tape like that. IMHO Osama is Big Brother Bush's Emmanuel Goldstein. If necessary, we'll be looking at new "bin Laden" out video tapes (or whatever technology comes next) for the next 200 years. Wowest 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see reliable sources for one side of this discussion — and a lot of them — but not the other. --Haemo 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of sources, I noticed there is nothing in the article about how the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence financed and supplied the islamic extremists (including bin Laden) in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This 1999 article is a particularly good source for that. Mr.grantevans2 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fox News and the BBC aren't good enough for you, Haemo? Wowest 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Linky linky? Fox News and the BBC reporting that a bunch of local paper ran obits for Osama Bin Laden does not support the contention that he's actually dead, and it's been a big US government snow-job in the meantime. In fact, they don't even support the contention that he's dead. --Haemo 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you some linky-linky shortly. Meanwhile, you're saying that there is no such thing as "evidence?" People have been executed for murder in this country on a lot less evidence than the available evidence that Osama is dead.
I'll bet that you believe that whatever you believe is true, because if it weren't true, you wouldn't believe it. Right? Wowest 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you could possibly construe what I said to mean "there is no such thing as evidence", but feel free to tell me more about what I believe; it's definitely a profitable way forward. --Haemo 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be best to simply stick to the actual event that took place on 9/11 for this article, and argue about who did what or who supported who before and after in other articles, such as in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article?--MONGO 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. But what do we know? Four aircraft were reportedly hijacked. Two aircraft, of an unknown type, subsequently hit the WTC. Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon. It was reported that a passenger airplane had been vaporized there -- except for American DNA, of course. Most the aluminum and all of the steel and titanium in the engines was reported vaporized. Somewhere in Pennsylvania, something caused a hole in the ground. Apparently, most of it was vaporized too. Except for the American DNA, of course. Arab DNA is clearly inferior. Their passports are fire-proof, however. None of the black boxes was recovered. A few years later, it was revealed that a cockpit voice recorder from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had been recovered. Instead of recording the conversation in the cockpit, however, it recorded voices in the back of the passenger cabin, and the last five minutes was missing. Did I miss anything here? Wowest 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"Two aircraft of an unknown type"???? "Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon"????? Look, if you don't want to contribute to the article and use facts to back up your contributions, then maybe you're on the wrong website. Seems you have missed about every fact we know, and replaced it instead with ridiculous conspiracy theory notions...at least based on your comments you just posted.--MONGO 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that Wowest is not so alone in his skepticism and I don't think it's constructive for the "conspiracy theory" characterization to be thrown out as often as it is as a strawman. I don't see where Wowest is putting forth any theory at all; he seems to me to simply be challenging some of the ingredients of the conventional theory. His point about the miraculously surviving hijacker passport is thought provoking enough in itself to raise eyebrows about some of the ingredients of the conventional theory, so lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to his comments. Having said that, there is the reliable sources issue which,I think, should be the driving force in terms of article content. Mr.grantevans2 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I heard that a tornado once blew a Rooster into a jug, and another blew a cow 2 miles and set it down without a scratch! That raised my eyebrows! But does it mean we should be looking for other explanations about tornados? RxS 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, "I once heard that" is not equatable with the passport ingredient which has reliable sourcing. Secondly, it's not our function to be looking for any explanations about anything, that would be OR. Thirdly, I think it is our job to construct articles with reliable sources which theorize as little as possible, even if it's a conventional theory and the theorizing is coming from reliable sources (like Colin Powell sitting in the UN presenting "irrefutable proof" of Saddam's WMD's)Mr.grantevans2 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and this line of inquiry is not getting us anywhere even close to reliable sources or any concrete changes to the article, so I think we should probably let it be. --Haemo 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
They haven't produced a single reliable source yet.--MONGO 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
MONGO,I resent being conflated into a "they". I think we are all working together here. Also, I kind of agree with Haemo on this matter; It's really like pissing in the wind to try to discuss this issue outside the box. Most everybody has already got their opinions and supporting sources lined up like snowballs. Mr.grantevans2 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, I do think there should be a lot more attention in the article to the creation and financing of the 9/11 attackers (assuming it was bin Laden's crowd) and there are reliable sources [107] that we could use in that effort. Mr.grantevans2 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I think we've (you, specifically) just added about all that can be said without straying into undue weight or summary style issues. It's sort-of-related to the attacks, as events, but much more critically related to the motivation and responsibility for those events and just be covered on the subpage in more depth. --Haemo 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely...a lot of this argument has little to do with what happened on 9/11...the day of the attacks. Other deatils are mentioned, perhaps in too much detail, as a lot of that should be summarized and redirected to other articles that already exist that discuss peripheral issues, such as the involvement of bin laden, etc. in greater detail.--MONGO 06:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
While the particular roles of bin Laden and the various other perpetrators are certainly worthy subjects, there seems to be very little verifiable information. Peter Grey 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have come to agree with all 3 comments directly above and with the current content of the article. Mr.grantevans2 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 36

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Bin Laden probably didn't admit involvement

Bin laden has yet to confirm his involvement. He praised the attacks. and those who understood what he was saying on that tape after 911 knew that he was not claiming any involvement but did say america had it coming. yet put this point aside, sadam condemned the attacks with immediate reponce and offered a helping hand in catching the culprits so why was he attacked in return for this. I still remember till this day when he said this on live t.v. 1 trillion dollar air military system failed in 9/11/01 to make things easy for terrorists. its like leaving cheese on a mouse trap without setting the trap. building 7 collapses out of sympathy, all buildings fall vertically in a demolitioned manner and yet to this day not a single person in the building demolition business has disputed that it wasn't demolitioned, out of the many hundred cctv footages only one shown for the pentagon attack and later another one which is even poorer quality wise. all survivors heard explotions yet the commission report failed to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.171.173 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/many_faces_of_osama_bin_laden.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary answer: check the pictures on this website. I don't recommend checking anything else on this website, as it seems somewhat insane, overall, but I'm prejudiced. I'll be back later. Wowest

You haven't linked a website — and I'm not sure how we can incorporate a "somewhat insane" website into article, but I'll with-hold judgment until I can actually see it. --Haemo 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes -- I forgot the link at first. Now it's there. I'm not saying that we should incorporate much (or anything) in the actual article, but we seem to have two firmly-held, disparate opinions going on in here about what really happened. We need some kind of compromise or, at least, recognition of what the differences in opinion are. Wowest 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why we require reliable sources. The firmness of a belief is not an indicator of tis truth or correctness. This talk page focuses on the article, and thus must conform to our guidelines for sourcing. --Haemo 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Agree? Wowest 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And when a source can be classified as "somewhat insane" and contains pictures like this on the page suggested to be used as a source ]we don't use it at all. Mr.Z-man 05:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Looking at that link I think it's pretty clear that it's neither trustworthy or authoritative. So since you admit that it doesn't belong here there's not much to discuss. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean they get a mention here. RxS 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly; the sentence you quote is in reference to reliable sources — something this is clearly not. --Haemo 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Beauty(and "trustworthy") is in the eye of the beholder. How many people today believe that the White House with its "Saddam has WMDs and is seeking uranium in Niger" type "intelligence" is a "trustworthy" source? I'm obviously not endorsing Wowest's source, but it's absurd,in my view, to continue with the charade of pretending that information coming from government sources(whether they be Iran,USA or the UK,Russia) which is then parroted by global media networks too lazy to do their own reporting, are any more "trustworthy". All I'm trying to say is, let's look at the log in our own eyes before we start throwing stones. Mr.grantevans2 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's why we have a reliable sources noticeboard so the community can decide these kinds of things if there's contention. However, since nobody seems to think this is even remotely reliable, I don't really know why we're still discussing it. --Haemo 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Another attempt by Wowest to slowly pick appart this article till it matches his beliefs. Can we archive this yet? We're saying the same things over and over again... --Tarage 08:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I wouldn't object to archiving now. Mr.grantevans2 11:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Mr. Tarage, you don't have a clue as to either what I'm "attempt[ing]" or what I believe, do you? Wowest 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sure it is a waste of our time, thats for sure... Repeated arguments are never useful. --Tarage 08:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
osama actually denied involvement. that is good enough for me, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm and http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ and it makes sense, since he had absolutely nothing to gain from the attacks. giving the us the perfect excuse to place more troops in the middle east is not a big win for him.
Bin Laden initially denied his involvement, while still praising them. He later admitted the role his organization played in them — and US troops in the region is a huge win for him. Bin Laden's chief goals are political; he wants to see a popular Muslim revolution in the region, throwing off secularist governments and their US/Imperialist support. However, without a popular revolution, he can't achieve this — thus, he needs them to "react" against the "evils" of these governments and forces. By attacking the United States, he not only damages them directly, but hopes to provoke them into a struggle by which his political ends can be achieved — something the Iraq War arguably fits quite nicely. This is all summarized in Peter Bergen's book on the subject. I think we quote it in the article somewhere. --Haemo (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter Bergen?? Now that's a flakey and unreliable source if ever there was one; with the intentionally unkept hair to give the air of urgency, glasses hung low on the nose in psuedo-scientific mode, and void of any non-speculative content whatsoever; give me a break. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like Bergen, you can quote any of the innumerable articles on the subject; bibliographies are a wonderful thing. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It just occurred to me,in re-reading Haemo's analysis above(supported by Peter Bergen's book), that if the adversaries are reversed, then that anaysis sounds strikingly similar to what others in this discussion are referring to as conspiracy theory (I hope Haemo won't mind my using his anaysis for this purpose, I only mean it as a way to perhaps add some context for the minority view in this discussion);
  • Here goes: "and al Queda's attack on 9/11 was a huge win for the Bush admin.'s foreign policy goals. The Neocons' chief goals are geopolitical; they wanted to see a US led invasion of the region, throwing off Sadam as well as muslim governments and their Islamic fundamentalist support. However, without a major attack on the USA, they couldn't achieve this(US led invasion) — thus, they needed 9/11 to "react" against the "evils" of these Islamic fanatics and their forces. By facilitating/allowing the 9/11 attacks, the Neocons not only justified engaging the "terrorists" more aggressively, but hoped to provoke them into an expanding struggle by which Neocon expansionist political ends can be achieved — something the Iraq War arguably fits quite nicely."
What I just wrote could well be termed a "conspiracy theory" by many who use that strawman label; yet when the adversaries are reversed, most of us seem to be willing to accept equally imagined scenarios as reasonable and plausible. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that you're not "reversing the tables" in all respects — the analysis presented above is just a re-arrangement of my words. My explanation never implied that Al Qaeda assisted the United States directly in the Iraq War — at most, they hoped to provoke a reaction. Al Qaeda was not seeking the Iraq War, persay — what they were looking for was a demonstration of what they believe to be the United State's "true character"; that of an imperialist aggressor. By attacking the United States, they sought to try and threaten US power, and thereby expose their imperialism to the Muslim world. The subsequent invasions did that — however, the underlying goal was never to get them to invade, nor did they "facilitate" the invasion in any direct way. The symmetrical re-arrangement would be to have the United States intervene in Iraq to try and provoke a reaction from Al Qaeda, not directly assist them in a terrorist attack. I don't think anyone would disagree that some neocons feel that 9/11 was a vindication of their worldview, and presents an assertive pillar of their foreign policy — that's why conspiracy theories have some plausibility to them. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has been extremely open about their goals, and objectives — that's partially why it's not much of a "conspiracy". They know what they want, and have used the media quite effectively to explain it to the Arab-speaking world — which by and large agrees with them. Anyways, this has nothing to do with the article, so I think we should not discuss it here. I just felt you deserved a reply. --Haemo (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In a videotape released just on on November 29th believed to be from Bin Laden he claimed sole responsibility for the attacks and denied the Taliban and the Afghan government or people had any prior knowledge of the attacks [108] Edkollin (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence isn't proof

Mr.grantevans2 seems to be the only editor here capable of recognizing what I did or did not say. Wowest 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the above remark was an acknowledgement of the difficulty you're experiencing in communicating clearly on this talk page? I presume that it was not your intent to insult the majority of editors here. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We have several distinct categories of phenomena here. One is what we all know because we saw it happen on television. A second category is what most of us initially believed because the words came along with the shocking images we saw on television. This is one of the issues in which local television station footage is more reliable than anything on any network. I can't find an accurate Fritz Perls quote on the internet, but he defined "bullshit" as "anything that comes after the word 'because'." Wowest 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add here that might be helpful to making this article better? This isn't a blog.--MONGO 04:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Political statements which are not agreed up by all should be sourced rather than declared as facts without sources. Wowest 04:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically? This is an exceedingly general statement that offers no way of moving forward with any concrete changes. --Haemo 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have good sources, please, by all means, provide them. We have been asking for reliable sources for quite a while now. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't. He just has youtube conspiricy theories and self research. --Tarage 08:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, anything like
"a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda"
..."upon the United States of America."
..."hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners"
..."resulting in the collapse"
..."hijackers crashed a third airliner...into the Pentagon "
..."Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane"
..."that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville"
is speculation based on too little evidence. Some of it verges on libel. None of the 'facts' listed above, with which we open the article, are reliably referenceable. Yes some person or persons unknown diverted at least 4 aircraft, yes aircraft crashed into buildings and yes buildings were damaged-or-destroyed subsequent to the crashes, but no, al-Qaeda isn't a group that calls itself al-Qaeda, isn't a specific group of people; no we have no reasonable evidence that the aircraft impacts were the same ('hijacked') aircraft, or that the impacts caused the damage (see Post hoc ergo propter hoc), or that even if the planes had been hijacked by 'entity x' that 'x' was in control of the aircraft... wide public acceptance of a story doesn't make it true and is not in line with WP:RS. The public still widely believes that there was only one bullet shot by one assassin at Dealey Plaza in 63, even though it's been thoroughly proven that that is not a remote possibility. User:Pedant (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag to be added to this article

Since I can't edit this article I can only politely request to add the NPOV tag to this article.

This article start by saying:

On that morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda ...

Which references to an article claiming Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda based on the infamous video translation. According to WP:V any statement that doesn't have reliable, verifiable sources is open for removal. In this case we're talking about verifiability of the translation of the video.

WP:V also says:

exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

In this case there appears to be only one translation of the video. To verify the source the video should be translated by multiple sources, not just one. Since this source is thus not verifiable at this point the claim that Al Qaeda is responsible for the attacks is unsourced, thus, non-NPOV, thus open for removal.

Please let's apply WP's rules. If anyone can make this source verifiable please do so. Otherwise, if WP rules cannot be applied to such an important article then there is no point in continuing WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2007

By invoking "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", I assume you think that this is an exceptional claim. I think it would be helpful if you would elaborate on that a little further, because this is not an exceptional claim on its face. Natalie 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How is this source not verifiable? It specifically states that the attacks on September 11th were committed by Al-Qaeda; the "extraordinary claim" being made here is not the fact reported by the CBC, but that they and myriad other media sources, government and academic sources translated the tape incorrectly. --Haemo 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well that none of the media sources did their own translations of the original tape. They all just read or broadcast the press releases from the Bush regime, or reprinted the wire service stories coming from the same source. When people who actually speak both English and Arabic state that the text was mistranslated, they get labeled "conspiracy theorists," and the truth is ignored. Wowest (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not relevant to the verifiability of the source. Reliable sources, which the CBC is, have a reputation for fact checking — and that includes checking that the translations they use, regardless of their source, are accurate. If you disagree with their reporting, that's not an issue for Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be verifiable if the claim would be supported by references. So the issue here is not whether the claim is true or not. If so many sources have translated this tape then adding those references shouldn't be too hard. No references or not verifiable through references => up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple translations of the video, including one by Al Jazeera which originally broadcast the video. (see above quotes) This is already cited in the article. Furthermore, the video is available online for anyone to watch. I'm able to understand what Osama says without the translation, and find the Al Jazeera translation accurate and the CBC article also accurate. CBC also meets Wikipedia's reliable source guideline. --Aude (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The source also specifically states that the attacks were committed by Al-Qaeda; the CBC is a reliable source and so the fact in question meets verifiability standards. --Haemo 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, {{POV}} really isn't the best tag to indicate a problem with sources. Other templates can be found at WP:TM. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And just because that is the closest citation does not mean it is the only one. There are dozens of other sources used in the article that support that statement as well. Mr.Z-man 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I could add a NPOV tag but I don't as it would be reverted immediately. 62.102.20.10 is right: There are only 9/11 conspiracy theories for what happened. The official theory is by definition a conspiracy theory, too. This understanding should be included in all 9/11 articles. --mms (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"9/11" vs "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks"

I have seen various articles refer to the terrorist attacks as "9/11". I think this doesn't sound very encyclopedic and we should change any article that refers to the attacks as "9/11" to "September 11, 2001 attacks" or something along those lines. What do you guys think? --Xer0 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably a good idea. 9/11 is just a date, and only in American parlance is it synonymous with the attacks. --Haemo 06:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to do that. "9/11" is already synonymous with "terror" around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the attacks as 9/11 is like referring to the President of the US as "Bush". In most contexts, the reader can figure out what's meant, but to be formal, it makes sense to give the full name, at least the first time in an article. I don't think it's necessary to hunt down everty single mention.Heqwm (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11 is also the date for the military coup in Chile where Pinochet acclaimed himself the leader guy of the country... so for many Latin Americans this could possibly be very confusing calling this article 9/11 .. though this is in no way contradictory to 9/11 being synonymous with terror since the USA backed fascist were terrorist also. Oka last part was maybe a little POV-like .. but the first bit should be true. Peace OliverR (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. Certainly in the English language though, 9/11 is far more strongly associated with this event than any other, so the redirect is appropriate; the {{dablink}} template gives a pointer for any other usages anyway. Whether or not the term is a context-friendly choice in any given wording should be dealt with on an individual basis and is an issue of style as well as terminology for the article concerned. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Independent Researchers Conspiracy Citation

These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda I think that this statement is in need of a citation(s). Especially that of independent researchers. It seems many independent researchers have found just the opposite.--DatDoo (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DatDoo. The paragraph under Conspiracy Theories essentially dismisses any credibility of the theories before any reader has a chance to even learn about them. This bias is unacceptable and at the very least as DatDoo said a citation regarding the independent researchers is necessary.--Shaylan G.

The statement is accurate, though, although "independent researchers" is ambiguous. It would probably be correct to say "the vast majority of" political leaders, mainstream journalist, and independent researchers...., but that would be difficult to source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand. It's not sourced in the first place. I think this is an important point to many people and if it is true it certainly needs to be sourced no matter what right? Perhaps it would be better to write "the vast majority. I'm a new user so I'm still getting used to some of the rules. Thanks.--DatDoo (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. These summaries of other articles need not include every reference. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

I think this is a specific point and it is likely to be challenged.--DatDoo (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The best one is this article in Popular Mechanics, where it specifically states that the mainstream account is "widely accepted". There's also a good NPR interview where they interview an expert who explains that they're not accepted as credible by historians, or experts. This Time article also specifically explains that they've been rejected by the mainstream media. --Haemo (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The subarticle also provides a citation, which we could steal. --Haemo (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This has come up before in regards to that sentence. After much debate it was altered to add the word "most" when refering to independant researchers because as it reads now it implies a vast majority which is clearly not the case when considering those who have actually examined the subject which was the basis of the objection at the time. I was not aware that it had been changed back. Wayne (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Haemo, the citation in the subarticle dosen't actually correspond to the claim it is supposed to support. Also, thanks for the heads up Wayne, I saw the discussion on the other page.--DatDoo (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arson

We don't know if the terrorist planned to destroy the buiildings by Arson...we do know that what they engaged in was Aircraft hijacking, hoping for Mass murder, resulting in Murder suicide, and that it was therefore, a Suicide attack...that is why I reverted Wowest's addition of arson.[109]--MONGO (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As have I, it seems like it's quite trivial in the greater scheme. --Golbez (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see -- what do you people claim bin Laden said?

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my
mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should 
destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we 
tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

So, they did NOT plan to start a fire in the WTC, and THAT is why they dumped all the jet fuel in the ocean before the attack? (with heavy sarcasm) How did he plan to destroy the towers then? With pre-planted explosives? -- or do you now agree that bin Laden did NOT say that?

The level of doublethink around here amazes me. Wowest (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating that the goal was "arson" is original research unless you have a specific citation to back up that claim. Bin Laden could have hoped for any number of things — a fire, serious structural damage followed by a collapse, damage requiring a demolition, or simply casual mayhem. Without a definitive statement, we cannot say for sure. --Haemo (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we include "arson" in every attack where explosives are used, because they can potentially cause fires? --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm asserting that setting a building on fire as the result of action consistent with a criminal intent is arson. Similarly, involvement in a robbery in which anyone kills anyone else is considered murder, no matter who killed whom. Wowest (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not arson. If I break into a house and accidentally set it on fire it's not arson; arson requires the intentional setting of a fire for an unlawful or illegal purpose. Since you don't have any sources stating that Bin Laden was trying to set a fire it's not exactly helpful here. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

September 11th Wiki?

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but it seems as good a place as any.

Whatever happened to the September 11th wiki (http://sep11.wikipedia.org/) ?? Several pages on wikipedia still link to it and wasn't sure if it closed down due to money problems or what. Thanks.  — Noah¢s (Talk) 03:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It was closed down because it was rather un-wikimediaish. If we have that, why not have tribute wikis for anything? A wiki where anyone can post about their brother who just died in a car accident? It was moved to the non-foundation site http://www.sep11memories.org. More info is here: [110] --Golbez (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A new light on 9/11

There have been a few conspiracy video's out there. They are all heavily suggestive, conclusive and just plain rubbish.

But now I happened to find a website [111] with a timeline of what happened before, during and after the attacks of 9/11. Everything written down there has a source. Real sources; BBC, CNN, London Times, Washinton post, etc. Aside from the 3249 events listed there there is no overall theory, no conclusions and no suggestions just plain facts with sources.

You might want to take a look at it and change the 9/11 article. 81.58.78.136 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Change it to what? --Golbez (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Be Bold!!! and just do it yourself! — BQZip01 — talk 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The timeline is nothing but 'conclusions' and 'suggestions' because every item is implicitly a judgment as to what is or is not related to September 11th. Reliable sources that back up the implication of relevance would be one thing, but innuendo is not encyclopedic. Peter Grey (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
nothing new (t)here, it was all discussed before, this article is much like 911 omission report, it is historically insignificant. if you want facts, look elsewhere. 78.1.126.142 (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what is encyclopedic? What kind of evidence do you have? I bet zero. I am not flaming you however. Why am I not going to do this? English isn't my native language, I don't have any knowledge on encyclopedic 'stuff' and whenever I edit wikipedia (bad grammar, etc) it always gets removed. So I would just like to address this. What should be changed? I am still busy reading it thoroughly. But most facts have valuable sources to it and a lot (I can't remember what) is different. What makes a good encyclopedia? Research. And research is exactly what the website houses. 83.117.39.46 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The point he is making is that judging what is, and is not, related to 9/11 is an academic call — and this site is not reliable in that respect.--Haemo (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
83.117.39.46: Hi! May I call you 83 for short? Thanks for asking that. There are certain things in the Wikipedia article which are simply wrong. There is a rule of reasoning that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. However, a lot of people assumed that the really remarkable legend spun by the U.S. Government about what happened on 9/11 and, more controversially, why, was completely true with no real evidence at all. Now, however, they demand Reliable Sources of anyone advancing any other theory, or even pointing out that some particular ridiculous claim comes with no real evidence.
The usefulness of a site like cooperative research is that you can go there to check out some particular fact and find the mainstream reference that supposedly supports it. If you determine that the mainstream reference actually supports the fact you wish to point out, you can use that reference to justify a change here, but it isn't anyone else's job to do that, and you can't just use cooperative research as a reference.
Personally, I'm looking for a reference to document the fact that an American cable channel spokesbeing said that the "Osama" "confession" video was mistranslated before the European source pointed that out. I think that claim should have several supporting authorities. However, I can't even find that article on cooperative research. If you run across it, please let me know. Wowest (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wowest you can call me 83. I have a dynamic ip adress but I will sign my posts here with 83.

Yes you are right. Cooperative research is not a valuable resource but it contains, in itself, many resources. What I wanted to say was not "Take cooperative research as your resource for the article." but "Take a look at the resources of cooperative research and see what is relative/valuable to the article and see if the article needs some changing/adding/removing.".

83 83.117.39.46 (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an article dedicated to these conspiracy theories. I do see some names here from there but if you have not taken a look at the article or its discussion pages I suggest you do. I do believe the conspiracy theory paragraph should be expanded because a significant minority in the United States and majorities in other countries do believe in them. And Time Magizine in an otherwise hostile article to the theories has stated "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."[112] Edkollin 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. I do not think that independent research by individuals is just fringe. The US used to take pride in independent research (a certain pair of brothere that flew at Kitty Hawk comes to mind). However when a meme like conspiracy theory is applied to an idea it has a negative connotation. I think its time to wake up. Tony0937 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with most of these proposals is that there's no clear way to say very much more — the "political reality" is that something like 30%, give or take, of the American population believes that there's something incomplete, or misleading, or what-have-you about the "official story". What form this takes is all over the map — there's no clear consensus on who did what, when, where, or why. Thus, it's hard to say more than what the article currently says — which is why we have a whole article discussing this linked. --Haemo 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, what's your source for the 30% figure? I say more like 60% of Americans think there's something fishy with the "official story", and that that number grows daily. How many believed the official JFK theory in 1964? 1968? Today? User:Pedant (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised 9/11 Conspiracy theory section proposal (Rough Draft)

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
See also: 9/11 Truth Movement and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

The 9/11 truth movement has emerged to contest the version of events described above. Allegations of conspiracy have been leveled at primarily elements of both the government of the United States and Israel. Other allegations have been leveled towered the Project for a New American Century a neoconservative think tank whose membership in the 1990’s included Vice President Dick Chaney and many eventual high ranking Bush Administration officials, Rudolph Giuliani mayor of New York City at the time and currently a candidate for President of the United States, Larry Silverstein owner of the World Trade Center properties at the time of the attacks, The Carlyle Group an international conglomerate whose membership has including many top level former officials from several governments and the Bin Laden family, the Saudi Royal Family, and World Jewry. In addition according to 9/11 opinion polls a large minority of the American public believe that the late Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the attacks despite refutations of that theory by President Bush, the 9/11 commission and little 9/11 truth movement interest in the topic.

The general motives for the alleged conspiracies were stirring up the passions and winning the allegiance of the American people in order to facilitate military spending, the restriction of civil liberties, and/or a program of aggressive foreign policy. In the case of Israel the alleged motive was to gain empathy of the American people in order to gain sympathy for their cause. Also corporate and individual profit motives have been cited.

There are many sometimes contradictory conspiracy theories. They fall under two main categories The LIHOP theories allege advanced knowledge of the attacks and that the attackers were actively helped (such as disabling defenses that day) or nothing was done to prevent them on purpose. The MIHOP theories allege actual involvement. There has been of great deal of interest in theories that conclude that World Trade Center buildings one,two and seven were destroyed by a controlled demolition. Of particular interest has been World Trade Center Seven which was not directly attacked had several high profile organizations as tenants. The National Institute of Standards and Technology have not reached a final conclusion as to why that building fell. Other conspiracy theories claim that hijacked planes were not used but either military aircraft or pods in a false flag operation and that Flight 93 was shot down

9/11 conspiracy theorists use a “connect the dots” approach using videotape, eyewitness descriptions, and news reports (particularly those from the immediate aftermath of the attacks) to reach alternative conclusions as to what happened that day and why it happened. Critics of these theories besides criticizing elements within individual theories accuse 9/11 conspiracy theorists of refusing to accept that great tragedies occur in life mostly due to randomness and incompetence, fitting information to fit what they believe, and lack of expertise in the subjects they are theorizing about. Conspiracy theorists have rebutted these criticisms by citing historical precedent.

Prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists include Andreas von Bülow a former German Defense Minister, author David Ray Griffin, Multimedia personality Alex Jones, Steven E. Jones a Brigham Young University physicist who was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave after his views became public, and Dylan Avery director of the film Loose Change

These theories have been mostly advocated via the internet through the use of websites and streaming video sometimes in the form of full length documentaries. After receiving little mainstream media coverage in the first few years following the attacks the theories started to receive more attention when a number of 9/11 opinion polls concluded that a significant minority of the American public were sympathetic towered them. Time Magazine concluded in 2006 that “ This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality”


I used the words “conspiracy” theory or theorists despite the controversy over the use of that world because that is the word the article this is summarizing uses. I did not restate as the original version did that the “mainstream” world does not agree with these theories. I feel this is would just be a rehash of what has been adequately explained above. Thus I put why these are important at the bottom of the article to prevent appearance of advocacy Edkollin (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, aside from sourcing, which will have to be addressed I think this is too specific. Remember, this is an article about the attacks — not the reaction to the attacks. The 9/11 truth movement is not the be-all and end-all of conspiracy theories, and the proposal you've presented here focuses specifically on them. In addition, it doesn't treat a broad range of other theories at all — I think you'd do better to shorten this two down to one, maybe two, short paragraphs and address the topic as generally as possible. Deciding what to mention, and what to include, creates a point of view about the topic so it definitely pays to be general. --Haemo (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a summary of other articles do you need cites for every claim?. I changed the top to make 9/11 conspiracy theories the main article. Citing can come after about a the basic decision has been made that something like this is even necessary. Yes is my first attempt a editing a summary section Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably should; as you can see, everything is article is likely to be challenged, and so should be attributable to a reliable source, somewhere. --Haemo (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On top of that, you need to look at your comma usage. There should be a space after each one...yours appears to have zero total...
Fair enough Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I also concur that this level of depth is not necessary. These theories revolve around massive plots of people who were too stupid to cover their tracks, but to have a U.S. government so completely fooled that it went to war while people living sheltered lives nitpicked minor points of the attack, mostly erroneously. Every major "theory" has been proven false pretty conclusively. That some people choose not to believe it (because "you can't trust the government" or "you don't believe what George Bush tells you, do you?") is of only minor note. It certainly doesn't mean it should have 4 paragraphs dedicated to it. A simple paragraph stating that there are some people who don't believe the U.S. government account and a few more sentences is sufficient. — BQZip01 — talk 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant how "true" these theories are. The decision has been made that they are notable enough to have a lengthy article on the subject. Writing a one paragraph section as it is currently or four long paragraphs involves deciding "what to mention" as does deciding what theories go into the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. The current paragraph has two specific type of theories. If you look at the above all I do is break it down further. I do not mention any specific theory. If it needs one or two paragraphs what is already there is almost enough for a very basic summary although I do think any summary should at least mention "controlled demolition","connecting the dots" and 9/11 truth movement" somehow. I would like a suggestion on how to reuse "the 9/11 Truth movement". I decided to "do it" as you say because nothing had happened in the "new light" debate" in couple of days (Murphys Law being as it is comments would come in as I was writing this revision) and I thought putting an actual example of a longer section that summarizes the main 9/11 conspiracy aticle might help the process along which it is starting to Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not needed in this depth, they have pages that describe them. I think more than one quote from a mainstream publication is needed before we need this much material. Among experts working in their field they remain fringe(s) theory, and in political terms it's more of a cultural artifact that has no real political impact or meaning. RxS (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)



I am leaning towered withdrawing the proposal based on the unanimous negative reaction. I will wait until the weekend before deleting the proposal in order to be fair to people who are to busy during the week and because the initial reaction might be misleading although I do not think this is the case. Edkollin (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BQZip01 seems to be privy to information that has eluded everyone else. Can you give me a link to support the claim "Every major "theory" has been proven false pretty conclusively". Also I question your interpretation of "massive"... for example the LIHOP theory according to Jones and others could involve as few as 5 or even less people if they were in strategic positions. In short, such claims are as rediculous as an editor claiming "The official "theory" has been proven false pretty conclusively". The subject must be treated in a nuetral way not from a preconceived biased view. Having said that I think Edkollins proposal is far too detailed for this particular artical. Wayne (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
A talk page is not the place to argue the validity of the theories themselves. I have no problem with people feeling strongly about the subject one way or another (I would have a problem with you if you don't) and want to be an advocate for your POV. You have message board threads, YouTube video comment section, letters to the editor etc for advocacy. Most editors are familiar the arguments Edkollin (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is far too specific as well. Also, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it seems a bit misleading. It mentions the "large minority" (I don't care for that phrasing, a percent range would be better) but it then goes into detail about the actual theories, when, from what I remember of the polls, the majority of the "large minority" simply believed the government was hiding some details, and may not have believed any of the specific theories. The way this is worded suggests that the "large minority" believes in one of the 2 main theories presented, when I don't believe that is necessarily the case. Also, the second paragraph seems kind of vague, especially the "Israel" sentence. Mr.Z-man 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We do have an article dedicated to 9/11 opinion polls where you can see the percentages involved. Although I don't particularly like "large minority" either, it's difficult to give percentages as they quickly become out-of-date - better to just link to the article rather than picking one particular poll result. I rather like the sentence in the current version for its necessary vagueness: "A number of 9/11 opinion polls have established that there is disagreement in the general population as to the veracity of the mainstream account". Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Large Minority: If you reread the proposal I used the phrase "large minority" in direct reference to percentage of Americans that believe that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved". The couple of polls in the last year ranged from 33 to 41% which is a "large minority". I used the more vague phrase "significant minority" for belief in CT's in general Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edkollin, I like what you've done in general, but it is too long I think. I suggest: 1) cutting out most of the first paragraph (too specific), 2) removing the LIHOP v MIHOP issue and shortening the rest of that paragraph (too specific), 3) removing the TM members paragraph (reader can click on TM link if interested in 'who'), 4) moving the last paragraph to near the beginning (establish notability at the top). I'm not sure about the "connect-the-dots" paragraph (have you got a source for that phrase or it that your own?). Hope this helps. Good work! Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Connect the dots" is phraseology taken directly from the "Main Approaches" section of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Article Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose revising the section. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:NPOV#Undue weight, the amount of space devoted to conspiracy theories is more than enough. As you see on the right-side navigation bar, there are dozens of articles about the 9/11 attacks. This article is a summary of them, with a small section to cover conspiracy theories, small section about the "War on Terrorism", small section on the collapse, etc. --Aude (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not happy about how the current section is worded and I deeply appreciate what Edkollin is trying to do. I am willing to work with Edkollin and anyone else to correct this. There are quite a number of people that question the offical story and they have good reasons to do so. Tony0937 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to briefly mention the existence of informal 'movements' (without getting into purposes which are open to dispute), and maybe there should be some clarification regarding conspiracy theories regarding the attacks, and theories regarding cover-up after the fact of incompetence/negligence/complicity/etc. But otherwise there is no reason to expand the section any futher (as of 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)). The point is to introduce a tangential topic covered in another article, and details do not contribute to the reader's understanding of the immediate subject matter, but merely serve to promote conspiracy theories by artificially increasing their visibility. Peter Grey (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


I will add See also for the 9/11 Truth Movement and Controlled demolition theory to that section in the article and then I am done with this for now. To say there is no consensus is an understatement. There were some article based comments above but based on some of the above but especially below many editors here are not in a rational enough state of mind in regards to this topic to be making any decisions on this section. And that includes both believers and non-believers of these theories Edkollin (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

After all the arguments about how a only a brief summary is needed this little addition gets deleted for not being broad enough. Absolutely unbelievable. I’m putting it back. Then you can delete the whole section which is what some editors really want Edkollin (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Reactions of most editors here... I fully agree with your description. I am in favor of the proposal. Here is a source to strengthen the claim that 9/11 Conspiracy Theories became political reality.(in Italian),(here a referring (biased) article in English). salVNaut (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am afraid this is an argument that it is not in the mainstream as no "mainstream" newscast or newspaper covered this. But I will find a place for this in the 9/11 conspiracy theory article Edkollin (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tourist guy

I think there should be a mention of the "Accidental Tourist" photoshop picture that was forwarded around right after 9/11. I think it is a reaction to 9/11 that is strange and should be documented. I'm going to do some more research now and will likely add edit soon. Please add your thoughts on how best to link this article. Clerks. (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

At most, that should get a link in the 'see also' at the end of the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't need to be in it. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things that could be linked to the 9/11 attacks. A single e-mail hoax isn't of any significant importance...especially considering the main article is only a few paragraphs long. — BQZip01 — talk 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Useless?

is there a way to denounce this article as useless…? where could i put such notion in motion? if you please…

...to clarify, this article doesn't recognize the fact that there is no official explanation for the fall of wtc 7, this article doesn't recognize the fact that the official documents of the u.s. armed forces institute of pathology say there were no arabs on the plane that crashed into the pentagon, this article is based on conspiracy theories, this article is locked down from editing since the day it was conceived, this article is a work of fiction which is enforced by the small number of administrators that need to be taken straight to the arbitrary committee, where they'll have a chance to explain themselves... please point me to the venue in which i can put such notions in motions, or explain why are the facts mentioned (or not mentioned) above omitted from the article. do not remove this edit without a valid reason. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable verifiable source = no mention in the article. I think we do have an article for crank theories, though. Maybe that's where you should visit next. But that article also requires reliable, verifiable sources. This really isn't the place for cranks, and you really do come off sounding like a crank. No offence intended. Rklawton (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm deeply sorry, your introduction is not acceptable in the same way you wouldn't accept my introduction which would state that you are a government shill who is receiving money to obstruct editors from improving this article… well let's not start off on the wrong foot here, no need for apologies… that said, which of the points would you like to discuss? do you have a reference which explains the fall of the wtc7? there is not a single one provided in the article... would you find official documents obtained through the foia acceptable? i'll provide… Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, you can visit WP:ARB to start an arbitration case if you feel editors or administrators are acting improperly here. I don't think you'll get very far but you can try. RxS (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thank you, if the facts can be added to the article freely there is no need to pursue such course… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
From the sound of some of your facts, I don't think you should be adding them "freely". Please discuss them here first. Many issues have been debated here in the past, consensus has been reached in many if not most areas so you'd be over reaching to start adding facts without bringing them here first. RxS (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm puzzled, the facts have no sound, they are simply facts, right? since you mentioned it, this article is fully protected (therefore no one can add any info in anyway, yes)? elsewhere on wiki we provide clear explanations for the lockdowns. why do these standards, warnings if you prefer, lack on this article? is there a reason for such exception and what is it? this article is clearly disputed. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is semi-protected because it is a target for vandalism. If you have things to add to the article, discuss your edits here first, and cite reliable sources. I would also request that you assume good faith on the part of other editors here; accusing them of being "government shills" who are being paid off is neither productive nor civil. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
don't say, and referring to people with… what was it? crank talk? that is acceptable, productive and civil? i've assumed good faith indeed. ever wondered what might be the cause of all the vandalism? Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you haven't spelled out exactly what you believe, I don't think anyone was calling your views "crank theories". We do have an article for crank theories about this event, and there are a large number of them. Which ones you believe to be cranky, or not, is a matter of opinion. Everyone is enjoined to be civil, and to focus on improving the article. --Haemo (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
so which article is the cranky one? because this one is the crankiest article of them all, master crank article this one is… imo, that is. we should try and avoid such terminology, yes? Quantumentanglement (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not individual opinions of editors. Non-specific criticism without supporting evidence is not helpful. Peter Grey (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite honestly the mainstream account is a conspiracy theory, to quote David Ray Griffin http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-20.html
"The official story is itself a conspiracy theory. As the accepted “conspiracy theory” goes, a cadre of al-Qaida operatives conspired to hijack four jetliners, did so undetected, and was able to complete their mission with no interception or even interference from the best-prepared air force on the face of the Earth.
The crime was solved immediately and the official story was in place before the day of the attack was over. Within 48 hours, our president stood at the National Cathedral surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, and used this religious setting to declare a holy war on terror."
You have to appreciate the accuracy of this statement. I no longer buy the mainstream account. The complicity of the corporate media disturbs me. They have helped to sell a lie. I keep on seeing "RS" asking for some newspaper/magazine quote as if it a mantra. I assert that it is more important that it is verifiable. This does not exclude publicly accessible documents such as web pages although some people would like us to think so. Tony0937 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Reliable sourcing is a guideline on Wikipedia, and your personal opinions about the subject are not a reason to disregard it. If you disagree with it, then feel free to discuss it elsewhere to try and enact a change. If you're not willing to do that, then there's nothing to discuss here other than arguing over your personal views — however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum and all such discussion will be removed per our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC):
I am not disputing wikipedia guidlines, I am simply pointing out that RS means nothing if that source is no longer reliable. At the bottom of every edit you will see this "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". There is an old adage "Don't believe everything you read in a newspaper". Once again, I say, verifiability is paramont. Tony0937 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Every source in this article is verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Read the guidelines before you discuss terms using your own colloquial meaning. Verifiability means:
Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source
No source used in this article is unverifiable. --Haemo (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I refer to the dictionary definition of verify:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verify
ver·i·fy
tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.
I am not being colloquial [113] I am being literal in the sence of adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. Are you aserting that wikipedia policy has strayed so far from the literal meaning of verify that the dictionary definition can no longer apply? If that truly is the case then I suppose that the policy is indeed in need of review. Tony0937 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
However you use the term, you're not using it as we do on Wikipedia. Verifiability has a specific meaning in this context, and one which you are pointedly ignoring. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

there were no arabs on flight 77

Reliable sources that interpret those documents would be better as we are limited in how we use primary sources, but at this point, any new reliable sources would be nice. Mr.Z-man 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

took a look at that guideline, we are talking about the documents obtained through foia, primary source would be as reliable as afip.org ...secondary source would be the person who obtained the information, the misinterpretation of information is not possible. where could one upload the files?? Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
We require reliable secondary sources in order to consider adding material of that nature. --Haemo (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
all right, here is american airlines flight 77 passenger list which was 'compiled' by associated press, no arabs on it either. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear whose included on that report, and there's no context for it, so saying anything like "Aha, no Arabs!" is original research — the URL clearly indicates that it's a list of victims. Usually, sites memorializing the event do not list the people responsible for the deaths of the other passengers. In fact, if you go up one level you can clearly see that they state "those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included" in the "memorial main page" which this section is headed under in the "Special Report". --Haemo (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

not clear to whom? and how exactly have you deduced that? we have a non disputable reference with heading:

American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard. - yet you choose to point out the url?

we also have undisputable official autopsy report which confirms that the list compiled by the mainstream media is correct. original research claim doesn't apply here, be kind and elaborate your reasoning.

a. American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard. – no arabs among 'em.
b. the official autopsy made by official state body confirms the fact there were no arabs aboard.

either draw a valid and logical conclusion, or simply prove that afip deceived us and point to reputable flight manifest which contains the following names:

- Hani Hanjour – pilot

- Khalid al-Mihdhar

- Majed Moqed

- Nawaf al-Hazmi

- Salem al-Hazmi

thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The American Airlines ref is a list of victims. The number of names listed totals 56 which means not all the people on board the plane are on the list. The list was compiled by CNN and is not an actual flight manifest. afip.org has no information that I can find. Perhaps you can show a link to the information posted on afip? The other reference is a blog and as such is not a reliable source. Anyone can write or post anything on a blog. --PTR (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to be looking very closely at these issues. There were plenty of Arabs on those flights. Take a look at this link, it includes material (and links) about both the flight manifests and the autopsy. [114]. There's no question that your claims are baseless. In any case, please confine your comments to the article and stay away from arguing the issue. RxS (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a source for the FOIA documents, if the documents obtained from the government organization are not acceptable then nothing is acceptable, which imo, proves those points made about uselessness. As for that 911 myths destination, the bias there is obvious from the nomen itself. 213.147.97.163 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The site has links that explain why CT claims about flight manifests and autopsy are baseless. The explanations on that page together with the links will satisfy anyone being rational about it. For example claiming that there are no Arabs on the flight because of a victims list on CNN (which stated up front that no highjackers were included) is easily refuted by reading that page. As are the autopsy claims. Of course in some cases asking for rationality is fruitless, but we can hope I guess. RxS (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and a CT'er criticizing a web site because of bias is ironic enough to spin the Earth out of it's orbit. RxS (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just lovely. What kind of talk is this? What is a CT? If you will? You are dismissing the official documents on what basis? Is it your silent complicity in mass murder of US citizens? I’m waiting to hear you civil and decent answer. CT?!!! Thank you. 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing any official documents and CT would be Conspiracy Theorist. So now that we have that settled I'll leave you to read why those claims are baseless. I'm sorry if I offended your no doubt delicate sensibilities. Have a great day! RxS (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And may you have an equally good one, but you need to use arguments, not insults. So what is your argument, are you alleging that the documents are forged? What is your point, if you please? 213.147.97.163 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's policy here not to interpret primary sources for ourselves. We aren't researchers. We just report what reliable researchers report. See also reliable sources. You'll hear a lot about those when editing articles. Rklawton (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The name of this section states that there were no arabs on flight 77 and I pointed out a source that has American Airlines and court data that explicitly refutes that. The problem of course is that instead of reading that, you provide a single statement by a (not involved) psychiatrist. And in the same breath accuse one source of bias while remaining silent on the source that supports your claim. So there's some tap dancing that you're doing here, but that's cool. Not sure about all this forgery talk though. Take care! RxS (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007(UTC)
Dyslexia? Who is the source? Psychiatrist? Nope, the source is official body of US Army. As for your source, it’s puny, to say the least. Do tell, how can you dispute the obvious? 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[115]I am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad. It troubled me a great deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened. Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that “crashed” on that day..[....]..I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable. So, yeah. RxS (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What to heck that has to do with the document itself, what is your interpretation? What?! 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What is there to interpret? I understand that some of you feel the need to misinterpret the obvious, and lie, and omit, and throw utterly uncivil CT arguments and to ignore the collapse of whole buildings. But that needs to end. This article breaks each and every of wiki guidelines, and that is a fact. Your claim of original reaserch is a call for omission, and that is also a fact. 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a list of victims who were identified. Remains of the hijackers were also found at the Pentagon. [116] Also suggest you look at the passenger manifests. Here is the first page which includes the names of all five hijackers on that flight, with seat numbers and all. --Aude (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You are weighing official documents against the mythological sites of the third kind? Why? What is there to dispute? The autopsy showed there were no Arabs. Period. There is not a spin or a myth in the world which will change that fact. 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but how exactly would an autopsy determine a person's ethnicity? Is there an Arab gland nestled behind the spleen that would give that away? --clpo13(talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please focus on providing reliable secondary sources for claims, because this discussion is getting very sidetracked. --Haemo (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it has and I apologize for my part in it. RxS (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

nice digressions, i'm working long hours so there will be some delays… here, that reference is already accepted on wiki as the flight manifest… it is the strangest thing if you ask me... well, can we pull it? now? Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perpetrators are generally not remembered as victims. --Mmx1 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
perhaps, but that reference is accepted, or should i go over there and make another fuss? because of disastrously irresponsible nonsense we have there? both references provided are clear and valid. do say, where did all the manifests go? who ate 'em, i wonder? so far and when it comes to 9/11... this whole place is… it's remarkable in a way… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the reference is accepted as a list of victims. It is totally unacceptable as a reference to "prove" there were no Arabs of Flight 77. You need some reliable secondary sources which back up this claim. Right now, you have a reliable secondary source saying there were no Arabs among the victims on Flight 77; a fact which is uncontroversial. --Haemo (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not being used as a reference. Note that it is not in the "References" section and is in the "External links" section. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
>well if you put it that way, you leave us no choice, i'm deeply sorry, but we'll need to provide the flight manifest which will put those arabs aboard… since i cannot edit the article because of.., what? i'll kindly ask you, to put the tag which will show that we lack reference for this section. we simply don't have the reference which will put those people aboard… i'm afraid we'll need to remove that section if we don't find one… i've already placed the template at the other location. there is also another, more subtle option which would change the wording at the start of that paragraph by pointing out, that certain people believe, or postulate or… whatever… that 19 hijackers were aboard those planes. our guidelines are very clear, we need a primary source and secondary source to verify such claim. since it is such well known event, references should not be a problem. in any case, we lack those there, completely, and until we find one (should be easy, but i couldn’t find the manifests? someone ate 'em or somthinig?), we need to warn the readers about it. i've seen that in our rules. let's not break those… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't. You misunderstand our sourcing guidelines. We do not, indeed cannot have primary sources for many things. That is why we require reliable sources instead. Read the guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

i've read them carefully, and we don't have a reference for that section, and it is just the beginning so cut the… and put the tag there… Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What fact are you requesting a reference for? That there were hijackers on Flight 77? Because requests like that are why this article has a billion references. --Haemo (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, that is a request, if we call it like that, you see, we lack a single reference which places those fellows aboard, in other words, we lack flight manifest. i'm trying to verify it as we type, but apparently we lack those on all articles related to flights… Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't need the flight manifest. There are innumerable reliable sources for the hijackers being on the plane, and it's contrary to our guidelines to claim we require the flight manifest. Stop wasting everyone's time. --Haemo (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
nope, i've read the guidelines and we need a source. a single secondary source which is based on a valid and verifiable primary source, and you are really, and i mean really waistin' our time… with such nonsense… i have no idea why we don't have one, it should be easy, by the guidelines… piece of cake… so to say… repeater, we need a single secondary source which is based on a valid and verifiable primary source (flight manifest)… for you see, this whole event is troublesome and we have to source all of our claims. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't — read the guidelines:
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation
There is absolutely nothing here requiring a primary source of any kind. We do not need to know how, exactly, a reliable source determined something — only that they did.--Haemo (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
hey, we are not a blog to carry unverified claims form all sorts of monkeys, our guidelines are clear… Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. therefore any source which states that there were arabs on board without having a primary source itself is worthless, litterary… you need to have an apple to bite the apple… if you don't have an apple in the first place, there is nothing to bite… give me one of your many "reliable" sources and i'll illustrate the paradox. 05:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumentanglement (talk • contribs)
You don't need a primary source to accompany every secondary source. Mr.Z-man 06:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What he said. What you have quoted doesn't even remotely say that. Read the words carefully:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation.
In other words if we put interpretation of a primary source into an article we require a reliable source for that interpretation. This guidelines exists to prevent original research — i.e. an editor interpreting primary sources, and putting their interpretation into an article. This does not even remotely say "if we quote a secondary source without a primary source, it is worthless." There is no interpretation of primary sources going on here which is not being done by a reliable source. --Haemo (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
or in other words, please, do take a look, our guidelines our clear, so what is this? read it, carefully…
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.
now, provide a reliable, fact checking source, which places those arabs aboard, please. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, there are innumerable sources. Here's one. --Haemo (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

oh my, look, i hold no grudge with you, hex, i even sympathize, because i see you're a well rounded person, but please, honestly. just put the tag there, we have no reference… it's by the book, our own guidelines, all rules applied. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article is 100% in line with our guidelines, and we're not going to bother sourcing uncontroversial details which are extensively covered on a subarticle. --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
the details wouldn’t be controversial if we wouldn’t have an autopsy report which is official in its nature. which sub articles are you pointing to? please, do point to those, so we may carry this on, if those are not locked, that is. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You should read Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott, which documents how the 19 hijackers became involved in the plot, including the five hijackers on flight 77. His book is a reliable source on the matter. Also, he shows some figures in the book, including one of the pages from the actual flight manifest from the airlines, such as this page. --Aude (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

eh, and you should read House of Bush, House of Saud by craig unger. unlike that unverifiable piece of fiction you've pointed to, it is rather reliable book with content that can be verified in mainstream media. well, if anyone has some valid objections to the material provided above, please object, because my "trial period" is about to end, and i'm about to implement some factually accurate changes to the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

there are some vandals which are avoiding discussion while they obstruct and omit the improvements to the article, where can i file a complaint? Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You can read WP:Dispute for more information. Your objections here haven't received any traction much less any consensus. You don't get to slap a disputed tag on an article just because you don't get your way. Especially not a controversial article such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Nor should Quantum be slapping warning templates onto the user pages of established users. Crockspot (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
nor should the established users resort to vandalism because they lack the valid arguments, the factual accuracy of the article is disputed, should we start another section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumentanglement (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Calling an established editor a vandal is a personal attack. Please restrain yourself. - Crockspot (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
established editor? or well established vandal?! in any case, established editors/vandals should know better then go around and revert without explanation whatsoever, right? the factual accuracy of the article is disputed, should we start another section? Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i'll restrain, please provide a valid argument or flight manifest which will reference our claims. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling established users vandals is uncalled for and strongly discouraged. If you cannot sway consensus to your arguments you just have to accept that and move on. But do not call editors in good faith vandals. You do not get to do that, period. RxS (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a lot to discuss since adequate references are provided in the aricle and have been provided here already. If there are reliable sources that refute what is already in the article, then cite them here.--MONGO (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the adequate and undeniable reference is provided above. do you have a single reference which would put those arabs aboard? i'm patiently waiting for that one for days now. so i'm a bit annoyed by these hollow claims. sincerely and with no hard feelings. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's one [117]...only took 5 seconds to find...how many do you need?--MONGO (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
i see you've just drop into the discussion, and i'd appreciate if you would carefully read everything above and act maturely. sincerely and seriously. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Your questions have been answered multiple times here, by multiple editors. I think we've reached the point where your refusal to read the answers or your inability to understand them has stopped being our problem and we have no obligation to keep going over them repeatedly. RxS (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
please focus, no one is seeking an opinion or a load (but you did ask for one, and i'll share and)… i'll stay polite… if we don't have a reference, then we do not have one. not a singe person provided a decent edit on this topic, not a single one. on contrary, folks are repeatedly being uncivil (and i've seen that don't bite newcomers note), and each of the editors who provided response acted as… if you close your eyes the facts won't go away. you cannot deny something because you don't like it. this is an encyclopedia, and this article in its current state is… i'll stay polite… so instead of nonsense, and gibberish (do forgive), please, kindly provide the reference which will put those arabs aboard or let US add the template which states that we need one. if that is not acceptable, i'd like to start the arbitration, which is, as far i've seen it, some sort of the last resort. you see, imho, state sponsored terrorism is not acceptable, mass murder for self gain is not acceptable and the people who fuel those conspiracy theories, the people who are spreading malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty…. are traitors, traitors and murderers of worst kind.
ps. you've answered nothing, not a single thing. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I just provided a ref...how many more do you need?--MONGO (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
we are talking about the list of passengers (or autopsy of the people which were) on flight 77 and you've provided a reference which has nothing to do with it. you see, in our article those naughty arabs managed to climb aboard without a boarding pass and they also managed to evade the death itself… we are not asking for the miracle, we are seeking the document which is based on reliable source and which will put those arabs aboard. nothing more, nothing less… yellow mellow articles which do not state nothing about the issue, or nothing about their source are not acceptable. per our guidelines that is. how many times do we have to repeat the obvious? and I'm asking that patiently and kindly and honestly. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The sentence (or rather part of a sentence) that you questioned is only about the number of hijackers. It mentions nothing of their nationality, where does it say anything about boarding passes? Mr.Z-man 08:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
our story goes "Nineteen men boarded the four planes", so we need to provide the reference which will actually put those 19 men aboard (it's remarkable that there is none… really). that's why we need a boarding pass… to put those villains aboard. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You are asking for ridiculous levels of information. You have been provided with the flight manifest for flight 77 and there are numerous references that give the number of hijackers. How can you say that there are none? What about [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], or [124]? Do we need their fingerprints on the aircraft controls as well? What you are asking for is far, far beyond what is ever required for a Wikipedia article. We don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to include information, we are not an investigative body - we report already published information; all we require is that the information has been reported in reliable sources and in this case it has been. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quantumentanglement, please read WP:POINT while you are at it. You are engaging in novel interpretations of our policies and guidelines, in an apparent attempt to disrupt this discussion page. - Crockspot (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
this is tiresome, look, i'm asking for the document or news report which will put those arabs aboard (the passenger list will suffice) and you are providing a storylines with all sort of unverifiable nonsense in it which is, imo, somewhat unusual if not disruptive behavior. take a look at that bbc link z provided above, what does it have to do with the request for citation? not to say that bbc is not acceptable or reputable source when it comes to 9/11 which is a well know fact. as for these accusations that boarder on personal attacks, do comment the article, not the contributor, i'd kindly ask if you would restrain yourselves. to get back to the point, no, there is not a single reputable source which will put those arabs aboard, but there is a undisputable official source that proves that there were no hijackers on flight 77. so you see, the factual accuracy of this article is not verifiable and people who are removing appropriate warnings and templates are vandals by the very definition of it. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm patiently waiting for the reference which will contradict and/or refute the official document of the united states government body which undeniably and undisputedly states that there were no arabs aboard, please provide a reliable source, please restrain from removing the valid citation needed template, please restrain from non related linkspam. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. We are not. You are either deliberately misreading guidelines in order to waste everyone's time over this issue, or are simply ignorant about guidelines and show no willingness to learn. You have been told repeatedly that your misinterpretation of guidelines are incorrect, but persist in your incorrect interpretation. It is disruptive, and it wastes everyone's time. We have commented on the article repeatedly — we no longer have any other choice but to comment on the contributor because you do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and are trying to change the article based on that misunderstanding. Please stop. --Haemo (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that your answer/reference for the simple citation request? No we don't is your reference? Once again you've decided to ignore the issue while engaging into the personal attack. I've read the guidelines, and used those to clearly show why we need a citation. At this point and IMO, you are not here to improve this article; you are here to keep it from growth. You are ignoring undeniable primary sources while you point to the questionable books, while you're showing all sorts of unrelated articles and while some of you share outrageous, utterly non related CT insults which have nothing, but not one thing to do with the discussion, although they appear to be ideal for provoking all kinds of unfortunate responses. I've noticed that this sort of behavior is already recognized and described in our soapbox guideline…
The fact is, you are persistently avoiding very clear issue and the archived talk pages (I've seen so far) clearly show that you (easily identifiable and recognizable group of editors with remarkable amount of free time) are using the same approach on dozens of troublesome and IMO extremly serious topics… for quite some time. I am not sure if that is acceptable, but I'm pretty sure that some of you did nothing but wasted our time, so I've decided to leave a notice at our Administrators' noticeboard. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been told over, and over again that you have been provided with references that meet Wikipedia's guidelines — you simply choose to ignore them, and instead request a level of evidence which is beyond anything Wikipedia requires. You have not shown that our guidelines need the level of evidence you're asking for, and indeed, have merely demonstrated that you do not understand them. You will notice that your request for admin intervention has been roundly rebuffed because you are quite mistaken here. --Haemo (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"linkspam?" You asked for a source for the statement that says there was 19 hijackers. I provided you with 7. Please read WP:SPAM before you continue to make assumptions of bad faith. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, the issue here is that you present once source as absolute truth and then say that every source that doesn't agree with your source is wrong, no matter how many sources there are that disagree. Please see WP:UNDUE and note that there are other viewpoints besides your own. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Who cares about the viewpoints? Who?!!!! We are working on encyclopedia and you are talking about the truth? There is no truth, there are facts and the fact is… The official autopsy showed that there were no Arabs aboard the Flight 77. Here, an article, the documents are attached at the bottom, examine those and then come back here and speak of truth and conspiracy and waste our time with all sort of non related… uf! Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
We have provided you with more than a half-dozen reliable sources which put Arabs on those planes, as the hijackers. You have articles of dubious reliablity that lack editorial oversight, or a reputation for fact-checking, discussing FOIA requests that may, or may not, prove something which you seem to believe very strongly. That doesn't cut it. Find a reliable source that states there were no Arabs, and you'll do something productive here. Until then, you have nothing more than gossip and original research. --Haemo (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Unlike us, that article cites its sources, it even provides the documents. As for your edit above, it is the other way around and you know it. Dear God, one has to wonder what will happen when we start to examine that house of cards called WTC7? I need rest. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have opened up an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quantumentanglement‎ concerning this issue. Anyone is welcome to contribute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Official autopsy report of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) showed there were no Arabs aboard Flight 77. This information needs to be referenced in the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sources can attest to that interpretation of the documents. Numerous reliable sources state that there were Arabs on board Flight 77. The current article reflects Wikipedia guidelines and standards, and your proposed changes do not meet our sourcing standards. Until you produce reliable sources to support your interpretation, you're not going to make any headway n this issue. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The FOIA autopsy document[125] clearly states that it is providing a list of the IDENTIFIED bodies. The FOIA document does NOT claim to account for all bodies found. As a result the FOIA autopsy document is consistent with the secondary sources, and Quantumentanglement needs to quit this discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus it pretty specifically says "victims". Hijackers are not victims. --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The FOIA request didn't seek the victims/passengers list, FOIA sought autopsy list, specifically, so it may verify the mainstream reports which showed there were no Arabs aboard. The document states it is the final list, there are no Arabs among the identified bodies. As for your claims, the document clearly states "This is a response to your FOIA request (…) in which you requested copies of the final list of bodies identified by AFIP". Since the AFIP successfully identified all passengers (we even have some surplus) there is no reason why they wouldn’t identify the hijackers, if there were any, that is. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"Attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA Flight 77..." Mr.Z-man 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, attached files contain the autopsy list of all the identified bodies. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What the FOIA sought and what the FOIA got were two different things - go complain to the government. The reply to the FOAI states quite clearly that the "attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA Flight 77 that were identified here at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology". That's it. It's a list of identified victims - nothing more and nothing less. We can't read into this list anything else. The government was asked for something, and the government replied with a letter telling us quite clearly what we were getting (identified victims). This, of course, begs a few questions. Like how many remains weren't identified, and whether or not terrorists are considered victims in this context. But that's why we don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources. Such sources would follow up with these sorts of questions and provide a clearer picture of what the government meant. And, by the way, that's just what the secondary sources did - and they don't support your contentions. Rklawton (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn doublethink applied everywhere… Guess I'll have to drop the issue. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden family

Is it pertinent that 24 members of the Bin Laden family, as well as Saudi Royals (about 140 Saudis total) were allowed to fly out of the U.S. on September 14, 2001? That info would probably go here, since it was a rare exception to the fight blackout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Immediate_national_response Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

By the 14th, you mean the 20th, right? http://911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight has several links from news sources and the commission report itself debunking the myth. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL @ ' User:Pedant (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The flight blackout ended on the 14th anyways, so that wouldn't be an exception. --clpo13(talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"By the 14th, you mean the 20th, right?" No, I meant the 14th. My info was from here, all with citations from contemporary print news sources: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301flight&scale=1#a091301flight (And in terms of the 9/11 commission report, I probably would trust that about as much as I'd trust the Warren Report, meaning I wouldn't.) In terms of the absolute blackout having already been lifted, I understand, yet many of the Bin Ladens and Saudis who who left wouldn't have passed a competent or prudent security check, especially not in the week following a terrorist attack (for reasons listed on the link and elsewhere). Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on which sources you want to believe. But the issue about the family leaving has long been considered a non-event by most people. --Golbez (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Immediate news sources were reporting events as they occurred, rather than a story to represent a commission viewpoint well after the facts. Plus, I'm not sure you or anyone can speak for "most people"; plus, it wasn't simply the immediate Bin Laden family who left, it was 140 Saudis, all of whom the governement had a legitimate reason to detain. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny thing about immediate news sources is that they can be corrected later on. For example, the story from a mere week after the attacks so repeated by truthers that some of the hijackers are alive and well and living in Saudi Arabia - too bad the BBC has since published multiple articles refuting those original statements. But I suppose a certain tunnel vision is required for these people. --Golbez (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Too long?

A tag has been added to this article, arguing that it's too long. However, according to article size guidelines this article is within acceptable limits. The argument has been made that it take too long for people on slow connections to access it. Unfortunately, this is simply impossible to make it smaller — the fact is this, because people keep needlessly asking for {{fact}} sources for innumerable statements in the article it has 180+ references which each compose around 1/3 of a k a piece. That's over 60k of references alone. There's simply no way to make this article smaller without removing some of the references — and that's not going to happen. --Haemo (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we can take out all the "kooky stuff" like the references to aircraft crashing and buildings collapsing and dead people, and just leave it at: It was decided that a war would be profitable for some people or corporations, and someone (or groups of someones) made it happen, and nobody wants this article to be long. The end. User:Pedant (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not very helpful. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Haemo, this article easily satisfies the occasional exceptions section of WP:SIZE [126]. RxS (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the current length is appropriate given the magnitude of such an event.-Wafulz (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin laden

I don't know why Osama bin laden is listed as the perpetrator of the attacks, but what is that based on?, just what the government claims?.

This seems to be often overlooked, but Given Osama bin laden has not been indicted, 'nor wanted for anything in relation with 9/11, and is only linked to other lesser terrorists attacks, its highly predudicial to say he's the mastermind.No evidence has ever been shown linking him, just the commonly excepted claim.

And from what I remember he never explicitly claimed responsibility.

But what I'm really trying to say is, yes Al Queda was responsible for 9/11, and bin laden is the head of it, but does that mean he directly participated in what al queda did?, Or is more like a branch of his organization was responsible for something he condoned but had no direct participation in.

His personal responsibility likely lies somewhere in between, but the fact is there is no evidence in support of government claims, and FBI don't even list 9/11 as why he's on 10 most wanted list.I just think people will be misleaded reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The "perpetrators" section says "Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden". Numerous reliable sources call Bin Laden the "mastermind" behind the attacks, and he has personally taken responsibility for conceiving of and planning them in explicit terms. --Haemo (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden"?, that is an extremely misleading and suggestive statement.He's the leader of the organization, not nessesarly 9/11 itself, to tie him to 9/11 through his organization in such a statement is such persecution.

And the media and government and other sources probably use the same misleading logic, he's the head of the organization responsible for the attack, but noone says he was directly part of it, so that should be made clear.

And I don't know about your claims that he has taken responsibility, but thats also speculative.Rodrigue (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article...it has links to other sources.--MONGO (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what special sources there would be, besides regualr media. Rodrigue (talk)

Those would be reliable sources both asserting that he's the mastermind behind the plot, and that he took responsibility for it. If you don't agree with them, then you'll need to produce reliable sources disagreeing with them in order to get anything done on the article. Otherwise, you're at a fundamental loggerhead with our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Here, here, here, etc. --Aude (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable, third-party sources is context-sensitive, moderated by common sense. In a situation in which some part of the executive branch of the U.S. Government is probably guilty of some degree of wrongdoing, no part of that branch of government is a reliable source except to the extent that it is accusing another branch of wrongdoing. Likewise, following the commencement of known activities such as Operation Mockingbird, certain mainstream media fail the reliable-source test in such a situation. I'm open-minded, though. Please provide an unbiased, reliable third-party source supporting the government's position. Wowest (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch specifically uses the phrase "Bin Laden takes responsibility for 9/11". The Guardian specifically says he "took responsibility for the September 11 attacks". Reliable sources is a clear guidelines on Wikipedia — and it says nothing about throwing out the "mainstream media" because you don't believe them. --Haemo (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources also reported accounts of bin Laden's funeral in 2001, indicating that he died of a lung infection. Foreign heads of state opined that this was highly likely because of his kidney disease. Any claim that subsequent videos, showing someone who doesn't quite look right and doesn't quite sound right are bin Laden are extraordinary, and require extraordinary proof, particularly when they are made by agents of a regime noted for lying. Wowest (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wowest : Before starting to make a fool of yourself, please read a book called "The looming tower" from Lawrence Wright were you will found the whole story from day one. It was Pultizer price and it is most exahustive and reliable source of this particular aspect ot 9/11. --Igor21 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not reliable when making claims based on hearsay evidence only. To date there has been no authenticated evidence linking Bin laden to 911. He may be the most likely perpetrator but it is POV to make the claim he did it without pointing out that there is no actual evidence of guilt. Wayne (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So is it true that reliable sources only claim that he took responsibility?, there aren't any claiming that he was a direct participant in the attacks beyond just being the leader of Al-qaeda?.

And thats besides the fact that they wouldn't have any evidence to support saying it either, even being on the FBI most wanted list, no there's no mention of him being linked to 9/11,

so I'm guessing there is only claims that he took responsibility that support saying he is responsible, which even if somewhat true isn't the same as having evidence or sources directly saying he's resonsible, not just sources saying he somewhat claimed to be. Rodrigue (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he didn't remote control the planes into the building or something. He helped plan and support the attack. That's why the perpetrators section says "Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden. --Haemo (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources "claim" Bin laden took responsibility. The evidence is disputed with only the US government supporting it's authenticity. Therefor the article can legitimately make the claim. It is only POV if it's not mentioned that the evidence is unreliable. Wayne (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, how can there be disputed evidence that he confessed, he either did or he didn't.What are they disputing?, a tape with questionable authenticity or interpetation, or just some intelligence claiming he confessed.

But seriously, if Bin Laden was captured tomorrow, hypothetically, would he be brought to justice in any way regarding 9/11, or just the few other attacks he's connected to?. Rodrigue (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. He's clearly claimed responsibility, contrary to Wayne's statement above, but proving it is another matter. Is encouraging the action (clear) and claiming responsibility adequate for conviction under Islamic law? It certainly isn't under US law. Conspiracy convictions (under US law) require identifying a specific action taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, and I don't think we can identify a specific action he took related to 9/11. That being said, if captured, he would probably be "accidentally" shot a few hundred times, to avoid the problem coming up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was getting at, even with sources claiming he took responsibility and him being painted as the big mastermind of the hole thing and everyone people should hate, the fact is from a legal stand point no modern legal system would hold him based on whatever it is that ties him directly to 9/11, if anything. Rodrigue (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to include something in an article, just reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See also

There's currently been some discussion about the "See Also" properties of the "Conspiracy Theories" section in the article. There's a kind of half-hearted discussion above, but I think we could definitely benefit from some more concentrated focus here. Currently, the proposal is as this, to link to the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center as a "See Also" link.

I'm not really sure that this is appropriate. Guidelines indicate that these header should be used to link to related articles — however, I'm not sure if these are representative of the theories being discussed, and gives undue weight to specific groups and theories about the attacks. There's no rationale for why these particular theories are more important than other, competing theories, or why this group is more important than other 9/11 Conspiracy Groups. Frankly, I think we're better simply linking to the sub-article which extensively discusses both of these articles. --Haemo (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A 9/11 conspiracy section article that does not somehow mention the controlled demolition theory or the 9/11 Truth movement is like a Beatles section that does not mention Beatlemania or Sergeant Pepper. If this were a the Beatles article saying it would be saying the rough equivalent of “that some people do not like the Beatles" and then repeating "but the vast majority of the music press and fellow musicians conclude that the Beatles are one of the most influential groups in history”. It’s a useless waste of space. If you spend any amount of time looking at "conspiracy" websites,message board debates, mainstream or alternative press practically everyone of them mentions the controlled demolition theory and most of the journalistic articles mention the 9/11 Truth movement. You say there is no rational reasoning as to why these are more important. That is a good question and a very interesting one and a subject for experts on public opinion and journalism. As for us as Wikipedia editors all that should matter is that these are the most notable, there are Wikipedia articles written about them and that many readers may not know about. Why deny them the option of finding out they exist? This adds a total of one line to the article what is the grievous harm here? Edkollin (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I said there was no rationale presented for why these are included. Our 9/11 conspiracy article does not omit these — you claim the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Controlled Demolition hypothesis are as integral to 9/11 Conspiracies as Sergeant Pepper is to the Beatles. I would suggest otherwise — there are many, many movements and theories surrounding the attacks, and these are just two of many. In fact, probably the only central theme which can be written about 9/11 conspiracy theories is their absolute multiplicity; virtually any permutation of events, plans, and those responsible can, and has, been put forward as an explanation. --Haemo (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles put out many other important works besides Sgt. Pepper. There have been a multiplicity of "theories" as to the meaning of Beatle lyrics. That does not change the fact that that a Beatle section that fails to mention Sgt. Pepper does a great disservice to the reader. Putting in a See also line does not say these are the only theories or movements. The 9/11 CT article is still the main article the CD and Truth movement are the "also" line. The reason the reader might not know that there are a multiplicity of theories is that there is no line stating such information. All putting in a see also line does is make it easier for the reader to get detailed information on the most discussed CT theories/movement. Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This metaphor is too stretched to be useful at this point, but I definitely think that it gives it too much weight — especially to 9/11 Truth. The "movement" itself is related to the theories, not the attacks — I think you have a good point about the controlled demolition hypothesis, and it should stay. However, the Truth movement is tangentially related to the attacks, and integrally related to the conspiracies. --Haemo (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't belong in this article under any circumstances (linked or otherwise). Links to CD and 9/11 Conspiracy theories make sense but not a link to one group over another that promote those theories. The 9/11 Truth Movement is notable within conspiracy theory circles and can be linked from those topics but it is not notable in 9/11 topics in general and has no place as a link. RxS (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that the controlled demolition hypothesis carries at least the same weight as NISTs working fire and debris hypothesis. I'm not sure why would one be omitted and other admitted. Both of these are well known and well recognized hypotheses. We should also note that we lack official explanation of collapse. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Since there is evidence of fire and debris, and there is no evidence of demolition, the hypotheses do not have equal weight. Peter Grey (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That is so in your opinion or your POV, how we call it here, my opinion differs, but that is not the issue. We have two notable hypotheses, if we are to follow the NPOV, both of these hypotheses should be mentioned. There is no reason to accept the fire and debris theory which is yet to be proved and there is no reason to accept the controlled demolition theory which is yet to be proved. However, there are very good reasons to mention both notable theories, and the first which comes to mind would be NPOV. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Existence and non-existence of evidence are not opinions. Peter Grey (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please be clearer about it. Do we have evidence which proves the fire and debris hypothesis? Or are you referring to the controlled demolition hypothesis? Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd think the video tapes of debris and fire in the immediate area are good evidence. Really, please stop this pointless arguing, I can assure you, you will be limited from disrupting this topic soon. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This would be much easier if you would provide a reference for your claim, for you see the video tapes of the WTC7 collapse are widely accepted as the proof of controlled demolition. I can assure you that I'm not willing to engage into fruitless discussion around this issue. Your posts are annoying to me, at least as much as mine are to you. Such is the nature of quantum entanglement. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The 7 WTC collapse looks like a demolition, but that is evidence only of a catastrophic structural failure, which has many possible causes. The talk archives explain this in more detail. Peter Grey (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe I have spoken to you before, so I don't know what plural you speak of. As for WTC7, fire and debris were visible, whereas somehow covertly wiring 60 floors of busy office tower for controlled demolition were not. But enough of this. --Golbez (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What sort of explanation and what sort of the attitude is that? Do you have evidence which proves your claim? Or should I parrot you and say, the squibs and rate of fall are consistent with the controlled demolition. But enough of this, both hypotheses are notable and should be mentioned in the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please restrict comments to the article and means for improving it. Discussing the merits or demerits of different theories is not productive, and is not the purpose of this talk page. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Took out See Also for 9/11 Truth Movement left in Controlled Demolition as per rough consensus above Edkollin (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article about the 9/11 Truth Movement reads as an advertisement more than an encyclopedic article. They are not nearly as organized or as big as they themselves would like to believe. So, yeah, I concur with removing that link to that article. If I had more time, I would try and clean that article up a lot.--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The CT section should focus on the theories and not on the group or groups supporting them (per WEIGHT). Each theory article can then include information about the group or groups supporting (and opposing) that particular theory (limited, of course, to notable groups with their own articles). Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed has gone ahead and unilaterally re-added the "see also" link and pointed to this talk section to back this up. However, I see only discussion and no attempt to build consensus. This pretty much defines WP:TE. No matter. I propose we take the issue up more directly and see what sort of consensus we have.

Those who support (or oppose) including a "See also" link (this way) please so indicate below:

  • Oppose - the subject should be addressed in the section, but a separate "see also" link at the top of the section is redundant and violates WP:WEIGHT. Rklawton (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Favour - If this subject was addressed properly in the section it would still require something like the also see. As it is there is no mention of the subject at all. Tony0937 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - common sense, as undue weight is given by the placement. Mr Which??? 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:WEIGHT, and because the subject is well-covered within the 9/11 CT page. Dchall1 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - out of desire for organisational clarity as much as concerns about undue weight. This is the top level article covering the subject in its broadest sense. "9/11 conspiracy theories" is a sub-topic, and "9/11 Truth movement" and "Controlled demolition theory" are sub-sub-topics. They should be linked to on the 911CT page - which interested readers are sure to want to visit anyway - not here. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Keep it on the CT page. A number of people keeping trying to turn the main article into the CT article, which should not happen. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Keep it on the CT page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A link would be appropriate for the conspiracy theory phenomenon as a whole; specific conspiracy theories are twice-removed from the subject of this article. Peter Grey (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with Peter and Sheffield that CDH is too far removed from the topic of this article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of course.--MONGO (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Entire Section Mostly non-reliable internet sources. Major media and reliable scientific sources are critical to scathing. A point acknowlaged by most CT theorists. NO weight needs to be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Memorial Link

I'd like to add a link to a Memorial that I'm associated with called "Flags on the 48". Bascially it's a memorial hike held every year to commemorate the victims of the attacks. Fittingly, the first hike was held on Sept 15, 2001 on Mt. Liberty and from there the event grew. In following with the guidelines, I'm seeking consensus here. The link is http://www.flagsonthe48.org Coberg (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The memorial hike sounds like a very worthwhile event, but try searching 9/11 memorial on Google. There are countless worthwhile events or memorials. We have a limitation on space for links, per the external links guidelines. How do we choose which ones to include? I don't think we can choose one over all the others. Instead, I think it's best to keep the number of links to a minimum, and leave it to sites like the Open Directory project to include the links. --Aude (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose link. While I commend both the organizers and Coberg's intent, I agree with Aude's reasoning in this case. Rklawton (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it does not further the article's purpose (informing about the attacks) to include the link. Echo support for the sentiment expressed above, though. Mr Which??? 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deathscrepancies?

I notice that two "total death tolls" for the event are given - 2,999 in the lead paragraph and 2,993 in the infobox. Why the difference? Neither are sourced, but I'm sure the one in the infobox must have come from somewhere. The one in the lead paragraph seems to be a napkin calculation from adding up all the previous sourced numbers. In such a contentious article, details like this probably shouldn't be left to original reasearch like that, especially if they can't agree with the numbers floating right next to them. Could someone familiar with the sources around this subject be bold and put forward a reliable one which does the final death toll for us, and update both numbers to agree? BigBlueFish (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they're accurate. There were 2974 victims of the original attack, plus 24 missing, plus 1 who died from dust exposure. This is the 2999 figure. On the day, there were 2974 + 19 deaths; 2993. Confusing, yes. I'll reword the lead to indicate it's victims. --Haemo (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

confirmed deaths?!

It is stated that the number of deathes is 2974 or something similar. Were all those deathes confirmed or are they presumed dead? this is a confusing subject. The way it is stated, 2974 were confirmed dead without any doubt (ie remains from their bodies were found). This also negates the possability that any of these people exploited the situation to start new lives under other identities. I would appreciate if this could be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.163.237 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As the article states, 2974 people were confirmed dead, usually by finding human body parts identified by DNA evidence. 24 people are missing, and presumed to have died — there is a slim possibility that they took the opportunity to vanish. --Haemo (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the 9/11 Commission and Report

I just functionally reverted this recent edit by WLRoss which added that the 9/11 Commission and/or Report were subject to criticism from Commission members. I hope the new revision is clearly more NPOV, but just wanted point this out in talk in case anyone sees this as trying to bury 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc etc. The main articles for these topics are currently NPOV trainwrecks, particularly with respect to the coverage style of criticism, and yet I still can't fish out anything which suggests that members spoke out against their organisation or report, let alone in a notable way to the topic. Maybe when these articles are more mature there will be more to elaborate on this matter in this article, but seeing as it's already too long, this isn't the case right now. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your rewording, so I changed it a little. If it's not sourced in the main article, we shouldn't be including it. However, it's not really that relevant who speaks out, since it's mostly a footnote to the article about the attacks. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
HUH? You can't find "anything which suggests that members spoke out against their organisation or report"? Almost all the board members have publicly stated they were consistantly denied access to evidence, lied to and obstructed. If this is not critism what is it? Wayne (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
In that comment I was referring to the Wikipedia articles, not the media in general, as made clear at the beginning of the sentence out of which you cut my quote. I neither deny nor affirm that board members criticised the Commission or Report, but if they did then that is made woefully unclear in their articles. The article on the Report is particularly bad, giving no introduction to the criticisms section, stating whether there was official reaction/affirmation/opposition to these criticisms. The Commission article has an introduction to criticisms but does not mention internal criticism despite naming other critics.
It's hard to comment on how the articles you cited are relevant to this since they aren't (yet) cited in either of the articles. The first I can't comment on at all since I'm not a NYT subscriber; the second discusses suspicions raised, not of accusations made. Both the second and third might be construed as criticism of the CIA and other authorities associated with the work of the Commission, but I can't say they exactly explicitly criticise the Commission itself, although it presents comment on the quality of the resulting report. From the third: "first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well" - from this I would assume that Hamilton criticises the outcome of the Report in the said book Without Precedent or that article.
All of this aside, the sources quote the chairmen, "some" staff members and commissioners and one chairman respectively. I am without a doubt that if these statements can be construed as criticism of the Commission that there will also be comments of response from other interested parties out there. All this needs to be properly and encyclopedically treated in the relevant articles before bringing up summary qualifications in this article. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that, due to the surmounting authenticity of many "conspiracy" theories about the attacks of September 11, 2001, this article remain under need of being less authenticated by hotheaded media sources such as FOX and globalized by more authentic sources, that are not offered by the institution of televised media. For example, 9/11 Commission Report is still being criticized. I feel that the tags at the top of the page should be left, since, specifically, my most recent contributions about the videos of Osama bin Laden were quickly removed. The government should stop tampering with this article, since, obviously, its intentions are not to allow "conspiracy" theories to seem authenticated in any manner. Crass_conversationalist (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Please assume good faith upon the editors of Wikipedia. Just because they disagree with you doesn't make them government shills.
  2. Insulting news sources and dismissing them through disparaging contents is simply not good form. State your actual objections to the article or please find a forum on another website. This is not a forum.
  3. Your additions wer removed due to a lack of reputable sources, not your personal opinions. Furthermore, reliable sources can come from the US. — BQZip01 — talk 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Ron Paul is quite a reputable source to the theory that the attacks on the World Trade Centers were a false flag operation, among other historians and their analyses of the attacks, often marked as "conspiracies" in accordance with FOX. Crass_conversationalist (talk 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And, moreover, as I am a contributor to Wikipedia, among others, and my thoughts have not "logically" been proven "wrong" in accordance with "reputable" sources, I will leave the tags to globalize and to make the article more in accordance with a worldview on this article, to remind visitors of this page that the authenticity of much of that which has been "authenticated" by some media sources and, furthermore, by the US government, is questionable, if not doubtful (see Newton's Laws of Motion), and therefore, should not be taken as fact (quoting Chris Sanders, professor, banker, asset manager, principal executive of SANDERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD, "The use of conspiracy theory as a derogatory--as an epithet, almost, is something that propaganda has so perfected over the decades. And it’s a useful tool for eliminating articulate descent and other points to view and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda"). Crass_conversationalist (talk 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Ron Paul is a reputable source for anything but his campaigns, and possibly his actions and intent. He is a politician, after all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ron Paul has never said that 9/11 was a false flag operation; on the contrary, he has stated that he sees 9/11 as blowback for U.S. foreign policy, and regularly cites the 9/11 Commission Report findings in his arguments. Corleonebrother (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To the original point over the past weekend the CIA were accused by 9/11 commission chairmen Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kane of making a conscious decision to impede the commissions investigation by withholding information regarding videotapes of interrogation of two Al Qeada operatives a charge the agency denied. This story was covered heavily over the weekend by mainstream media outlets. I added a section about this in the 9/11 commission article but decided not to add anything here. 1. As mentioned before the chairmen did not specifically state that the alleged withheld information made the report or parts of it invalid. 2. Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kane can not in any way be said to be 9/11 conspiracy theorists. 2A Although they did not specifically say so taking events in context the implication was that the CIA were allegedly covering up their involvement in torture not a 9/11 conspiracy. Edkollin (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that the 9/11 Commission and its report have their own articles. Peter Grey (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 37

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

remove this page

this article does not belong on wikipedia. it should be replaced with the most bare-boned version possible; only stating the most obvious facts (times, dates, locations) in no more than 3 paragraphs. in its present state it's disgraceful to wikipedia's users. it is highly politicized in ways that make me question much of what i've read in wikipedia's current events. it doesn't come close to the exactitude and competence of wikipedia's science related articles or the robust research in the historical articles. it is cowardly and reeks of personality. --chordophone 12:01 1/4/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chordophone (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Now that we're past that, any specific complaints or suggestions? --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
outside of what i personally find so offensive about it, it is way too long for an encyclopedic entry. it needs to be shortened by over half. considering the amount of sources that come from CNN or the 9-11 Commission publication, wikipedia should simply list them as external links. the shorter this entry the less personal and political the focus is, and the less chance conspiracy-obsessed idiots and over-simplifying editors can stain this great encyclopedia. the goal should be brief and concise descriptions that only include enough information to guide further research. this page is like a book written by people who don't investigate further than television. and has anyone stopped to wonder if the 9-11 commission's report doesn't constitute the most objective source? it's been reported on in every major news source in the world that the report is heavily edited. and isn't it strange that the government's only major publication in bookstores in America is this one book? they can't publish a guide to taxes and charge 9.95 for it? what about a guide explaining the various electable positions in government? i've looked, they're certainly not on display at border's. it seems dubious that any academic take that book as gospel. if anything, in the true spirit of wikipedia, George Washington University's National Security Archives should be the main cited source of information about this historically incredible event. let's not make wikipedia a compendium of television news history. i'm not trying to be offensive, or attack anyone personally, i just think that this kind of article on something this important is pretty sad. ----chordophone 7:45 1/4/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chordophone (talk • contribs) 01:44-01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is well within size guidelines for articles on subjects of this importance. In addition, CNN is a reliable source. If you have issues with our reliable sourcing guidelines, take it up on the respective talk page. If you disagree with certain sources, bring up concrete reasons why on this page, rather than general platitudes. This page is not a soapbox — please focus on specific editorial issues. --Haemo (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagreeing with me is no excuse for being condescending. the introductory paragraph has poor sources that don't support the claims. for example, flight 93's black box transcription from CNN in no way shows any proof that the passengers caused the plane to go down. it does seem to show proof that flight 93's hijackers were incompetent flying the plane, probably explaining the "mystery" behind why it ended up in PA instead of the white house, which according to the NSA, CIA, and many international sources, it was planning on crashing into. if you feel the need to make the claim that the passengers were responsible for causing the plane to go down, in a self-sacrificial way preventing further tragedy, then at least link it to a reference that provides proof for that claim; the source sited later in the article is the from 9-11 commission, at least that's one step closer to source information, however severe the editing it went under. i suspect most readers take the intro paragraph as the most concrete summation of the event. also in the introductory paragraph you link source 3 to a CBC article which summarizes the words of osama bin laden. this is the source that you use to provide facts for al qaeda's responsibility? many terrorist organizations claim responsibility for many terrorist attacks. this doesn't prove anything. i'm not suggesting al qaeda wasn't involved, obviously they were. however, the mastermind of the attacks is not osama bin laden or al qaeda directly, it's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed terrorism experts at the FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies have repeatedly stated that al qaeda doesn't exist as an entity. it's a database for matching terrorists to financiers. to claim it's responsible for 9-11 is misleading. most of the article appears to be from sources that are too close in proximity to the event to have very reliable hindsight. this article needs to be updated. --chordophone

see 9/11 conspiracy theories for "concrete reasons why." this article should either be edited, removed or merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. this page IS ALREADY a conspiracy theory. a conspiracy theory is any theory of people coming together and CONSPIRING to act outside certain guidelines. I have tried again and again to edit this page and have become very offended. I SUGGESTED this page be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories and my SUGGESTION was very quickly removed. UNLESS this is discussed more thoroughly, SEE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES about SUGGESTIONS TO MERGE before REMOVING from TAGLINE. --Crass_conversationalist (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.98.232 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories which are widely unsupported in reliable sources — that page was forked off this one, and the summary section currently gives it the correct amount of weight that it deserves. You have tried again, and again, to push a fringe POV on this issue, and have been summarily reverted for good reason. Unless you have some concrete suggestions which do not violate fundamental guidelines, please refrain from using this page as a soapbox. --Haemo (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, please stop using this page as a soapbox. Some of the theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories are very widely held. Wowest (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not using this page as a soapbox, and I resent your implication that I am. Some general statements about intentions are widely held — there has never been any poll demonstrating that any specific theory is anything other than fringe. Correctly stating the extent to which theories are held is not "soapboxing" in the slightest. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, the fact that the official government-endorsed theory is also a conspiracy theory, remains... And the Wikipedia article on September 11th 2001 Terrorist Attacks gets a lot of their information and facts from the government conspiract theory which, as already widely known, has full of holes and some of their theories are preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not widely known; it is false. Do you have any good faith suggestions for making improvements to the article or will you continue to waste our time? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
..Widely known by people who are into or are interested in the September 11th Terrorist attacks.. Yes, the average person would not be interested in the actual details and hence would not actually know what happened on that day. I have not even seen you before so please do not tell me that I am wasting your time. You are wasting your time by being irritated by my contribution to this discussion and thus felt that you had to respond to my previous entry.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Widely, and accurately, known to be false, is correct. Widely believed by some fringe groups is also correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

This article needs a section about the way media covered the attacks. WW Jan 18 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.93.94 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to some sources discussing that? It would be good, but you might want to look at Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It needs some love.--Haemo (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions are unethical and a disgrace to acedemics which use wikipedia

There are way to many assumptions and broad sweeping statements in this page and I want to highlight one of them.

I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I just want to be factual and academic so listen me out.

This passage "On that morning nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] " in the opening section of the article insinuates that we know for a fact with substantiated proof that Al Qeada was responsible for the attacks when in fact alot of evidence to the contrary exists. It claims 19 Terrorists took part in these attacks when it is widely known that 5 of these named hi-jackers have been in later years to be alive and well. None of their names were on the flight lists as passengers and no proof exists that they were on board at all. I also am irked with the assumtion of guilt of Al Qaeda at all in 9/11 when no proof exists that they were involved at all. There has been no court case to prove that Al Qaeda was involved and the confession videos of Bin Laden have widely been under suspicion for its authenticity. It is unacedemic of us to ignore these facts merely on the basis of serving some larger political goal. I myself am disgusted as an academic and user of Wikipedia to be subjected to the unacedemic and largely political propaganda nature of this particular article.

The line about Al Qaeda sounds like an opening line for a novel. And as already mentioned, Al Qaeda has never been proven to be behind the September 11 attacks. What is more shameful is the fact that the United States government felt that they need not prove that Al Qaeda were complicit because of the tape found conveniently in a house in Afghanistan that allegedly shows Osama bin Laden confessing to be behind the attacks even though the man alleged to be bin Laden is nothing LIKE bin Laden. The FBI even later confessed that the tape was fabricated. People, especially people writing articles regarding this subject should not assume that these "facts" are true just because the US government says that Al Qaeda is indeed behind the attacks and that therefore they are guilty of 9/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence, whatsoever, in the public domain that the 19 persons alleged to have committed the mass murder of 9/11, have boarded onto the four aircraft that crashed on that day: Their names do not appear on any authenticated passenger list; there exist no boarding cards' stubs of their boarding; no person has testified to have seen them board the aircraft; no CCTV recordings exist of the boarding process (as distinct from one single CCTV from Dulles Airport purporting to show some of them pass security check - but the recording lacks date, time and camera number); and their bodily remains (DNA) have not been identified from the crash sites. To claim that these 19 persons committed the crime without any evidence that they even boarded the planes is illogical. Wikipedia should stick to verifiable facts and avoid hearsay and speculations. If someone can provide sourced evidence that the 19 individuals "boarded" the aircraft, the wikipedia is the right place to do so. Absent such evidence, no one is entitled to make such accusations against people who remain innocent of mass murder. --Sannleikur (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been no court case to prove the guilt of Al Qaeda so please do not add this to the wikipedia page. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that "5 of the hijackers" are well known to be alive. Multiple reliable sources both asset, and support, the claim that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, and that the terrorists, in particular were also responsible. No reliable sources support your interpretation of the events, and unless you have some specific editorial concerns, I would ask that you refrain from using this talk page to discuss the event in general. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Qeada has not been conclusively proven guilty in any court of law and an endless amount of very substantiated proof exists to prove the opposite. This topic is thus under dispute. Unless you can point us towards court documents, the name of the judge, the time of the verdict, the jury involved, the facts presented by both sides, the lawyers involved, the court transcripts and more that this organization is guilty of 9/11 then it is incorrect to post such a lie as fact. Please remove those rash assumptions from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A dispute between whom? People who know that Al-Qaeda was responsible and people who refuse to believe mountains and mountains of facts? Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to profess your political beliefs. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue of a court of law is immaterial; many historical figures responsible for crimes were never tried in court. This is not the standard of evidence Wikipedia, nay, any academic publication requires. If you believe there is evidence vindicating them, then provide reliable sources presenting it as vindication. Otherwise, there is nothing here to act on. --Haemo (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would implore you to not use Wikipedia as a soapbox aswell. It seems to me by allowing unsubstantiated claims that Al Qeada has conclusively been proven to be the sole perpetrators of 9/11 you are furthering your own political convictions. I am here only in the interest of being truthful and being academic. As long as Al Qeada has not been proven guilty in a court of law it should not be part of this article. Insinuating that academic publications do not require someone to be proven guilty in a court of law before reporting so is within it self a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd standard, totally at odds with our criteria and academia in general. I am not using Wikipedia as a soapbox in the slightest — all statements in edits I make follow our guidelines and policies, and it is totally incivil of you to claim I am trying to further my "political convictions" in some way. There is no requirement that claims made by an article be verified in a court of law before inclusion — either on Wikipedia, or in academia in general. If you grab a copy of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can see they lay responsibility with Al Qaeda too. The claims made in this article are not "unsubstantiated" — they are all directly sourced to reliable sources. --Haemo (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica and its content has no relevance here. Here we are not only referring to the academic nature but also the truthful nature of this article. We should thus agree as we are both assuredly interested in the factual and academic integrity of this article for future use, that we cannot for a second lay guilt where it has not been proven in a court of law. For you to insinuate that it is normal practice of academic institutions to make false unsubstantiated claims and to pass opinion off as fact is an insult not only to me but the entire academic community. For the sake of maintaining the accuracy and truthfulness of this article, if you refuse to change that leading passage, please highlight in the article that the guilt of AL Qeada in 9/11 is under dispute until it has been made official that they are in fact guilty by a judge. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" states my constitution, and for us to keep the article as is is not only a moral and academic offense but also a constitutional one. I cannot think of in any other academic publication which assumes guilt of a party without there having been a court ruling, please point me towards an article/publication where this has happened. I implore you to try to understand this simple principle, as we both merely want to see the academic integrity of this article maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which constitution says "innocent until proven guilty"? Not the US's. And besides, this isn't a court. Corvus cornixtalk 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to refer you to this article if you do not understand this simple principle which is also called Presumption of Innocence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations - this is not a criminal trial. Corvus cornixtalk 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, This is an Encyclopedia a publication which is taken seriously because of its academic and factual nature. Here this article is neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We will not allow you to add any conspiracist nonsense to this article. It would be best if you would stop wasting our time. Thanks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is incivil of you to insinuate that I am propagating conspiracy theories when in fact I have not done so in any way shape or form. I am merely trying to be academic and I would wish that this article reflect an academic and truthful prospective of the events of 9/11 and it is very within the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for me to expect this. It would be of catastrophic result if this is the way in which we will approach this problem. I demand you change this article or warn users that the topic at hand is in dispute and although claimed by official entities not proven in a court of law. As simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Care and feeding. Corvus cornixtalk 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not going to make any headway with this tact of arguing, since Wikipedia does not require the standards you have argued. Academic publications, indeed many on Al Qaeda, can and do lay statements of guilt without proof in a court of law. Wikipedia does not require this standard of evidence. If you disagree with our guidelines, you can discuss it on the relevant page; not here. --Haemo (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As final input from me on this article, I have consulted the Policies and Guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines) section and was lead to believe that within the NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) it deals with this type of issue. This article considering that Al Qeada has not been officially proven guilty in a court of law is thus in violation on many of the points brought up in the Wikipedia NPOV. I leave the problem in the hands of the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archives of this page, you can see that the neutral point of view issue has been extensively discussed — indeed, it is undue weight to write the article with the implication that Al Qaeda was not responsible. -_Haemo (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia's goal is encyclopedic. Our aim is to make Wikipedia a credible, authoritative, source of reliable information for all, students, ordinary citizens and researchers. When a crime is committed and has remained, for whatever reason, unsolved, Wikipedia should approach factual allegations with extreme circumspection, particularly when a large body of evidence suggests official malfeasance, cover-up or even complicity in the crime. I would therefore urge all of you to approach all factual allegations presented by governments and the media with the necessary critical detachment. We should not include in our account on 9/11 unsourced, unattributed or unverifiable allegations. It is better for Wikipedia to state "we do not know" than to make statements which could later be rebutted. Take one example: The original passenger lists of the 9/11 flights have not been released. This means that the public has been deprived of the original source for the names of the hijackers. This does not necessarily mean that they did not board on the airplanes. It means, however that we cannot state as a proven fact that they did. We can only say: The FBI alleges/claims/believes/asserts/maintains that the following individuals boarded these planes and committed the hijacking, but has refused to release the original passenger lists. This would be a neutral way of informing the readers that our knowledge is restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannleikur (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources to support your assertions, there might be something to discuss. In addition, the passenger lists have been made public — they were made published in Terry McDermott's book Perfect Soldiers, as well as in newspapers such as the Boston Globe. The government also used the original lists as evidence in Zacharias Moussaoui's trial. The assertion that the FBI has "refused to release" these lists, or the implication that there is any doubt in reliable sources as who was on those planes is fringe POV-pushing and is totally unsupported by reliable sources. --Haemo (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The lists referred to by Haemo are not authenticated. They are bad photocopies of computer printouts that carry neither signature, date stamp or any other sign that can be used to trace to their origin. They have not been, either, accompanied by chain-of-custody reports proving that they are copies of "originals". Nor has any government authority claimed that these lists are at all copies of "originals". The lists released at the Moussaoui trial were not accompanied by any comment or explanation as to their origin. CNN has announced on September 14, 2001 the names of four people suspected to be among the hijackers. Their names were then replaced by other names. No explanation has been given as to the reason for this switch and from where the CNN got the previous names. The only source for such names could only have been either the FBI or the airlines, and ultimately the original "passenger lists". So if names were replaced on Sept. 14, the latter list of hijackers' names - which is what has been published by the FBI - cannot correspond with the original list. American Airlines whom I asked for a copy of the original passenger list of AA77, studiously evaded the request by sending me a typed listing of names without the names of the hijackers. Asked why they left out these names the Airline said laconically, that they were "edited". American Airlines failed to explain why they would not send me a copy of the original list, nor why the names of the "hijackers" were "edited". This game suggests that the Airlines have something to hide and that we cannot rely on the published "passenger lists" as authentic. This exchange of letters with American Airlines is posted on my website at http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2329&Itemid=107. Under these circumstances, I believe that it is reasonable to express doubt about the authenticity of those lists referred to by Haemo. The absence of authentified passenger lists is compounded by the absence of testimonies of people who actually saw the hijackers (and passengers) board the airplanes, the absence of boarding cards' stubs, the absence of CCTV of their boarding, and the failure of identifying their DNA from the crash sites. All in all, there exists therefore no evidence that any of the 19 "hijackers" actually boarded the planes. Theoretically, they may have boarded the aircraft even in the absence of all that evidence, but it is quite a daring proposition to claim that they did.--Sannleikur (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have vetted the lists described. Your original research on this issue has no bearing on our discussion here, and your personal doubts as to the authenticity of the lists provided by reliable sources is not sufficient for any changes to be made to the article. Provide reliable sources supporting your interpretation, or we can't do anything. --Haemo (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

why cant we edited 9/11 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 070793power (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's semiprotected due to persistent vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, by "vandalism" you mean that people keep questioning the unsubstantiated claims on this page and the complete lack of alternate views presented. QuantumG (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
They're well referenced "unsubstantiated claims" and the "alternative views" are inaccurate. We're here to write a fact based encyclopedia, not some fantasy book.--MONGO 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with the protection, take it up here. --Haemo (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Inaccurate? According to who? You? The alternative views are also well referenced.. that's your criteria for why the claims in this article should be unchallenged. Clearly you've picked and chosen which claims you're willing to accept as fact and which you're willing to discard.. and this is an attitude that is simply not acceptable for a person with a neutral point of view. QuantumG (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The topic seems to be semi-tabooed. After several years of edition, vandalizm, recovery, investigations, improvements and polishing, the paper still does not answer the important questions. Why immediately after the accident the President told in his speech: "Airplanes hit buildings; do not crush mislims yet"? (I exagerate a little bit). Why his talk is not reference number 1 in the article? Where are explanations about the origen of the lack of information about the accident? Aren't some topics in wiki hijacked?... dima (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place for such a discussion — BQZip01 — talk 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


BQZip01, you should be banned from here. Say, do you like lying to everyone? Did you mention that you are from US army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

article point of view is outdated?

Dear Friends,

I believe the view that 911 would have perpetrated by Al Qaida, without any inside complicity, is becoming more and more outdated. This view is still held by the US government (naturally) and most of the major media; on the other hand major media have also shown the opposite. In New York, close to the news-source, 42 % do not believe the government. Experts and people in high posititions claiming there is an inside job, keep lining up.

I strongly believe wikipedia should choose for caution, and stop defending a single viewpoint. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and taking a viewpoint is OR and in violation of NPOV.

proposal

To rewrite this article to a form which is neutral to the question, whether the attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaida, the insiders, or both; and to create a new 911 article, called e.g. "The mainstream opinion".

support

  • — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One example: the article makes impression that 9/11, President of the USA was absent and appeared only September 20. This is confusion. Indeed, the same day, he made the speech translated by TV. It was first official information about the attack; that reference should be first in the list. dima (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

reject

  • Reject this ridiculous attempt to add conspiracy language to the article. Facts are never "outdated." Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject. Quite. Would violation Wikipedia policies if implemented. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject on behalf of Haemo, who states below he chooses not to be "pigeonholed". comment added by — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm striking this. You can't vote on behalf of someone else. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I get the point, I think. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject that neutrality is the correct standard here. The correct standard here for FACTS is that they be based on reliable, attributable and verifiable sources. The correct standard for OPINIONS is that they represent all the major groups of opinion. The current entry does not fulfil these standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannleikur (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Refject Superfulous request. Facts are facts - conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. Shall we rework Apollo 11, as well? Everyone knows the moon landing didn't happen. Okiefromokla questions? 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

neutral

comment

  • Polls are ridiculous, and this is no exception. Guidelines like neutral point of view and reliable sourcing are not negotiable, and this suggestion in its very statement, clearly seeks to disregard them. I'd also encourage you to read up on how Wikipedia uses the term original research. I think you can tell my position on this proposal without having to pigeonhole me into a little section with a summary at the top. --Haemo (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This poll in particular is exceedingly ridiculous. Anyone who voted oppose, shame on you for even giving attention to this. --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Polls and consensus building are mutually exclusive so you can have either as a protocol but not both. I prefer consensus building even though it's much more arduous. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As usual, no new sources have been provided, and we don't write articles in response to a question. It is an article, not an essay. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

intermediate conclusion

  • I offered this poll as a first step towards consensus building. My intermediate conclusion is, there is too little to work with to start consensus building, and the wikipedia community is not yet ready for acknowledging the difference between the bare facts and the mainstream -erroneous- interpretation of those facts. I am sorry for that, but dared hardly hope otherwise. Thanks anyway folks for responding, in spite of Golbez' fanaticism. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

There is the "Islamic terrorism" category on this article. Can a reliable source be provided that holds "Islamic terrorism" responsible?Bless sins (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Just look at the article Islamic terrorism. This is the number 1 prime example of Islamic terrorism. Not to mention half the sources in this article mention it the connection. Or do you believe in the conspiracy theories, and as such are practicing terrorism denial? Yahel Guhan 06:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Bless Sins, thats really funny, I dont even know how to respond to that. This will be in the records. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There is one aspect of the term/category that I find bizarre. I know nothing about Islam but I've heard almost all authorities and political leaders (like President Bush) saying that Islam, as a doctrine, is diametrically opposed to acts of terrorism. If that's true, doesn't that make the term an oxymoron? And if it's an oxymoron, should it exist as an encyclopedic category? Wouldn't something like "al-Queda terrorism" be more realistic? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like the category, you can always bring it up for WP:CFD. However, since this is the most famous example of Islamic terrorism, the category should stay. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Many extremists believes that Islam justifies their terrorist acts, just as many Christians believe as well. The dichotomy between different interpretations of a religion is an academic issue, and many moderate Muslims would call Al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam incorrect. However, that does not change the underlying justification used by the terrorists. --Haemo (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As you say, some Christians have similar beliefs. I suppose I am having trouble accepting "Islamic terrorism" when I think about the prospect of a category called "Christian terrorism" which I ( I'm a Christian) would find an insulting and ridiculous concept given the teachings of Jesus Christ even though there are some fringe interpretations of Christianity which also endorse acts of terrorism. I suppose what I am saying is:
  • Just because some terrorist group uses some minority interpretation of an otherwise humane religion to justify their terrorism and uses the name of that religion, I don't think this encyclopedia needs to accept their application of the religion's name. The KKK do their terrorist acts with crosses and Christian prayers and reading from the bible; but I'd be pretty annoyed if their crap was categorized in this encyclopedia as "Christian terrorism". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not up to Wikipedia is decide what is, and is not, Islamic. Think about what you are saying; your argument is that you can tell what is the "correct" interpretation of Islam, and this is "not Islam". That's a highly contentious and controversial opinion, and one which is actively disagreed on and debated. --Haemo (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I admit I know absolutely nothing about any religion other than Christianity, but I am under the impression that the weight of academic and scholarly opinion about Islam, as with Christianity, would see terrorism justification as very much a fringe interpretation of either religion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I put it up for CFD so we'll see if I am alone in this opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is still overwhelmingly for accepting and using the term and category "Islamic terrorism". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Using the term "Islamic terrorism" is one thing. But blaming an act on "Islamic terrorism" is another. Please provide reliable sources that suggest the 9/11 attacks are an example of "Islamic terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, are there any reliable sources that attest this?Bless sins (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of such sources. If you were to do any research at all, you could find a couple. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you will have no problems in finding some for me.Bless sins (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[un-indent][127][128] It took less than a minute to find these. It would take only an incredible amount of laziness to be unable to find any sources describing the 9/11 attacks as "Islamic terror." Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. Golly, I could never have guessed before seeing these sources that 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I was able to finally solve this political mystery. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"with American government assistance"

As it stands now, the "Responsibility" section of this article, in one clause, asserts that the U.S. government assisted Osama bin Laden in organizing MAK. False. The U.S. government dropped funds into Pakistani ISI accounts. The ISI, then in complete control of such funds, assisted Afghan mujahadeen. "Afghan Arabs" were quite the minority in Afghanistan (bin Laden's MAK, for instance, consisted of only about 100 Arabs compared to the 250,000 Afghan mujahadeen resisting the Soviets). These Arab anomalies were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab donors (and in bin Laden's case, his own family money) - not the Pakistani ISI and certainly not the CIA. The "Responsibility" section of this article would be more accurate if "American government" was replaced with "Saudi government". But that wouldn't be ironic enough, which is why I'm sure this folk myth was added. I think it unnecessary, however, to detail the exact nature of MAK funding in this article anyway - there are already articles on MAK, Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden and Operation Cyclone, which give this issue the actual attention and fair presentation it deserves. 9591353082 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this article goes into perhipheral information in too much detail...it needs ot stick to the events of the day and in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, mention these finer points in summary fashion and provide links to articles where those areas are discussed in greater detail.--MONGO 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
MONGO, that seems reasonable to me. Would you be willing to make that change,please? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Lots of changes are needed, but hard to accomplish anything when everyone reverts everyone elses work.--MONGO 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
9591353082, you should include in your analysis that the head of ISI is approved by the CIA. Also you should reckon that you cannot compartmentalize issues as you attempt: they are not independent. It does not matter who funded who if they are all cooperating, does it? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suicide attacks by al-Qaeda?

The first phrase in the Article claims that the events of 9/11 consisted in "suicide attacks by al-Qaeda". What is the factual base for making this claim?

Apart from the fact that no court of justice determined the relationship between al-Qaeda and these events, the U.S. authorities have not presented any hard evidence linking al-Qaeda to 9/11. The FBI, for its part, has admitted in June 2006 to possess no "hard evidence" to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11. How can an encyclopedia makes such a sweeping claim when there exists no evidence to support it? Even the phrase itself is nonsensical because only human beings can engage in a suicide attack, not an abstraction such as al-Qaeda, which is not even clearly an organisation, but only an idea or ideology.

I therefore propose that the introductory phrase be reformulated into neutral language as follows:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, causing the death of approximately 3,000 people.

Such a formulation would prevent endless disputes about the nature of the attack and the identity of the perpetrators. It does not insinuate anything about anyone and bears no relation to any "conspiracy theories". I am asking for endorsements.--Sannleikur (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The head of al Qaida has admitted to his involvement. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you refer to the socalled confession by Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, he did not say that the 19 people were "affiliated" to al Qaeda. No named person has witnessed his confession; no named person confirmed the identity of the confessor; the alleged detainee was apparently tortured. So the whole confession bears no relationship to the above sentence. I could myself claim authorship of 9/11. This would not prove anything about 9/11, but may perhaps say something about my character.--Sannleikur (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the videotaped confession by Usama bin Ladin. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, even if the videotaped confession were authentic (which is disputed), a person's claim to be the author of a plot (a) does not require listeners to believe him; (b) does not constitute a proof of acts that he did not personally witness. In order to constitute evidence for an encyclopedia, we must have more than the ravings of a old bastard who does not dare to be challenged in public. --Sannleikur (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is patently untrue. Multiple reliable sources have both reported his statements of responsibility, as well as supporting the view that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. If you disagree, provide reliable sources which support a different interpretation. --Haemo (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to engage in good-faith efforts for Wiki, you would agree to my proposition above because it avoids the disputed question of criminal responsibility which is extremely divisive. My proposed text above is a statement of fact that is uncontroversial that does not exclude Al Qaeda responsibility. I would be happy if we could resolve this issue by sticking to proven facts.--Sannleikur (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What you, personally, deem to be a "proven fact" is at odds with what reliable sources deem to be a proven fact. That is the essence of why your suggestions are not helpful, and why they give undue weight to your fringe viewpoint about the facts. --Haemo (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sannleikur does not need to provide a RS. It is you who need to supply these RS for the authenticity of the confession. Oops, there are no actual sources of proof, only claims they exist so don't try and pass those off on us. Professor Bruce Lawrence, who is the leading Bin Laden expert, said of the confession in an interview last year, "It's bogus" in which he also claimed informants in US intelligence had confirmed the administration know it is fake but "politically useful". A FOI request for "Documents that demonstrate the outcome of the U.S. government’s authenticity process (for the confession)....authentic, not authentic or suspected of authenticity" was submitted in late 2006 and was refused: "the material you requested... is exempt from disclosure" as such information would "interfere with enforcement proceedings". Long after it had been "authenticated" by the administration saying it was, the FBI still publicly stated it "has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11" so are you saying no one shared the tape with them? Bin Laden may have done it, but OR is not a RS no matter how much you push it. The ball is in your court Haemo. Wayne (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Numerous reliable sources have reported the clip, and the translation, as accurate. There is no dissension among reliable sources that this clip (and the translation) is anything but accurate, and no one has provided a source to the contrary. We have provided sources which support the interpretation that the videotape is accurate, and report on it as a truthful fact. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
bin Laden has also once claimed he was innocent of the attack, because "muslim law forbids the killing of women and children". I am not saying I believe this claim of his, but it would be illogical to simply believe one claim and disbelieve the other. We can only conclude that Osama's utterings are unreliable, even when they are cited by reliable sources. We can write he apperently admitted to the attack in this or that video; we cannot say he is guilty. If Albert Einstein says: "God does not play dice", we do not write that Quantummechanics is rubbish, do we? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nineteen terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda?

The second phrase in the Entry in its entirety reads so:

"On that morning nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."

This phrase includes two unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be posted on Wikipedia under existing rules: (a) nineteen terrorists...hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners", and (b) that these nineteen people were "affiliated with al-Qaeda.

The first allegation must be qualified because there exists no evidence in the public domain that the nineteen individuals designated by the FBI as the suspected hijackers actually boarded the four commercial airliners they were supposed to hijack. As long as no such evidence exists, the claim must be qualified as an allegation or belief, not a statement of fact.

The second allegation is supported by a media report according to which Osama bin Laden "claims responsibility for 9/11". Leaving aside the question about the authenticity of the recording, even if his claims were genuine, it would not constitute a logical proof that the nineteen persons were "affiliated" to al-Qaeda. There is no logical relation between the two, only a supposition, a guess. Secondly, it has not been established among academics whether there is at all an formal organization named al Qaeda in which individuals can become "members" or be "affiliated" to. Thirdly, even the US authorities have not claimed that all the 19 suspects were "affiliated" to al Qaeda. Finally, even if the US authorities were to claim that information gathered in closed interrogations prove this claim, such evidence would not be admissible for an encyclopedia.

This phrase should be entirely deleted because it lacks factual backing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannleikur (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Do you have any good-faith suggestions for improvements to the article? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Good-faith efforts would require a total revision of the Article because it is based almost entirely on unsubstantiated assumptions and allegations. The allegation that 19 Muslims hijacked four planes is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that they boarded those planes. But there exists no evidence that they did, not even positive identification of their bodily remains. So, absent such evidence, allegations based on the unproved first allegation are simply fantasy. Yes, I am aware of the phone calls, but again we have not, in most cases, direct testimonies of those who received the calls, only second-hand or third-hand reports from people who said what they have been told by family members who received calls. We do not know, either from where the calls were made, because the FBI refuses to reveal this evidence. There are so many bits of data that the FBI has refused to disclose that any factual description of the events will remain at best guesswork and at worst an exercise in deception. We could go phrase by phrase, but I think that such an approach is futile because if even the most basic facts are in question, the entire account must be questioned. --Sannleikur (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, Even as early as 2002 9 of the remains were found. RxS (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't require forensic evidence to include a statement in an article, that would be silly. We report what is reported in reliable secondary sources and for this article there are numerous reliable secondary sources. If you want things changed, I would suggest you provide some sources. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article cited by Mr.Z-man includes the following information: "Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers - but not identified by name - through a process of elimination...Without reference samples from the hijackers' personal effects or from their immediate families to compare with the recovered DNA, the remains could not be matched to individuals." In plain English the remains of the alleged hijackers were not positively identified. This is what I initially said and has been confirmed in the cited article. If this were the only lack of evidence about the presence of the "hijackers" in the planes, one could perhaps give the benefice of doubt to the US authorities. However, no one has testified to have seen the passengers (and hijackers) board the aircraft. There are no CCTV of the boarding process. No boarding card stubs have been produced and the 9/11 Commission fails to mention any boarding cards, even in its detailed Staff reports. And finally, no authentified passenger lists have been produced. The absence of such crucial and primary incriminating evidence is in the very least suspicious. The statement There exists no evidence proving the boarding of the 19 individuals designated as the hijackers, must be therefore regarded as true according ordinary standards of logic. --Sannleikur (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your standards of evidence go beyond anything Wikipedia requires. Multiple reliable sources disagree with your interpretation and your legalistic arguments hold no weight here. Unless you have some suggestions for how to improve the article based on our guidelines, there's nothing to discuss here. The correct statement is that There exists no evidence which would prove to Sannleikur the boarding of the 19 individuals designated as the hijackers — many reliable sources disagree with your opinion and have been published as such. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The link was mine...how about photos? The point is that there are plenty of reliable sources that support the phrasing in the article. We're not here to debate the issues however but to talk about content. And it's clear that the content of the article is support by WP:RS and other applicable policies. RxS (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just consulted WP:RS and did not find anything that supports the above allegation. On the contrary, much in the 9/11 Article is based on statements by government officials, often unnamed. These are not reliable sources for Wikipedia.--Sannleikur (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia, we must engage in good faith efforts in improving the quality of the Articles we are working on. The quality of an Article is dependent on the reliability of facts. It is not a "fact" that the 19 people designated by the FBI boarded the four planes on 9/11. It is an unsubstantiated government allegation. No one of you has produced a reference to a reliable evidence. You are just relying on some arbitrary consensus, not on real evidence. But perhaps you don't consider your contribution as part of a scientific work, but part of a political agenda. If this is the case, I would understand your resistance to any logical reasoning. I have proposed changes to the Article which would reflect the tenuous nature of these allegations, for example by qualifying nouns and verbs with "alleged" or "According to X". I am willing to concede to such a compromise because I believe that the Wikipedia deserves a continuous improvement. How about you?.--Sannleikur (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, another, another.--MONGO 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem not to live on the same planet. Governments' pronouncements do not necessarily represent factual evidence and cannot be relied upon. Governments often lie. We are now asked to rely on musings by Osama bin Laden on a dubious video tape, announcements by the Saudi Government (the very epitome of virtue and truth) and pronouncements by various unnamed officials of the Bush regime, as the base for formulating an encyclopedia article. I repeat: Where is the "hard evidence" that the 19 people actually boarded the planes that they allegedly hijacked? Where are the people who were there on the ground and could provide testimony? Why has no one come forward to provide a testimony? Why has no one seen the boarding cards stubs? Why is the FBI hiding evidence and refusing to play various recordings of telephone calls? Why is the FBI incapable of positively identifying the bodies of the hijackers? How can anyone of you rely on government's secret evidence for an encyclopedia? I cannot fathom such credulity.--Sannleikur (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we are being asked to rely on many, many statements by reliable sources that these facts are true. Evidence has been produced which these sources deem conclusive and sufficient to ascertain the veracity of the statements made — you disagree. Fair enough — you are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish, and no one is going to try and change your mind. That is not what this page is to be used for. However, Wikipedia relies on citing reliable sources for its interpretations of what is, and is not, true — Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, nor does it act as such. Instead, in matters of truth, we rest the burden with reliable sources to determine the veracity of statements made. This article follows this policy to the letter — your arguments do not, and that is why they are (and have been in the past) soundly rejected as a basis for changing this article (or any other). --Haemo (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources do not include government propaganda and secretly obtained evidence by intelligence services, even if such information is disseminated by the press. The items I have been referring to are all sourced to the government. There is no independent source for the information regarding the boarding of the alleged hijackers onto the planes. You are most welcome to believe what the Government is saying. It's your private right (or perhaps duty). Wikipedia does not weigh facts by pounds of newspaper print but by their reliability, credibility and verifiability. --Sannleikur (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to establish what you are claiming? If its in a reputable newspaper it is fact checked and edited. That is a reliable source on Wikipedia Mr.Z-man 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
News sources, papers, and books, have reported these as facts, not merely disseminated government press releases. The reliable sources we have cited attest to this. Do you have any sources for your interpretation? --Haemo (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Statements by US government sources are judged on their merits, like every other source. They are not automatically false any more than they are automatically true. In this case, there is no other reasonable hypothesis that fits the evidence. Peter Grey (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not bear the burden of providing any sources. It is those who are making unsubstantiated assertions who should do do, those who find it agreeable to their conscience to accuse 19 innocent people of mass murder, people who no one has proved to have committed the crime. Probably you are American because you take a cue from your government who has killed thousands of Afghans in response to 9/11, people who are entirely innocent of the crime of 9/11. When I say that there exists no evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the hijackers had boarded the airplanes, this is a statement of fact, not an interpretation of anything. Not a single source has actually claimed that these 19 individuals actually boarded the planes. The reason is that no one has seen them board the planes. That's why no "reliable source" actually says so. What media have done is to infer this fact from government declarations and secret evidence but inference is not a factual finding. You repeatdly cite reliable sources for the fact that they boarded the planes but you fail to cite a single one. Or is it, according to your opinion, sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia that a factoid was reported by corporate-owned media to make it true? And if the aim of Wikipedia is not the truth, then I would urge that each factual statement be clearly attributed to the particular corporate-parrot by "According to" and by referring to the source of the allegation. The present Article fails to do so and purports to set down facts that are mostly government-produced spin.--Sannleikur (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely required to provide reliable sources for interpretations of facts — the claims made in this article are not "unsubstantiated"; they are sourced to reliable sources, as our guidelines require. Whether or not the media is "corporate owned" has nothing to do with anything here — they are still reliable sources. Your "statements of fact" are your point of view — to paraphrase a famous essay, "you percieve your biases as neutral, and your assumptions as factual". Provide reliable sources for your interpretation, or nothing will come of this. --Haemo (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to facts Haemo and don't make blanket assumptions to put a good faith editor down. I just finished reading reading the report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" and Sannleikur is partially right. There is no proof that all the hijackers boarded. It is assumed they did. The only ones confirmed are at least one who sat in a jump seat and several who used ramp passes and pilot credentials to board instead of buying tickets. The only proof of the number of hijackers are the calls from the planes as no one saw them board. I'm not saying to do what Sannleikur asks but argue with facts instead of rhetoric. If you are going to say the RS support you without providing any in reply to his concerns you may as well not reply at all. Wayne (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I provided multiple reliable sources which state the terrorists were on the plane, complete with flight lists that placed them on them. The response has been that "they're faked" and the mainstream media is lying to us when they authenticated them. I'm not basing my stance on "rhetoric" — I'm basing it on reported facts. People who disagree with what has been reported have little else to go on save claims that the proof provided does not meet their standards — at no point in this discussion has anyone, ever, provided a reliable source as to this interpretation. That tells me a lot about what's going on here. --Haemo (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 38

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Conspiracy Theories

Rx StrangeLove, you have just responded to my good faith call for sources with this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html I am assuming good faith. Can you please point out the line in that article which backs up the existing edit? Bulbous (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. Been over this. RxS (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We could also source the statement that they are called "crackpot" theories, but... --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your dilligence. However, none of this supports the current edit. The challenged line says, "These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3]". The best support that you have offered is, arguably, that Bin Laden accepts credit for the attack. How does that prove that "political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers" believe that Al-Qaeda carried out the attack? If you are serious and interested in a balanced article, why not address this statement? Bulbous (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a summary of a subarticle. It is very difficult to precisely source that particular statement; you can source fragments of it from all over. For instance, this Time Magazine article can source the "media/journalists" part. However, it's un-necessary and onerous to source the whole shebang, since one can just read the sub-article. --Haemo (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that you find proper sourcing to be "onerous". But it is absolutely necessary! I didn't even remove the unsourced line. I merely added a fact tag in hopes that someone would research and defend the edit. It doesn't look like anyone has any interest in doing so, so I will be removing it. In addition, the Time magazine article you mentioned DOES NOT support the edit. Nowhere in it does it say that mainstream journalists... have concluded that the responsibility rests with Al Qaeda. Can you point out where it does? Bulbous (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it refers to "the passion" that many conspiracy theorists hold; and that they refer to it as the 9/11 Truth Movement. --Haemo (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Look at the part where it talks about the theories being "largely ignored" by the mainstream media. The point is that it's onerous because summary style doesn't require it. --Haemo (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What the article says is that "the 9-11 Truth Movement... has been largely ignored by the mainstream media". That is a far cry from saying that they believe that alternate theories are not credible, and that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda. Nothing in WP:Summary gives you license to ignore other policies. Actually, from WP:SUMMARY - The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This contentious line is debatable and MUST BE SOURCED. Bulbous (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It refers to the "passion" of conspiracy theorists as being largely ignored. It seems relatively clear to me what they're referring to, and only mentioning the Truth movement as examples of those being ignored. --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
So, we have no support for that statement whatsoever now? Bulbous (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the opposite of what I said... --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any belief that "These theories are generally not accepted as credible ..." is inaccurate? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An edit does not have to be proven false to be removed. It should never have been added in the first place without a proper source. Secondly, anything that is likely to be challenged is required to be sourced. And this line has been challenged. Bulbous (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I said belief, not proof. If there is no doubt it is accurate, it should remain until a reliable source is found. If there is doubt, that would be different. On the other hand, if this is removed, I would have no qualms about removing any statement which has an unsourced implication that there is a sane person who believes the conspiracy theories. (There's certainly no proof.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anything that is not sourced needs to be removed, from *all* articles, not just this one. However, there is a sourced poll that says that 36% of Americans believe in some alternative theory. (Presumably, the other 2/3rd are more interested in what time American Idol is on TV). That poll is currently being suppressed. Bulbous (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The hallmark of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist - the unreasonable belief that the other 64% cannot possibly be right, they must be ignorant or stupid. At least you didn't accuse them of being on the government's payroll. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, that 64% includes all that doubt some aspect of the mainstream theory. Personally, I doubt many aspects, but not the conclusion that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the four planes, and that there was no "controlled demolition". But even if the poll question were as quoted, it would not mean that the named groups accept any "alternative" theory as credible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to out-of-date figures. According to the more recent Scripps-Howard poll, its now 62% believe either LIHOP or MIHOP. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if we have a more recent poll, what possible grounds are there for it's exclusion? Especially when this discussion centred around adding a completely unsourced line about the beliefs about politicians and journalists who aren't free to think for themselves? Bulbous (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the title "Conspiracy Theories" needs to be changed. It's desultory and diminuative, as if every critical thinker that questions the "official" record of events is some kind of nutjob that sees the CIA in every corner of the room. This section should be retitled "Alternative Theories". Bulbous (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming term for these kind of theories in the media and academia are "conspiracy theories"; calling them "alternative theories" is misleading, and at odds with the normal term for these theories. Because you believe in a conspiracy theory does not make you a "nutjob", nor does the article imply as much. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Conspiracy Theories" is still a very poor term, and justifying it by its use in the media only helps prove the point. It implies that any person who has questions about the official record of events (as any critical thinker would) also believes in some kind of "conspiracy" involving the US Government. In fact, the official record of events did involve a conspiracy... albeit one involving solely Al-Qaeda. The word "conspiracy" makes absolutely no sense in this context. It's stictly derogatory. Bulbous (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not. It implies that they believe that there is some conspiracy at foot; by whom, and for what purpose, is entirely left up to the particular individual. For some, it is the US government shooting the Pentagon with a cruise missile. For others, it is the Israeli government planting demolition charges in the WTC. For still yet others, it is the Bush Administration covering up glaring incidents of negligence which could have prevented the attacks. Who is theorized to be responsible, and what they are responsible for varies greatly between individuals — however, the simple fact remains that the media and academia use the term "conspiracy theories" for these beliefs. It is far from "derogatory", and the endorsement of other terms for the theories, because some people do not like to be associated with the "Jews did 9/11" crowd is politically motivated. --Haemo (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well put, Haemo. Okiefromokla questions? 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is *exactly* the kind of misinterpretation that the term "conspiracy theories" generates, and the very reason why it needs to be changed. You've just automatically associated *any* alternative theory with some kind of complicity or malfeasance by some government. If a reasonable person looks at the facts and the official explanations of 9/11 and thinks, "Some of this doesn't add up", that doesn't mean that they should be automatically associate with the "Jews this, Bush that, Israeli the other". Any attempt to do so is a bad faith attack on reasonable cross-examination, of a kind typically generated by those who are ignorant of the facts. Bulbous (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I struggle to see how you read that interpretation into what I said. In fact, the "things just don't add up and are being ignored" viewpoint is explicitly mentioned — negligence, in investigation and accountability is still malfeasance. The "we're just asking questions" crowd is no less accusing a wide variety of government, academic, and media figures of pointedly ignoring "evidence" which they (as untrained laymen) believe is evidence that the "official story" is incorrect. This is no less a conspiracy than the belief that Giuliani ordered the towers demolished. --Haemo (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Haemo that "conspiracy theories" is the most used colloquial term. It is not, however, the best academic term one can devise. I am sure academics use it for marketing purposes, and not because of its inherent merits. I think "conspiracy" can better be replaced by "alternative" or "non-mainstream", and "theory" could better be described as: "hypothesis" or "viewpoint" or "opinion" or "interpretation". What is crucial about them, is not that they are conspiracies or theories, but that they differ from the mainstream account. Some of them are zero theory, just the opinion that the facts do not add up. That in itsself is not yet a theory. I therefor support what Bulbous is saying. However, at the moment this issue is more a symptom than a cause of what's wrong with the 9/11 page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with this page, it's in a consensual version and a small group of editors can't change that or hold the page hostage. RxS (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This page is POV. It is being held hostage by a large group of editors, using wikipedia policy selectively to defend their edits (or more likely, their reverts). Some of them don't mind sinning against "don't bite the newcomers", or "be civil". You are dominant by the Law of the strongest, not because you are right or because you are truly upholding wikipedia policy. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The big problem about this is that, it is not the truth that counts, it is verifiability. Si lapu lapu (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Si Lapu Lapu
Verifiability ? Veritas means' truth ! 81.69.50.139 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please remove "IT WAS A CONSPIRACY SO WE COULD GO TO WAR" write facts such as: ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 the Word Trade Center in New York … & so on first. We save the conspiracies for the bottom pages. 71.255.72.22 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Widespread confusion

I note that the article states there was "widespread confusion" the morning of September 11th. I was tempted to add a sentence to this, until I discovered the article is protected. Perhaps the administrators would consider making some small additions, if they feel they're warranted?

I distinctly remember NBC news reporting, shortly after the second tower was hit, that as many as ten airliners had been hijacked (unconfirmed report). Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that the original plan was to take ten planes simultaneously [65]. Although this piece of the confusion has been little-reported in the post-9/11 analyses, it seems to be traceable to the military training exercises underway the morning of the 11th, where bogus radar images were "injected" into NORAD tracking stations during a simulated hijacking scenario [66]. Richard Clarke also touched on this in his book.

It seems important to me, because it helps explain the inexplicably-slow response of the military to hijackings over the Capitol. Under normal circumstances, unauthorized flight paths over our most sensitive military headquarters would garner a response within MINUTES, not the hour it actually took. The only logical explanation, to my mind, is that air traffic controllers had no way to know which reports were real and which were part of the ill-timed military exercise.

The events of 9/11 remain enigmatic and of public interest precisely because there remain unanswered questions and the suspicion that not everything has been admitted. Certainly, the quick removal of the Bin Laden family on the 19th[67] and the hijacking simulation on the morning of the 11th are key pieces of the on-going puzzle. These CONTROVERSIES -- established facts that have not been explained -- are separate and distinct from the Wiki page on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories[68].

The main 9/11 article, in my view, should at least link to these key discussion points. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  3. ^ Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology[5] and updates[6]
  4. ^ [7]Frum, David, "David Frum's Diary" on the National Review Online Web site, October 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. post "Blogging Woodward (4)", accessed same day
Well, for one, that's written partly in first-person, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Second, 2 of your sources are other Wikipedia articles, which we don't use as sources. Words like "bogus," "ill-timed," "enigmatic," and words in ALL CAPS are unnecessarily dramatic. The second paragraph is all your opinion and most of the third paragraph is an improper synthesis of other sources ("key pieces of the on-going puzzle"). Mr.Z-man 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, I'm sorry if I misled you. The discussion above was meant as a "discussion," not as the actual proposed addition to the Wiki article on 9/11. I thought putting it on the Talk page would make that clear. I agree that first person narratives and all-caps are not appropriate for Wiki articles.
The links to other Wiki articles are exactly what I was suggesting be added to the main article. The backstories are out there, but nowhere on the main page is this mentioned. That seems like an oversight to me.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls

An edit has been made to the conspiracy theory section which I have two issues with:

The new text includes poll data information from a 2006 poll. I thought consensus has been that poll data becomes outdated and is therefore to be avoided.
It also tweaks the text to be in line with the reference and not the reference added to support the text. Isn't the conspiracy theory section supposed to be summary style of the supporting article?
Summary style does not exempt us from the need to reliably source the wording. If it is contentious, as this case most certainly is, then it must be sourced as instructed in WP:SUMMARY. I have no objections to references being added that support the edit, but I have not as yet seen even one. Bulbous (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted twice today and really don't want to get into an edit war so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Is this okay with everyone? --PTR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong, it's outdated. Some context would have to be provided and this isn't really the place for it. There's an article about the polls for example and the CT page of course. RxS (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see those polls in the Responsibility section. And they are not necessarily outdated, we could show that year by year the disbelief in the official theory is growing. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility

Don't know if the section is detailed enough, how much responsibility does rely on Saudi Arabia(where most the hijackers were from).I think its just as much a violant and terrorist region as iraq or afghanistan.Rodrigue (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert any nation is responsible for the attacks, so I don't know why we're talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation for that matter. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the only country charged in this article with any responsibility is the U.S. The article asserts that Osama bin Laden organized Arab mujahideen "with American government assistance." Of course this isn't true - the adventures of this little Arab Lord Fauntleroy and his small group of Arab foreigners were funded by Saudis. Sadly, people cannot resist equating U.S. assistance to the Pakistani ISI with U.S. assistance to Osama bin Laden. In the 1980s, Osama bin Laden did not contribute to the Afghan resistance in any meaningful way, was largely resented by native Afghans, and was far too small a figure to be on the radar of the CIA, let alone funded by the CIA. But people just love the irony of the U.S. funding its Public Enemy #1, so this myth will probably never die. 9591353082 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is its responsibility?, shouldn't it be mentioned as such. Rodrigue (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd think the host country would have some notable direct or indirect responsibilty for the atacks, considering how much focus there is on other co-conspiraters and they're state.Rodrigue (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Afghanistan, the then ruling clique the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden and his training camps. The fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals probably has more to do with Bin Laden, also a Saudi native, than it does with the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. They're smart enough to know better than to push it too hard with the U.S. as surely, had they been harboring Al Qaeda openly as the Afghans had been, a similar fate would have awaited them in the aftermath.--MONGO 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Streamline the lead a bit

In the lead, the passage that now reads:

On that morning nineteen terrorists[69] affiliated with al-Qaeda[70] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings.[71] The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;[72] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to WTC dust.[73] Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998 — most of whom were civilians.

seems unnecessarily clunky due to trying to fit too much information into one sentence. I propose a slight rewrite:

On that morning nineteen terrorists[74] affiliated with al-Qaeda[70] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175. Each team of hijackers included one who had had some pilot training. They intentionally crashed one airplane into each tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, and a third into the Pentagon building near Washington. On the fourth aircraft, passengers and crew members attempted to retake control from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.[75] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Both WTC towers collapsed soon after the impacts, causing extensive damage to nearby buildings,[76] and the Pentagon was seriously damaged. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and at least one person was determined to have died later from exposure to WTC dust.[73] Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998.

This elides a number of bits of information in the interest of presenting the basic facts smoothly. All those other details belong in the article body, I say, and indeed most of them are there. (I have also made a few changes to what is and isn't a link.)

I can't make this edit myself since the article is protected from us evil anonymous users (and no, I have no intention of registering at the present time), so I hope someone else will do so. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this proposal. --Haemo (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say in the paragraph, which flight was crashed into the Pentagon, which at Shanksville, which into the WTC. If you can reword it to specify that, then I'm open to changing the lead section. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor comment - shouldn't Flights and Flight be lowercase? Vrac (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a style issue and it makes sense both ways. I haven't checked the WP:MOS, but I think I see them capitalized elsewhere in Wikipedia in this sort of context. I still think that listing which flight was crashed where is a subject that belongs in the body, not the lead. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanently lock

The POV/conspiracy pushers for this article are just insane. I visit this talk page every now and then and it's the same old crap over and over. The wacked-out theories are worthless. To you POV pushers, please do something constructive for wikipedia (and society), and drop this topic and move on.

I suggest this article be permanently locked, along with its talk page. Nothing good can come from allowing either of these to be edited. All I see is a huge waste of everyone's time. Timneu22 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's pointless to discuss this. It's not going to happen. Ever, as it violates basically every principle of Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't permanently lock articles on Wikipedia, but I would like a rule that would limit the conspiracy pushers the ability to constantly harp about it on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see that too. Conspiracy pushers are basically (somewhat borderline) trolling when they bring up unreliable sources to push radical claims over and over (and continuously attack Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources), though some of these editors also make constructive edits so they can’t really be classified as "trolls". In extreme cases users who refuse to stop trolling could theoretically be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but if it isn't outright disruptive behavior over long periods it might not fly. Of course it goes without saying that any IP addresses or new users that troll and vandalize a lot can be reported. But to make a long story short, yes, I'm as annoyed by it as everyone else :). But lets not feed them too much. Okiefromokla questions? 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree A quick read of this section serves to illustrate which camp deserves censure. I haven't seen much trolling, except as written in the above paragraph (allegations of trolling IS trolling). Asking for a page to be permanently locked is just saying, "No more discussion. Everyone already knows everything about these incidents. Stop asking questions". Hopefully, pending regime change in the US will bring more hidden facts to light. It's definitely premature until after the elections. Bulbous (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
These folks aren't just "asking questions". They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit. People are more than welcome to ask questions - but that has not been what is going on. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Bulbous, you can certainly keep asking questions. By all means, try to find out the truth if you don't think the view based on seemingly reliable facts is correct. Write a book. Call government officials. Get in contact with others who share your view. Watch Fahrenheit 911. But keep it out of Wikipedia. We don't give credence to original research, speculation, and unreliable sources. We report what the reliable sources say (the accepted view of things), and that is all. None of these conspiracy theories are supported by reliable sources and most are based on some form of original research where the editor claims to come to a certain conclusion based on a long list of "facts" cited with unreliable sources - or none at all. Therefore, we cannot integrate these theories into a prominent place in the article as though they are accepted as plausible alternative explanations of 9/11, which, at the moment, they are not. That being so, these editors who continuously push for these theories on the talk page are being fairly disruptive. However, they are not exactly trolling, as I assume most of these editors at least don't intend to disrupt. Though if they push again and again as we have seen, it begins to look a little more like trolling. Okiefromokla questions? 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're getting several different discussions mixed up here. This section concerns permanently locking the article. Even if the motivation is thwarting "conspiracy theorists", the end result is that you will be locking out any future WP:Verifiable information as well. And so the proposal is only self-serving for those looking to close the book with the current "official" record of events. And that makes no sense from any perspective. Bulbous (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehem. Sorry, but im just an ordinary web-browser from Lithuania. Why don't you want to at least include a section about that conspiracy theory, which is, let's say a sorta likely theory, like "criticism" or so? I understand that you would do anything to keep everything the way it "should be". Thanks god i don't live in USA. Who knows, maybe i would have end up brainwashed like you are. Don't dare deleting my message, i'm looking forward to an answer. I hope that people who created wikipedia won't let wikipedia be controlled by people who should be in jails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP has an entire article about the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory section in this article links to it:
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
--PTR (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Golbez, I hear your frustration when you write: They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit — and I can well imagine your dismay. To be honest: I might also have made the mistake of accusing you of bad faith, were it not that I have seen members of my own family turn violently against "conspiracy theories" — who's good faith I do not question. My conclusion is that it is possible to be an intelligent individual, study 9/11 and conclude that there is nothing to worry about, no inside job. I've seen it happen so often. But, it remains for me hard to grasp. So I can well imagine that others would suspect you of foul play. Just as it is hard for you to imagine anyone genuinely believing it being an inside job and being intelligent and reasonable at the same time, so it may be hard to believe you are not a reptilian. This brainwashing is cleverly done, and its succes is at the same time the explanation for 9/11: they wouldn't have tried it if they didn't think they would get away with it. And they seem to be getting away, at least, for six years pretty much already. However, the struggle between the two camps is pretty much symmetric in arguing. The pro-mainstream wikipedians seem a majority, but this may be the result of that it's easier to "defend" one shared, false, story than dozens of potential alternative explanations. To be continued, I'm afraid... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, you misinterpret the point of this talk page and Wikipedia. We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. Okiefromokla questions? 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Notice this kind of off-topic discussion is exactly why I locked this section earlier. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Haemo and Okie, if you observe more accurately, I am doing the opposite: I am not pushing my belief, I am trying to stop you from pushing yours, so that this article may become a source of neutral information, and not cherry-picked facts which support the lies of the major perpetrators. I am not aiming for this page to say: "Bush did it." I want the page to have the bare facts -- all the facts -- and let the reader decide. It is my experience that the same facts will lead different people to different conclusions. I deplore that, but respect it. Let the facts speak. Stop interpreting. Stop censoring. Do wikipedia a favour. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Page must be tagged "neutrality disputed"

For formal reasons, this article (in the present VERY excentric) form, must be tagged to warn information seeking readers!
Compare to: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States!

Or do you even want to dispute the fact, that many of its details are controversial?
GH --125.24.208.245 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is not he same as neutrality. The fact that there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial is not sufficient for a demonstration that the article is non-neutral. Compare to evolution, where a much larger minority believe the factuality of the processes related on the page is also controversial, yet there is a featured article on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Haemo, your comparison does not work 100%. The dispute is not at the existence of the process of evolution, it is of the origin of life: Evolution#Origin_of_life which is in section 5.1 and is only four sentences long. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Even better, in Abiogenesis wikipedia uses the wording: the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. This is how I would like to see things frased. Can you point me to a place in wikipedia where it is said that life emerged from non-life, period? I would love to see the RS for that one! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)



You say:

...there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial..

  • You missed the point. The fact remains that, in America, there is a significant percentage of people who do not believe the process of evolution occurs. At all; period — to them, the claim that evolution occurs is controversial. Nonetheless, our article on evolution does not present it as anything other than fact, and that controversy does not make it non-neutral. Tenuous metaphorical appeals to a simile which I did not make does not change this fact. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware of the fact that even Fox and CNN have confirmed, a majority is convinced, that the official story is wrong. (Poll "Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence")
--81.169.155.23 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

agree we should tag it. Better would be to start attributing claims. A simple disclaimer in the lead, that this a majority view would also be helpful. For instance: this article describes the events from the point of view of government and mainstream sources. For alternate views, see...etc.etc. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "majority view" — is a view supported by reliable sources. There's a difference, which you fail to understand. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

definately should be tagged... It's a load of rubbish that terrorists did it.. Your friggin government did it to your own country to give themselves a reason to attack the world... Just think about it, an enemy without borders, What better way to give yourself reason to take on whatever country you wish.. I just hope us aussies get out of it before it blows up in our face as well... I feel sorry for americans.. their own government kills them, lies to them, and there are fools out there that still vote for them and back them up.. If the attacks happened 1: show me footage of a plane flying into the pentagon.. i might change my mind then.. I think its pretty clear that there is a large group of people Worldwide, not just in the US that dispute the attacks and thus it is unjust to try and brainwash school kids and society by feeding them articles like this as shear truth.. If this is what wikipedia has become, its a joke.. God Bless America, i hope your next president is a hell of alot better...Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • agree: NPOV tag — Dear Haemo (above), I agree the article is built on RS's but that does not make it neutral, since a lot of sources which oppose this article, which I call also reliable, are excluded. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank your grandfathers for risking or sacrificing their lives in WW-2 freeing the Netherlands from Hitler. Now that America does no longer exist, and has become part of the American Union, and the Netherlands has been conquered by the European Union via corrupting its politicians, defying the people's referendum to stop assimilating ... maybe we can again come to eachothers aid. What we need, is freedom of information. That is what wikipedia is about. Free information. This page is trying to keep half of the information hidden. Stop hiding, or tag it. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk FAQ needed

Talk:Muhammad has a FAQ subpage covering common suggestions that conflict with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps this article needs something similar: It could cover such arguments as "This article should be less biased towards the mainstream account and talk more about the cover-ups and conspiracy theories". We could then insert the usual consensus response to these arguments based on Wikipedia policy: original research, reliable sources, and so on. This way, hopefully, we can avoid such off-topic discussions in the future.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here.

The above is the banner on the Muhammad page, some form of which we could add here. Okiefromokla questions? 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why haven't you moved that out of your userspace yet? That FAQ is outstanding. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because there was much bemoaning and gnashing of teeth when I proposed it last time; plus it's not really finished. I frankly just use it as a Coles' Notes version of a reply for virtually any question. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's set a date to move it out. It still needs a little work, but it looks good. I just did a test edit, you can see what you think. How about Mid feb? Okiefromokla questions? 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem with this FAQ. It makes the mistaken suggestion that "minority" or "majority" points of view are determined by the number of reliable sources supporting that viewpoint. This is not accurate. Minority of majority viewpoints are determined by the number of adherents, not the number of sources espousing that particular view. In this particular case, some 38% of people believe in some kind of alternate theory. If even one reliable source can be found for an alternative theory, then that viewpoint needs to be given a weight according to the number of people that believe it (which in this case would be significant), not a minimal weight as given due to a single source. Bulbous (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad no reliable source can be found. That people believe in a theory without a reliable source is not reason enough to include it. --Golbez (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this particular matter is the overwhelming suppression of information related to the incidents. Hopefully, with regime change pending, more facts and information will come to light. This is what we need to be prepared for. Bulbous (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"There's no reliable sources because people are suppressing them" is not a valid reason to forego our requirement for reliable sources. Sorry. --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested anything of the sort. Reliable sources rule the day; I know that. My point was related to undue weight. Right now, there is a definite lack of reliable sources for a lot of the alternative theories. So they should not be included. But reliable sources will appear as time wears on and the information becomes more readily available. Bulbous (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Your faith is strong; what would have to occur to convince you that perhaps your view of a massive conspiracy being covered up by the U.S. government is wrong? --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of mindlessness that is paralyzing this article. But thanks, you have just solidly proven my point about the "Conspiracy Theories" section. The wording needs to be changed to "Alternative Theories", so that yokels like you can understand what that entails. Just because someone questions *some* aspect of 9/11, be it something as small as a question of timeline, does not automatically imply they believe in a conspiracy of any kind. Your attempt to paint me, without any basis in fact, as someone that believes in a "massive conspiracy being covered up by the U.S. government" is an insult, and an obvious attempt to obscure the truth. You're not helping. Bulbous (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hold on hold on, I wasn't trying to do that. I saw your line about ... "Hopefully, with regime change pending, more facts and information will come to light." I figured the only facts the current 'regime' would want to hide would be ones negative for it, and I was responding to that. Let's calm down here. Clearly I was mistaken and I apologize. --Golbez (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The point I am trying to make is that skepticism over any part of the "official" story does not automatically equate to "conspiracy". And my suggestion about regime change bringing more facts to light is merely one of politics. If one party is glossing over facts that might cast them in a negative light, it's just a matter of politics that another party might use that to their advantage. Isn't that a reasonable possibility? Bulbous (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, does it? Bulbous is being fairly reasonable in that he aknowledges there aren't reliable sources for these "alternate theories" so they can't be given creedence here. It doesn't affect this article whether Bulbous believes there will one day be reliable sources for a US government coverup or not. So let's move on. Okiefromokla questions? 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, this FAQ page would only seek to remind people of Wikipedia policy. For instance, one of the question I recently added was:

  • "What about alternate accounts of events? Most concerns include disputes over the roles played by Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, the United States Government, various ethnicities, and other organizations or individuals.
  • 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."

In another example, calling the attacks terrorism, it is explained that the current credible sources (major world governments and the United Nations) consider it terrorism, so Wikipedia does as well. There would be nothing on this FAQ page that is not fundamentally based in Wikipedia's policy. It will simply seek to bring to light that some of the common arguments brought up on the talk page are in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. That way, we don't have to explain it over and over here. Okiefromokla questions? 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I was just pointing out what I feel is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy in the draft FAQ. Namely, that weight is given according to the number of sources that support a viewpoint, rather than the number of people that hold that viewpoint. The rest of it is rather good. Bulbous (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I approve of this. Sadly, people who constantly argue for changes don't seem to be the type to 'give up' in the face of common sense and logic. I can see it now... "I don't read FAQs created by government shills!" --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's actually neither of the two; it refers to adherence within its particular field of study. Given that this is a historical or journalistic event, the relevent experts are historical researchers on the subject and journalists — not "number of people". Otherwise, we'd see 50+% of the evolution article devoted to creationist criticisms of it. --02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest. I'm not sure what is being proposed by the last few comments. If someone wants to make helpful edits to the draft, feel free. I'm sure Haemo doesn't mind. I've been working on it some. Okiefromokla questions? 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Tarage, I would like you to consider that the debate between "loyalists" and "truthers" is completely symmetric, except that one of them is wrong: -both sides accuse the other of not thinking straight; -both sides accuse the other of selective fact picking and ignoring other facts. We should not write what a majority believes, but we should write that which is substantiated by trustworthy independent sources. On controversial topics, though, a little modesty might suit you well. If you wish not to spend so much time arguing about this and other articles, maybe it's time to self-reflect a little. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Xiutwel, have you ever tried to explain someonething to someone who simply doesn't understand? For example, lets use math. You try to explain how to solve a simple math problem to your friend, but every step along the way, they repeat the same questions over and over again. "What is this X for?" "How can you move that to the other side of the = sign?" "I don't believe you can add a negative number!". Eventually, you get tired of being nice and civil, and just simply wish to move on with your life. That is where we are right now. We've had so many pages, so many weeks and months spent arguing the same points over and over again because one or two people continue to come along and refuse to accept that we have already talked all of this to death. You may not like the answer you got, but Wikipedia has specific rules that must be followed. We have followed these rules to the 'T', and yet someone will always come in and start the same argument again. This FAQ is a nifty idea, as it might perswade some of these people, but you have to admit yourself that you know of those who will come in and just argue to argue. THAT is who I believe will ignore all of this. THAT is who I see completly skipping the archives and using the same tired defeated argument again and again. Yes, this is a controversial topic, but you have to admit that the vast VAST majority of the issues people have with this article have been debated and debated and debated to the point of resolution or stalemate. And it is the ones who don't understand this, who post the same diatribe, who soapbox, that I am refering to. And I have yet to see any from 'my' side who act this way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply don't see it. All I see is the same thing over and over again, and I'm sick of it. Sometimes, you just have to give up a lost cause. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am very grateful for the effort you make to illuminate your point. Yes, I know how it feels to unsuccesfully explain something, and I can well imagine your frustration! About ignoring the archives: it does not seem reasonable to me to ask a newcomer to read 37 talk pages before editing. Instead of a FAQ, which we will not reach consensus on just as on most other things, I would like to suggest you write an index of topics, referring to the correct archives. A "frequently made edits" (FME) . Then, when someone reopens a debate which YOU have seen many times, you can simply respond with: Please see e.g. 9/11 FME#FBI wanted poster which would list e.g. 5 occurrences in several archives. But don't presume the debates in the past have reached consensus. They haven't; they just died, killed by the Law of the strongest, as fire dies when the energy is spent. And they will keep rekindling forever, for you A-folk are sadly mistaken, I think. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ that Haemo has compiled already includes an archive such as what you described, directing the reader's attention to prior discussions on the topics. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my suggestion is to have no more than an index, so exclude the summary, which may be (seen as) unfair by some. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The summary simply directs the reader to policies relevant to the archived discussions. Our goal with the faq is not to circumvent policy. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why is not used more often? I am not very happy with the current version, see e.g. User_talk:Haemo#draft_911_faq. I can respect the ones using the faq being biased, but the faq ahould be neutral. The major problem will remain that discussions seldom end in consensus, ergo, they were not finished, ergo we will keep busy on this page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, you should not have brought that up on Haemo's main talk page. A better place to cite your concerns would have been at User Talk:Haemo/Draft FAQ. And that would be a good place for anyone who wants to discuss changes to the FAQ. Okiefromokla questions? 03:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

September 11th Task Force

For those who are interested, there is currently an ongoing proposal for a September 11th task force with-in WP:TERRORISM. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia wake-up call (6): reliable sources need to be independent

query

  • Where in wikipedia policy does it say you can delete whole sections of a talk page without any argument why you did so? (diff)

I strongly object to it.

When it was previously deleted for WP:BLP-reasons: no problem, point taken. But this seems to me to be undermining the good spirit of wikipedia.— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

independent RS

There exist, in the minds of the people on this planet, basically two paradigms concerning 9/11:

  • A) Some moslims, hating our freedoms, conspiring in Afghanistan, decided to liberate Saoudi Arabia from America by attacking the Pentagon using box-cutters. Luckely for the free world, they hit the part which was nearly empty. They had to be sentenced for this criminal act, but being suicide terrorists, they were dead. Therefore we tracked their leader into Afghanistan, "not distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida when it comes to terrorism".
  • B) A complex grid of corrupt (factions of) intelligence organisations, secret networks producing opposing Presidency candidates, and business interests who also dominate all the major editorial decisions of all major new media, desired a "new Pearl Harbor", a "War that will not end in our lifetimes", because anno 1990, with the Cold War gone, their absolute control might crumble.

What the wikipedia community has done, in my view, is: assume view A is correct, unless proven otherwise, and design a brilliant narrative based mostly on RS's, which happen mostly to be controlled by the very same people who are the prime suspects in paradigm B. What should have been done, is treating both paradigms with respect, giving fair (not equal) treatment to both, and stick to the bare facts, not the interpretations thereof.

Despite our media being centrally controlled to a large extent, view B has arisen and spread and grown over the years based almost exclusively on snippets of information found in those same controlled mass media, expanded by witness testimony like William Rodriguez, Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer etc.

Now, I had assumed our guidelines and policies would require that any RS used to claim Verifiability of a fact (an event or its interpretation) would have to independent of interests involved in the matter. Our rules say not so. Not that I can see.

  • Thus: I stand corrected: this 9/11 page is (in my opinion) a distortion of the truth, but fully compliant with wikipedia policy, which does not require independent sourcing.

Watch for example this interview given by Aaron Russo to Alex Jones:

...in which Russo describes how a member of a rich and well known family tells him in 2000 (!) about "an event that's gonna happen" leading to a war "in Afghanistan and Irak", and a man-hunt in caves, never finding the terrorists.

I STRONGLY object to the wording in view A. That is highly insulting, sarcastic, and scewed. If you wish to have an even sided debate, do not start with such rubbish. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if you feel insulted. I did not intend that. It can be taken as sarcastic, but most of the frases which make it look weird are direct quotes from famous politicians. It is hard for me to write neutrally on this. Please, however, formulate your version. I've stricken mine. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, Xiutwel, if you want your opinions here to be respected, please return the favor. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

enhance the guidelines

proposal: "if a RS has interests in the topic at hand, all claims made by that source must be attributed to it, and not taken for granted in writing wikipedia." — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to discuss this change to a fundamental policy on the policy's talk page — not here. We simply don't have authority to make that kind of change. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, will do! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See below what those same RS are also reporting, but which is carefully omitted from the article by wikipedians who are afraid of... what? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV / missing facts

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I call upon wikipedia editors to help compile a list of facts which are omitted from the article. Most of these facts are called factoids because they do not support the view represented in the article, being that it was an external attack. Please include comments on the facts, such as sources, reasons for deleting of including, etc. Please sign any contribs to the list.

For general discussion on this idea, please use the second subsection.

list

meta discussion

First, you've provided no reliable sources for these items. Second, some of these items belong on the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 Attacks or 9/11 Commission discussion pages. Third, you've not said what changes you'd like to discuss making to the article. Remember this page is not for discussing the topic but for discussing what changes you'd like to incorporate into the article. Since, I'm sure you don't just want to add this list, is there some specific text you'd like to discuss adding to the article? --PTR (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of these "facts" would be useless even with a source. They are circumstantial and can be explained by any large number of things and don't obviously point to a coverup in the government. It constitutes orginal research to piece together even the few of these facts that you would be able to find reliable sources for and make a general claim based on those events. This is not what Wikipedia does. Xiutwel, since you are told at every turn that your constant pushing of this violates Wikipedia policy and you still push for it, it seems obvious that you have not actually read wikipedia's policies. I will put an excerpt of Wikipedia:No Original Research here:
Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
Okiefromokla questions? 16:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether you find them useless or not, if reliable sources could be found, then they could be included in the article - probably without any conclusions drawn (unless those were sourced as well). Bulbous (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
PTR, I will not trouble myself with finding RS for these facts, as they will be deleted according to Okie's reasoning: "circumstantial". Or as others would say: "this fact suggests a conspiracy". So, even when the wikipedian who includes them does not make an OR conclusion about it, the material gets deleted. Please note that it easy to find a reliable source which would claim any of the list of facts above to be "circumstantial", but then that would merely say that this is the opinion of such source. I feel it a sin to omit facts from the article if RS exist, when they (seem to) support "conspiracy" claims. Facts are facts. If we only include those facts which match our presupposed paradigm, then we are a snake biting its own tail (tale). — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They are all factoids with no meaning or context (many are not even true), continuing to push CT POV here is against consensus (and policy) and is at some point disruptive. They don't belong in the article and adding them here is just an attempt to debate the issues and advance a POV. Unless someone has a compelling reason not to, these sections should be removed (or moved to your talk page)...RxS (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear - these statements don't belong in the article because they are unsourced - not for POV or any other reason. If they can be sourced, then they can be added. If someone removes a reliably sourced edit, then we have recourse to mediation (where they will lose). But if you aren't interested in finding sources for the material and properly presenting it, I am going to have to agree that there is not much point in posting it in the first place. Bulbous (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't belong because they are just a list of factoids, there are hundreds...thousands of other factoids that could be added. These in particular are not random factoids, but factoids selected to advance a POV (conspiracy theories)...that's the heart of the matter and why they won't be added. RxS (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Strangelove, you say I select them to advance a theory. I say you deselect them to advance your theory: the current version of the article. Can you see a similar, but opposite, pattern here? The current article is way POV, in my perception. I could go and find RS for many of these facts, but you and others would start revert-warring. I suppose that you are so convinced about your 'truth', that based on that conviction you will dislike and renounce any information which contradicts it. If it is contradictory to "the Truth", it can hardly be irrelevant to this article — how wrong am I on this? Sometimes I don't expect we can reach agreement in our lifetimes... In the meantime, let's put the NPOV tag up. And, how about creating a list page for the fact(oid)s for which 'we' have no place in this article? Title: List of news reports concerning the events of 9/11. In respect for the 9/11 victims, nothing could be better than objective information about such facts, and (sourced) hypotheses of how they can be explained (other than a government conspiracy). Or will you prefer having these fruitless debates, even wishing to delete statements from talk pages, which would require other editors to do the same work (talk) over and over again? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, factoid is a good term for them. Paraphrasing wikt:-oid, "similar to, not necessarily exactly" a fact.
Those aren't news reports. If sourced (from news reports, or other reliable sources) they would be selected excerpts of news reports, which could still be refused a listing in the article under WP:SYNTH.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, you are pushing your POV. I've added some news reports, and I am putting the tag up. I predict someone will take it down pretty soon, as if there were consensus that the article is fine. But that's on his/her conscious, then. Please do not remove this [tag] until the dispute is resolved. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) // Arthur, I see now that the current article is, mutatis mutandis, in violation of WP:SYNTH. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Arthur is pushing policy. You are pushing disruptive nonsense. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Others have pointed something out well, I think: These "factoids" make up a small selection of information assembled by Xiutwel to push this POV. There are many facts that, when assembled with just the right ammount of certain facts ommited, can make anything seem possible. So, without going further, this discussion is moot. Xiutwel's proposals are always in violation of WP:OR and WP:RS and even WP:NPOV, and are frankly mildly disruptive. I second either removing this section or freezing it as an archive so others can see how it turned out. Okiefromokla questions? 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ice Cold Beer, I would like you to give some more elaborate rebuttal of my argument. Okie, what can be OR about saying that a passport was reported found? I have not provided all RS's yet, because I am assuming you know most of these facts, and the controversy is exactly as RxS is writing: "we will delete these facts whether they comply with policy or not, because we BELIEVE they are irrelevant" . I think this means there can be no consensus, not even when there are a dozen of you and only one of me. Please someone put the NPOV tag back up. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How many times do we have to keep arguing about the same tired soapboxes? If you can go through the entirity of the archives and prove to me that none of this has ever been brought up before, I'll step asside. However, if it has, and has been debated, and debated, and debated, as I suspect it has, then I expect you to let it go. Stop raising dead arguments already... --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that my points are new. My problem is that a majority just brushes aside valid arguments and by Law of the strongest has made the article into what it is now, and what I believe it should not be. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was naive enough some while ago to get involved in editing an article about 9/11. I found the whole experience so unpleasant that I didn't log into wikipedia for nearly a year. I know there have been other editors who have had similar experiences and have come away feeling bullied and abused. So when it comes to whether something has been debated before, let's just say that very often the standard of previous debates has had quite a lot to be desired. In any case, it is in the nature of wikipedia that editors come and editors go. Therefore it is not unreasonable to revisit particular issues. There are some guidelines to this effect and I can dig them up for you if anyone needs to see them. ireneshusband (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I got to the point about what Alex Jones has to say on this issue and decided then that what we have here is a whole lotta non-science..."disinfomation agents?"[129]--MONGO 02:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you are no fan of Alex Jones, but are you denying he gave the warning? Do you think the video's of that warning are perhaps part of some conspiracy to discredit people, then? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All you've constructed here is a set of factoids which, if you put them all together and squint really hard might incline a thinking person to say "so what" — the only way they have any coherent relevance to the article is if you piece them together into a narrative which is a conspiracy theory. That's what you're asking us to do, and what you're asking us to change the article to reflect. Naturally, there are no reliable sources doing so, so it's basically an exercise in original research. Factoids which only make sense in the article if you weave conspiracy theory to explain them are not relevant unless you can find reliable sources doing said weaving. Otherwise, you're violating Wikipedia's fundamental policies. --Haemo (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You have voiced your opinion eloquently. I am not asking for the article to reflect a government conspiracy, I am asking for it to stop unduely reflecting the opposite. Would Condoleezza Rice make a claim which was reported in a RS, inclusion would not be a problem. Would former ministers of Britain and Germany --both G8 countries-- make a claim, reported in a RS, then what? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not only do the "factoids" need to be validated before they are fit to be included in the article, but there also needs to be a precedent for their use in an analysis of what happened. In some cases, in my personal opinion, the "factoids" are indeed just that. They are spurious. However in others they are easily verifiable and bring up very serious questions.

The passport-on-top-of-the-building story was not an obscure and barely noticed event. It was a significant factor in the public's acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative and is therefore of unquestionable historical importance. Moreover it cannot be dismissed as an innocent error on the part of the media because the story was provided by an assistant director of the FBI several days after the event. I don't think any conclusions should be drawn about this unless a reputable source is cited to support the point, but even so it should definitely be included in the article, albeit without comment.

I appreciate the importance of the "no original research" rule and in general I support it. However when it becomes "original research" to say that the fact that a building can still be seen standing behind a reporter who is describing its unexpected collapse is evidence of prior knowledge, then one has to acknowledge that there is something wrong with how our society evaluates information and that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps the reality is that such a fact may have to be put on hold as far as the article is concerned, but there is no reason why it should not at least be put on a to-do list of potential contents waiting for someone to find an authority figure who has managed to bring him or herself to state the obvious. Therefore this list is useful and should be taken seriously. ireneshusband (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken solely as a list, these "factoids" as some have called them, push an overall POV. But properly sourced statements that are worked into the appropriate section do not push a POV. Any inference you draw from that is your own. Let's deal with the merits of each edit on its sources. If you want to revert it based on the fact you disagree with it, then you have recourses under WP policy. Reversion isn't one of them. Bulbous (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In these discussions we run again and again in epistemological questions that are dificult to tackle without proper training. Analisis of a fact needs a balance between induction and deduction (i.e. the selection of relevant facts must be guided by the heuristic hypotesis but the heuristic hypothesis must be based on the relevant facts and coherent with any other fact). Once this process from particular to general and from general to particular is iterated many times we obtain a theory that is self-coherent and fits with every known fact (relevant and irrelevant). What conspirationist people do is to hide their heuristic hypotesis, then to simulate that they are gathering facts in a non biased way, and finally use these arbitrarily gathered facts -while ignoring any other- to confirm the hidden hypotesis. Then they come to this page to claim and rant. Please, read "The looming tower" from Lawerence Wright and once you manage to explain how the proven facts explained in the book can be included in your theories, then come back.--Igor21 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop working on your list on this page, move it to your userspace. There's clearly no consensus for it's inclusion and it's just disrupting this page. I'll move it for you if you'd like...RxS (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that some of these editors are correct. If you are looking to get the list into the article as a list, I'm afraid you are not going to have much luck. However, if that is merely a collection of individual items that you intend to source and work in to the article (each in the relevant sections), then you should be able to. Step one would be to impeccably source the items. I'd do it one item at a time. But you should use your own talk page as a sandbox until such time as you edit or intend to edit the actual article. Bulbous (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Move them, please. But keep in mind that I have been doing research on most of these claims that have been cited so far, and feel that many shouldn't be included. For example, the BBC reporting that the building was collapsed is not a relevant part of the 9/11 attacks. It was just a hiccup in the press coverage due to chaos that ensued that day. Others are like that, as well: They are not relevant to the article. When put alone outside of this conspiracy theory idea, some of these facts/factoids are of little importance, and don't need to be included. Okiefromokla questions? 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also found some problems with the sources themselves, some of which are pretty bias and tell one snipit of fact without the whole story, which I discovered upon looking further. So upon such research, it's obvious that even put together, these "sourced" factoids aren't very convincing of a conspiracy theory. Some of the more radical claims are not ever going to be sourced, so I need not even bother talking about those. Also, citing commentary from the people who "don't believe the official story is true" has notability and RS issues, even when it's the German prime minister. Is he an expert? (though that partcular fact, if sourced, could fit into the "International Reaction" section.) Again, these should be moved to Xiutwel's userspace. Okiefromokla questions? 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"For example, the BBC reporting that the building was collapsed is not a relevant part of the 9/11 attacks. It was just a hiccup in the press coverage due to chaos that ensued that day."
Yes, I agree with you and Bulbous and you about putting the list on a user page, but I can't let you get away with dismissing a serious argument so casually and without providing a coherent argument of your own. ireneshusband (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[[Image:Deweytruman12.jpg|right|thumb|The media gets breaking news wrong all the time -RxS (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]]
Sounds pretty coherent to me. Breaking news makes mistakes all the time, see Florida, circa November 2000. Perhaps someone told the BBC that all WTC buildings had collapsed, not knowing there was a seventh across the street. The fact that they reported it doesn't actually ... mean anything. Who would warn the BBC? For what reason? Why the BBC? None of it makes sense, and the significance of the mistake is nil. --Golbez (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Your theory is interesting! But you seem to claim the BBC reported that all the WTC buildings collapsed. They didn't. They said: Salomon Brothers building =nr7. But, years after the fact, when it was "big news" that this error was made, they did think of a plausable explanation for their error (see my sources above). But then again they would, wouldn't they: if they would not do so, they would have to report that someone had foreknowledge. Which no one could have, because WTC7 collapsed at an unpredictable time due to damage. (But demolition experts, when seeing the collapse, recognize it as demolition. They can be wrong.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Xiutwel here: I've been away a while. In any simple discussion such as this, there are 3 viewpoints: pro, contra and undetermined. Let's call these: A, B and C. "A" would be one viewpoint, "B" the opposite, and "C" would describe both viewpoints, examing their merits perhaps but not reaching a conclusion. In wikipedia, we usually adopt approach C unless view A or B is seen as insignificant. Now assume that on a given topic X, not necessarily being the current 9/11 page, has historically been written in the narrative "A", assuming it was correct. Any fact "F" which at first hand might seem to conflicting with "A" will now been examined and some explanation will be searched and found to understand it. Since A is correct, it will follow that "F" is not very important. This process will repeat itsself over and over. Now suppose that "A" was a mistake, and "B", which was not known at first, turns out to be more correct. After years and years, view "A" will have evolved into a complete paradigm. How can such a paradigm shift? It is next to impossible: any new fact will keep being dismissed. Turning back to 9/11, I will now quote some remarks from the above — please let me know when you think they're pulled out of context:

  • Haemo (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC): ...set of factoids...the only way they have any coherent relevance to the article is if you piece them together into a narrative...
  • RxS (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC): they don't belong because they are just a list of factoids, there are hundreds...thousands of other factoids ... not random factoids, but factoids selected to advance a POV (conspiracy theories)...and why they won't be added.

(end quotes) This is how wikipedia operates, which is professional, and which is the same way the major media operate. This is why our reliable sources keep repeating their narrative which is also reflected in the narrative of the current version of the article. In this narrative it is not so very interesting when some people refuse to testify under oath. Or that the crime of the century, for which we went to war to avenge it, is not mentioned on the search warrent for the culperite. But suppose now, this is not on 9/11, would it not theoretically be possible that a view is wrong? Over the centuries, we have had to flip hundreds of times in our mindset on issues which had been stable and accepted for generations. Wikipedia is a very important source of information. Even journalists often start at wikipedia when they need to know something. Would our articles not benefit by including all information, not only that which we believe to be relevant, but also what is only deemed relevant by some? By the mechanism which is worded above, wikipedia is selectively excluding all fact(oid)s which might lead someone into creating conspiracy theories. But i.m.o. that makes the article biased. This bias is based on the assumption (which may be a correct one) that the paradigm expressed in the article corresponds to reality. But what if "we" 're wrong? What if? We would never find out, would we? Compare the article on Abiogenesis; it says: [It is] the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. Because there is no absolute certainty to any scientific theory. Certainty is only found in math, and even there we sometimes err. The bottom line is: if we want to uphold narrative "A", in stead of position "C", we need a RS which says so. A RS which is independent, has no vested interests, and is (for practical purposes) infallable. If such a RS cannot be found, I propose to abandon narrative A as being the only possible one. Make some room for B, and with it, the corresponding facts, sourced and counterbalanced by possible explanations other than conspiracy. But let the judge, the reader, see the complete files, and not that we choose for him/her. That would be OR. Agree? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We are selectively excluding content by filtering them through reliable witnesses and experts working in their field. That does make it biased, biased toward reliable and expert article content. We would not be better off by including all information: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a publisher of original thought. Inclusion of everything someone thinks is a fact would make Wikipedia useless. RxS (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; Wikipedia is not a collection of facts which may, or may not, be relevant to a given subjects. Part of the job of an encyclopedia is to determine which facts are relevant, and which ones aren't — however, we aren't the individuals to make those judgment calls. Instead, we rely on reliable sources to connect facts to subjects; if you want to include a fact, find a reliable source which connects it as relevant and important to the subject. Because you cannot do this, you have instead changed tactics to argue that we need a different standard of sources — naturally, this level of sourcing is inherently impossible to ascribe to, thus you argue that we should just abandon our requirements for reliable sources. This is at adds with Wikipedia policy in a number of ways, and is fundamentally unacceptable. In the many, many times you have argued this, or other similar points, it's clear that you don't have a problem with this article — you have a fundamental problem with the policies laid out for Wikipedia as a whole by its owners. I might then suggest that this is untenable, and you might find it a more productive use of your time to edit elsewhere, where your efforts can be accepted. --Haemo (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is never going to end is it? Even if the 'god' of Wikipedia came down himself and said "Let it go", this is going to continue, isn't it? How depressing... --Tarage (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is depresingly one sided - even mainstream news is censored with OR as argument. "a hiccup in the press coverage due to chaos that ensued that day"? Give me a break... you have a source for that? Sickening, but i don't expect better from wikipedia anymore. (btw, don't take that as a personal attack, the behavior is symtomatic.) --Striver - talk 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source? That's the point here: There are reliable sources for the most widely-accepted view of 9/11. About the BBC coverage issue: It's the easy (and, frankly, the most logical) explanation that one person overheard a fireman say "this building looks like it's going to collapse" and eventually BBC got something that says "this buildings has collapsed." It's ridiculous to speculate that BBC is part of a some world-wide conspiracy to take down the twin towers, start the new world order and convince everyone that UFOs and happy Iranians don't exist. Forgive the sarcasm, but I am tired of this discussion. To those who want to push an "alternate theory," please read carefully Wikipedia's Policies, and don't discuss policy changes on this page. There are ways to propose changes to policies, so feel free to contact an established editor on their talk page if you need to know what to do, or if you want clarification on a policy. At this point, I would suggest that we deny recognition to editors who don't wish to take Wikipedia's policies seriously, or who refuse to actually read Wikipedia's policies after being directed to them on numerous occasions. I propose we close this section with an archive template. All in favor? Okiefromokla questions? 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. I'm sick of the ignorance of Wikipedia policy and refusal to cease the pointless soapboxing and tired old arguments. It's time we just say enough. Then again, I've said this before, and no one ever listens... --Tarage (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Aye. The whole BBC thing is symptomatic of the whole thing. The reporter was probably freaking out, while surrounded by people freaking out, in the middle of a global freakout...and people want to assign some deep meaning to a mistake they made. More editors should read WP:V and how Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. And we need to start enforcing the This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. warning at the top of the page. RxS (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. There will always be those who refuse to get the point. If there had been reliable sources provided to support these arguments instead of just complaints that Wikipedia policy was itself part of the conspiracy, the topic might have warranted more discussion, but this is clearly not the case. Wikipedia cannot be expected to lower its expectations on source validity in order to accommodate these theories. And as far as the BBC ordeal goes, consider Occam's Razor. What is more likely: a globally-coordinated effort to fabricate an international incident, relying on hundreds of military personnel, government agents, and/or journalists worldwide to carry it out who have all remained either tight-lipped or completely ignorant of their own involvement for the last six and a half years; or a miscommunication due to widespread panic in the wake of the fact that half of lower Manhattan had just been destroyed? I seem to remember reports on that day that the Sears Tower had also been targeted by a hijacked plane out of Milwaukee,[130] but I suppose that being as records of such miscommunication do not fit into the world-spanning conspiracy which was weaved together after the fact, the mention of such counterexamples will fall on deaf ears. I say so, because it would certainly seem the same attitude has been displayed towards WP policy. I vote to close this topic immediately. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
<<<comment here was deleted by Haemo (diff)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)>>>

NPOV / missing facts (2)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(subsection to make editing easier) ; defining consensus

Hi all! ; Okie archived the section above. I feel happy about that, because the discussion was not really going anywhere new — yet, and became rather lengthy for me to grasp, let alone for newcomers.

  • However, I see the reasons given are:
  1. per consensus,
  2. WP:SOAP, and
  3. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
When I look at the section above, I do not see what I would call consensus. I see a majority of wikipedians satifsfied with the current status of the article, and a minority displeased. I would not call that consensus. If anyone can point me to a definition of consensus in wikipedia guidelines which is applicable to the present situation on this talk page, please let us know here: — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(subsection to make editing easier) ; agree to disagree

The best consensus I hope to achieve in the short term, is to agree to disagree. That would give us all a lot of rest on this talk page! In the article, I would like to see that reflected as such:

  1. preferrably, by attributing all interpretations in the article to RS, in stead of to wikipedia. (Currently, major interpretations such as "who carried out the attack, and why" are in the narrative, thus attributing these interpretational claims to the wikipedia community (and therefor even also to myself, for which I will not stand.))
  2. alternatively, by a preamble to the article, saying: "This article reflects the mainstream account of the events, as is widely accepted and as reported by reliable sources."
  3. the bad option: the dispute flag

Are there more options? I propose to start by option 2, a preamble, I really strongly wish such a preamble and will try to make such edit in the week or so to come; please give me your suggestions for the wording? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(subsection to make editing easier) ; fact picking

I was "accused" (no insult taken) earlier of fact picking. I admit to listing very specific facts, namely those that have made me doubt the official version. On the other hand, there is fact selection on the other side, admittedly so; let's call that the Narrative-driven Fact Selection Mechanism (NFSM).

In principle, my highest excitement would be to include in, any article, any fact which I feel is true; but I understand this gives rise to edit-warring, so I abondon that and I fully concur with the Wikipedia rule that facts must be sourced by a RS — when they are (likely to be) challenged. Second, I also understand, for clarity and readability, that certain facts MUST be omitted. If we were to include "all known facts to mankind" on a given subject in its corresponding article, the article would become too long and unreadable.

But, arisen from these noble intentions, I think something has now gone wrong. The article may be biased.

Sources for selecting viewpoint A, B, C
:

Suppose that on a given matter, there is a view A and an opposing view B. This leaves us 3 choices: taking stance on side A, taking stance on side B, or remaining neutral, C.

I wrote earlier: if we want to uphold narrative "A", in stead of position "C", we need a RS which says so.

In order to justify continuing to use the NFSM which is currently complied with —both by wikipedia and other professional reliable sources— I believe we need some reliable source which gives us the authority to do so; either:

  • which reliable source can give certainty that "narrative A" would be the correct one; or
  • which reliable source can give us certainty that the NFSM itself will lead us to a correct narrative?

(By correct I mean: "corresponding" to reality — I am assuming there is an objective reality outthere, independent of the observer.) I have never been able to find such a source; has anyone? Who could have the absolute authority to determine which narrative is the correct one? Please list the sources you can find here: — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(subsection to make editing easier) ; pledge / further discussion

I hereby commit myself to refrain from making derogative remarks towards views or behaviour by other wikipedians. (Please remind me of this when I falter.)

For brevity sake, I would like to make a request, which I believe could enrich our stay on wikipedia: "let's not utter our frustrations too much on article talk pages; it takes the focus away form the discussion." Feel free to do so or to not do so: it is just a request, not a demand. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will userfy the list I was making above at User:Xiutwel/List of information for the 9/11 article. I am also considering rewriting the 9/11 article in userspace, but that will be for a later month. Better not on wikipedia, it would be deleted for soapboxing; you can see it here and contribute: http://www.talk2000.nl/mediawiki/index.php/911

I hope I do not offend anyone with my edits today. I am concerned that some of you might feel angry or frustrated reading such a lot of text you might disagree with, but I saw no better way at the moment than this one. In good spirit, I wish all of you: happy editing and go for a walk in the sunshine.— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xiutwel. The vagueness is, I think, is what is frustrating to people. You posted a list but didn't say where or how, in the article, you wanted the information presented and, at first, didn't provide sources. The tone of this section is that you want some changes made or the NPOV flag added - the previous section seemed to say you want to use non RS sources or the NPOV flag added. It's all a complete mystery to me what paragraphs/sections/text you want changed or what, in the article as written, you believe to be POV.
You need to say what specific paragraphs or sections you consider to be POV and present a possible rewrite section by section, one at a time, on this talk page with your explanation of what makes them POV/incorrect and what you would like to change/include. This will make it possible for others to collaborate with you on the article and will make for a much better experience for all. --PTR (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, PTR. I am sorry to hear my intent was not clear before. Let me try again: #1 the article presents a single narrative, "outside job", narrative "A". I think we should give fair treatment to narrative "B" as well ("inside job"), thus as Wikipedia shifting to viewpoint "C", neutral. My concrete complaint is, that facts which support narrative "B" in stead of "A" are systematically being banned from the article. Because they do not support or fit into the narrative, they are deemed "obsolete", even when Reliable sources make mention of them. Those same reliable sources which are cited are upholding the same narrative as Wikipedia, so they too, will always deem these facts as insignificant. By the NFSM this article is a very intelligent narrative of what may be a total fantasy. I want our readers to make up their own mind. I appreciate your proposal to make in concrete, and work on one section at a time, but that is exactly what has been tried for years and did not work. We need consensus on a high, abstract level on how to proceed with this narrative issue, before discussing details in implementation. Agree? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that narrative "B" as you call it is not supported by neutral third party sources, experts working in their field or considered notable by reliable sources. And when I say not considered notable, I mean mainstream media, experts etc do not consider it a real alternative explanation of the events. When they talk about it, it's mostly as a cultural phenomenon (like Elvis sightings)...they are not investigating it, or presenting it as a live option. You seem like a reasonable person, but this has been gone over and over...I just don't see any value in repeating ourselves over and over. RxS (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"not supported" ... that's why I do not advocate putting narrative "B" into the article, but narrative "A" out of it. At least, attribute the narrative to sources, and not to Wikipedia. "experts working in their field" ... I do not know many of them off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some: Sibel Edmonds, translator for an anti-terrorist unit; Anthony Shaffer; Andreas von Bülow, as a Parlementarian involved in investigating the East-German Secret Service and the Western counterparts, who in 1999 wrote a book about it (im Namen des Staates); several demolition experts. I am surprised you could yourself name none, and I'm curious whether any of these names would be acceptable to you? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can present reliable sources that support narrative "B" in and of themselves (no need for connecting the dots by the reader) then they would be welcome. It's not that the editors here are inflexible but that the sources have to be extraordinary for extraordinary claims and there can be no original research or synthesis of facts to present a particular view. So you can't say, for example, "Jill says she hates red, however; Jill wore a red sweater on Tuesday. Therefore, Jill is a liar.", you can say, "The Washington Post reported, 'Jill hates red but wore a red sweater on Tuesday. On questioning, Jill said it's a gift from her grandmother.'" --PTR (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You are asking for a RS. I doubt I could find one which meets your satisfaction. I have high regard for Michael Ruppert, a former policeman, who wrote a 600 page book on the attacks. Policemen have a good reputation for fact checking. Personally, I believe there are some minor errors in his reasoning, but most of it seems sound to me. But others will deem him a conspiracy nutter. He is NO WAY a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. And similar things go for everyone who investigates and publishes around narrative "B": they are looked at as nutters by the RS. It is simply not done for a RS to challenge "A", let alone endorse "B". The sources which Wikipedia calls reliable, are sources which rely on reliable sources themselves. There is a whole network of reliable sources reporting what other RS have reported. Repeating. Repeating. Repeating. Therefor, we have to realise that the narrative A is not the result of the information of the reliable sources, the narrative is also their origin: All these sources are taking "A" for granted, and then examining and explaining the facts in this line, disregarding anomalies, or inventing explanations for them, which in my ears sound far-fetched. For example, the passport found (which someone mentioned in the archived section above): I'm curious to any explanation on how that could have happened. But more important, we're losing track: now I am being asked to prove "B". I do not need to prove B, because I have no intention (within the first few years at least) to argue for inclusion of version "B" in this article. We need to include the facts without narrative B, but simply stating that a fact X seems strange in the light of "A" and the explanation is unknown. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)

back to the heart (section break to make editing easier)

What I was saying in the before-previous section #(fact picking) is: if we are to accept narrative "A" as leading in fact selection, (NFSM), then first we need a RS that either "A" is true or NFSM is leading to truth. I have seen neither. Anyone? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please present areas where you have not seen the text supported by reliable sources and we can work from there. Wikipedia does not determine truth but reports what reliable sources have reported. --PTR (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, we on Wikipedia do not determine "truth", but our average reader does not realise that ! Most students will simply take wikipedia's information as "the truth" and not as "a narrative supported by reliable sources". That's why I would like to make this issue more clear to our readers, either by attributing or a preamble. You ask: "areas where you have not seen the text supported" this is not really the issue, I know the text is supported by RS. I am saying, the RS could be mistaken because they are all part of the same NFSM. For instance, if we look at the current preamble, I have problems with sentences 1-7, where the last (nr 8) is fine by me. They all make claims suggesting narrative "A" is correct. These claims are referenced with sources, but they are not attributed to the sources in the wording of the sentence; they just have footnotes. Two questions: am I getting my point across, via this last sentence, what it is that I would like to see different than it is now? Secondly, do you agree on changing the wording? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you write an example of how you would like the first 7 sentences to read? Keeping in mind that the introduction to the article is a summary of the article. All the information and support should be contained in the article. If it isn't, please indicate here where the information for the summary is not included in the main body of the article. --PTR (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I make a proposal below and then ask you to provide RS I am asking for: — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)
Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on the contributor. It is not our job to find citations for your content. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Jc-S0CO, I see I have not been as clear as I was trying to be. I am not asking for RS for my content, but for the present content of the article, which was compiled using the NFSM. I am concerned it is turning POV. See #(fact picking) above. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
text
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States on that date, generally presumed to have been suicide attacks by al-Qaeda.
On that morning, according to reliable sources, nineteen terrorists[1] affiliated with al-Qaeda[2] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers including a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashing two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), presumed to have been the cause of the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings.[3] The hijackers crashing a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) are believed to have attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;[4] that plane crashing into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Aside from the 19 alleged hijackers, [...]

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes you want to make to the lead, because, for example, it is taken by experts as fact that the planes caused the collapse of the towers. However, I am not opposed to removing the "affiliated with al-qaeda" phrase and rephrasing the first sentence to say that Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks. It can also be added in the lead that Osama Bin Laden has not been legally charged by the U.S. government with his role in 9/11.[131] If this is included, however, it should also be noted that there is substantial evidence linking bin laden to 9/11 (sources in the bin laden section of the article). That's as far as I think this needs to go. On one note to Xiutwel, I would suggest that you leave this discussion for a day or so, and let others have a chance to reply before you add to it. Others need a chance to catch up, so give them a while. Okiefromokla questions? 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above text is unacceptable. The repeated use of the terms "presumed" and "believed" gives undue weight to theories that Al Qaeda was not involved, something else caused the collapse of the towers, or that something else happened to Flight 93. The qualification "reliable sources" is unnecessary, since all Wikipedia articles are "according to reliable sources". This extended debate has become incredibly tiresome, since you have, at no point, produced reliable sources to support the narrative you are trying to present — instead, you have focused on adding weasel words and collected a wide variety of facts which you believe tell us something about the attacks which is not covered in reliable sources. At no point have you presented a source which supports an alternative narrative, nor have you presented sources which assert the facts (even when they are in context, and represented properly) have any relevance to the article. It's not going anywhere because you simply refuse to work within the guidelines and policies Wikipedia functions under; at this point in time, after months of repeating the same arguments, your comments are becoming incredibly tendentious and totally unproductive. --Haemo (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Haemo, this discussion is past the point of getting old, and Xiutwel's rewrite is far from acceptable. However, I see no problem with what I suggested above, do you? At the very least, it should be included that bin laden hasn't been officially charged with the attacks, despite the evidence against him, and that could be added to the "Osama Bin Laden" section in the body. Okiefromokla questions? 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

back to the heart (2)

if we are to accept narrative "A" as leading in fact selection, (NFSM), then first we need a RS that either "A" is true or NFSM is leading to truth. Please provide one or the other? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (I'm wikibreaking a few days now, at least where this talk page is concerned. --X 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't understand what you're asking here. --Haemo (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am repeating the question I posed above at #(fact picking), to which I would like a reply. If the text above is unclear, would you please ask in that section, since this is only a summary? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have reliable sources that "Narrative A" is true. Okiefromokla questions? 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of that. I am only aware of reliable sources presuming the narrative "A", based on other reliable sources, which also presume it. In my opinion, that makes the RS all tertiary sources, citing eachother; we need secondary ones. And for us to adopt "A", the required secondary source(s) would need to be giving an explanation for all RS-reported facts which wikipedians now "want excluded from this article, because they might suggest B". We are committed to writing the truth. It is just that we've agreed to not promote our own beliefs as long as they are not supported by RS, but the current text is not supported by RS. Not so much for what it states, but for what it leaves out: facts which strongly suggest that the official version cannot be reality. The guidelines were written to build reliable articles, USING sources, not to spam their information onto the net regardlessly. So, what is the best secondary source we have?; the 911 Commission report? (The Commission was appointed and directed by the prime, or if you will secondary suspects!)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that we are supposed to disregard every mainstream source we have on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent?" The problem here is the unmoving assertion that the government (your "secondary suspects!") is guilty, and thus that anything they have suggested can be ignored. It's not our job to cast blame here, and a couple of factoids strung together with politically-motivated conspiratorial overtones does not overshadow the professional opinions of the many experts who have come to agree with the official story. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Not: "disregard", but: "fairly quote" in stead of "selectively". We should not "cast blame" - on anyone - unless we prove it.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the crux of the problem: it is not our place to prove anything. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is confusing to me. The issue is, that facts were being deleted when they WERE sourced BUT in apparent contradiction of narrative A. I would say we can only proceed in such manner, when we are sure about the correctness of the narrative. So: if you want to delete sourced facts, you should prove the narrative first. If we do not want to prove the narrative, we should stop removing facts which contradict the narrative, so other editors can make the article NPOV, neutral and fair. Would you be willing to promise to let these in?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See, there you go again. "Apparent contradiction of narrative A" — the only reason you think these facts are relevant to the article is because you believe that they can be strung together to contradict the mainstream narrative. You have no reliable sources to back up this synthesis of unconnected facts, and are once again pushing original research. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See a bit below: it is not synthesis, it is "presenting the complete picture" without writing a single word which is not backed by RS. No unbacked conclusions or speculations. On the other hand: fact-picking as it has been done in the current article can distort a neutral and balanced encyclopedic article, even if it is backed by the opinion of multiple reliable sources.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel : Please read my post above dated 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC). Your comitement for the true truth is admirable but you should prepare yourself harder since your apparently trivial ABC problem is part of a philosophical conundrum called infinite recursivity that has been the center of epistemological debates for millenia. So your doubts are legitimate but go much further than "9/11 in wikipedia". Your line of reasoning (painfully correct) jeopardizes any certainty about the very existence of anything. The only certain thing that someone can have is that himself exists. Al the rest is conjectured.--Igor21 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Did the facts have WP:RS reliable sources? Were they specifying points made in the reliable sources themselves or was there a point being made that source A said "fact1" and source B said "fact2" and therefore "factC" is true? Could you point to diff of something you added to the article that was deleted so someone can let you know why it was deleted? --PTR (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am speaking here about the adding of simple facts, without conclusion, e.g.: 1: person X declared on this date: "A" and 2:on that date, declared: "B". Period. The fact "C" that the two statements are contradictory should not be allowed in, if and only if there is no RS making this observation "C".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We keep talking about issues but we have stopped talking about the article. Please, if you have some changes you would like to propose, specifically, present them on the talk page for discussion. I understand you want to place facts into the article but the article cannot be just a list of facts. --PTR (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree: the article cannot be just a list of facts. We should have a narrative. I think it is reasonable to use the mainstream view as the main narrative, provided (a) it is explicitly acknowledged to be a view instead of the absolute truth, and (b) facts which (seemingly) contradicted are allowed in. I've #listed 30+ possible facts to include, I agree we maybe should not add all of them, but most of them, when supported by RS, should be included. Can you agree? I would like the article to primarily reflect the factual events, and not the government theory about them. All theories must be attributed to their sources, including the mainstream one.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say. We don't say it's a view that the reliable source have unless the reliable sources say it's a view. All the text in the article is attributed to reliable sources which is how wikipedia works. As to your inclusion of your list of facts, I have no idea what/how/where you want to add the information. It would be impossible for you to get agreement to do something before showing the other editors exactly what you want to change/include. If your goal is to add some of your listed facts, put the text here of how you would add them, preferably one at a time, and get consensus. --PTR (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The argument is basically "fact A" is true, and "fact B" is true. On their own, they have no apparent relevance to the article, nor have any reliable sources connected them to the subject of the article. However, if you take facts A-Z, you can weave a story which connects those facts, and contradicts the reliable sources. Naturally, this is a clear synthesis argument, and totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, no. I have no need to include any story which is not based on RS. The facts alone speak louder than words for some, and will seem insignificant to others. They should be let in, so each can make up his own mind. This is not synthesis, this is presenting facts neutrally. If there is any synthesis, it's in the mind of the reader, which is not subject to Wikipedia policy. So, how can you justify leaving them out, without depending on your narrative, which is not proven, but assumed?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point entirely. At no point did I state the facts where not based on reliable sources — their relevance and signifigance to the subject is not established by reliable sources, and it is synthesis to argue that, as a collection, they have relevance because in your opinion they support certain theories about what happened. The "narrative" which is reflected in the article right now is based on reliable sources reporting it as factual and true; the narrative which you are attempting to insert into the article is not supported by any reliable sources, and so you are instead trying to synthesize support by collecting facts which you believe support it and adding them to the article. Naturally, the original synthesis of reported, but judged irrelevant by reliable sources, facts is a form of original research and is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. You don't seem to understand this point, and instead have repeatedly ignored or misunderstood it, when it has been repeatedly presented to you. --Haemo (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you certain I am missing your point, or is it just that we are not yet in agreement on the matter? Your second sentence is ambiguous to me: what is it that "you did not state", and what is it that you are stating now?; would you please clarify that to me? I agree the RS are supporting the current narrative as factual and true, but ... because it is their view. They have never proven it. As an independent encyclopedia, we should not follow their approach; we should give each view fair and sympathetic treatment, including significant minority views. I am not trying to synthesize support for a partical view B, I am trying to let facts back into the article, erased over the years, which show that view A might be less solid than the current article is suggesting. I am afraid your opposing this might be emotional rather than rational? If the facts I suggest to include now were deemed irrelevant by RS, they would not have reported them in the first place, would they have? Is it more clear to you what I'm saying now? (It is not yet exactly clear to me what point you were trying to make, so I hope if you refrase your second sentence I can understand.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) The narrative you speak of are the recorded facts of what happened, when, where, and why. We rely on reliable sources for telling us which facts are verifiable, and which reported facts are relevant to the subject. The onus is not on us to evaluate, as you say, whether or not they have "proven" that the facts they report are relevant, or what-have-you. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. To put it bluntly:
  • Editorial evaluation of the "proof" or veracity of a view expressed by reliable sources is original research.
  • Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research.
  • The inclusion of facts which you, and no reliable source, believe undermine the "mainstream account" of the events on this page is original research.
  • Judging facts as relevant to a subject, simply because they are published is both wrong, and original research. Simply because a fact is published — for instance, the number of windows in WTC7 — does not make it relevant to a subject unless a reliable source makes the connection before we as editors do.
  • The entire purpose of all non-experimental sciences (and even in some situations experimental science) is first the decision of which facts are, and are not, relevant to a given topic, then the addition of those facts into a cohesive whole. You are arguing that Wikipedia editors usurp that first role and perform original research on this, and any other article.
This is not based on emotion, it's based on a simple and clear interpretation of our underlying guidelines. The entire 9/11 conspiracy movement, which you are a proponent of, is based on exactly the type of research that you are trying to make Wikipedia a party to — put this way, it should be clear why it's totally unacceptable. --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


archive 38

Archive 38 has a few pieces which are still relevant for the active discussion. I am listing them here.

  1. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#NFSM
  2. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#list

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit?

Isn't it a little late to protect September 11, 2001 attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.101.81 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 February 2008

Cute; but, no — the article is protected due to persistent vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What idiot would vandalize this article? 84.13.101.81 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The list is (at least has been) endless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists ROUTINELY vandalize this article and, at times, the talk pages, disrupting the presentation of factual scientific information that has reliable sources. (And they call themselves the "truth" movement. heh.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.49.76 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sneha Anne Philip

Bringing to everyone's attention this news, which has a small effect on the death totals for the day. I am reticent to change the numbers myself, because I cannot seem to make all the numbers fit. The September11victims.com site has apparently removed one victim from Flight 11 since it was last consulted for reference in Sept. 2007, bringing the total number of victims out of line with what is provided here even before the news of the court's decision regarding Ms. Philip. It strikes as odd that the site should do this. Someone with a longer history of involvement and knowledge in the minutiae of this topic should be careful to recheck the numbers. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories name change

Since it's a subarticle of this article, I thought it would be sensible to note that there is (yet another) move proposal at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories to change the title of the article to 9/11 alternative theories or 9/11 non-mainstream theories. Since this affects how we name the sections in this article, editors here should take note. --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious... why wouldn't citing "WP:NAME:Use common names of persons and things" take care of this immediately? These concepts are obviously most commonly known as conspiracy theories.71.204.49.76 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question, and the only answer I have is that nothing takes care of debates immediately on Wikipedia. Okiefromokla questions? 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the section should be named "Alternate 9/11 theories" or "Alternate Perspectives" since the word "conspiracy" implies they can be proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Work Cited (References) vs. Bibliography (and footnotes)

I think the reference section is great, however this article should have a bibliography. According to www.aresearchguideforstudents.com, who based there MLA style on the authoritative publication from the Modern Language Association of America, (Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook. 6th ed. New York: MLA, 2003.), there are differences between a bibliography and a works cited. It is stated that "In Works Cited you only list items you have actually cited. In a Bibliography you list all of the material you have consulted in preparing your essay whether or not you have actually cited the work." I would like to see all the works that where used for writting this article. This means any information that was removed, along with there said "reference". should be placed in the bibliography.

Secondely, according to this same article our References are not properly formated. They should be placed in alphabetical order. It is stated that "All references are placed in ONE ALPHABETICAL LIST by first words of citations, regardless of where citations come from." Currently I believe what we have are footnotes. Hence the reason I have or will change the name from reference to footnotes.[132]. (Also refer to The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 6th edition by Joseph Gibaldi, Appendix B.1, pp. 298-313 for additional detailed instructions on footnotes.)(Or this paper here). --CyclePat (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MLA standards are not applicable to Wikipedia. We have our own set of standards here: WP:MOS. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello MisterHand, thank you for the link. You are right... Wikipedia does have its "own set of standards." However, the above statement: "MLA standards are not applicable to Wikipedia", is wrong. It is contradicted by WP:CITE#HOW which states "...Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent..." Also, wikipedia has what I believe is called "concensus" rule. I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, appear to concur with my aforementioned statement regarding proper formatting. You may also infer from my previous statement that the status quo does not represent MLA standards or, for the matter of fact, "our own [Wikipedia’s] set of standards here: WP:MOS" --CyclePat (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Individual references may be coded using MLA standards, but the reference list is written using our standards, which are different from the MLA standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please work on adding a proper reference (work cited) section and bibliography. Having a bibliography would not only be an important element to know what resources where read (but not used), but may help maintain an NPOV article via allowing independant research on various points and presenting what most of our editors have read. --CyclePat (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


You have a strange idea as to what a bibliography is. It's not in keeping with our WP:MOS, nor the MLA standards, to have a list of books generally relevant to the topic with page numbers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, that's correct, as you stated, "It's not in keeping with our MOS...". That's because MOS does not specifically address this issue. As I have stated, you must look into WP:Citing sources and WP:Footnotes. Specifically, MOS makes reference to these important guidelines. Once you find these sub-guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide page numbers, you may find the statements that recommend we provide page numbers. In short: By example: If you've read the entire book then put all the page numbers... if you didn't, then add the page numbers or chapters. ex. : "The Green Apple. pp.504-512, 565-680, etc..." My thoughts on a bibliography are reflected by the authoritative facts Modern Language Association of America as referenced by www.aresearcheguide.com, hence I believe it is wrong to state that this is "not in keeping with... the MLA standards, to have a list of books... with page numbers." As per common teaching practice in schools for writing essays... In short: If you read a certain book, and you contribute to this article, even if it's a fact that is not listed, is later removed, or whatever, that book should be listed somehow. (Whether it be on a separate page called September 11, 2001 attacks (section)/Bibliography (because of the possibility of extreme length or incorporated within the article) An added benefit to this bibliography is that if someone read more pages from a book or resource then the bibliography could be updated to reflect the information that was already read. This in turn will help editors determine if the information they want to include may not have already been included, removed or discussed for removal. Hence this method could help reduce possible conflicts. --CyclePat (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a substantial change from what our guidelines request, or suggest is necessary. You might want to bring it up there, instead. --Haemo (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Haemo, We may be correct regarding the original request (ie.: alphabetical order, bibliography, references, vs work cited, etc...) On the secondary issues (ie.: the page number in the references) this issue is fairly well documented in our wikipedia policies or guidelines. Thank you for the advice on bringing some of these issues (perhaps one of them) to the "guidleines request". --CyclePat (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers in the references seem necessary (although the tag would not be near where the work would need to be done.) Page numbers in lists of reference works (you've redefined "bibliography" since I wrote my comment about it) are clearly inappropriate. And your definition of "bibliography" is impossible for a Wikipedia article, as most editors don't keep track of their sources for background information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, your definition of "bibliography" is impossible in the academic context, as well. NO ONE lists all the books they use for background information on an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"If you read a certain book, and you contribute to this article, ... that book should be listed somehow." is not sensible in any context that I can think of. If that's a quote from the MLA, we may need to consider rejecting more of their recommendations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, it appears as though we are both on the defensive. This is understandable given the fact that our recent statements are contradictory. Now that I think about it, I must agree with you in part. Take a look at the various definitions of bibliography. None of them are quite consistent asides from the fact that a bibliography is a list of sources. However, it is important to find an authorative source. Yes! Some may argue that a bibliography is "The list of works cited by an author..." (at type of work cited) and others may say the opposite. The opposite is supported by the fact that it can be defined as "a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production." (bibliography)
Obviously, I believe in the later, since my school of thought has been that a bibliography is "related in some way" with all the information that has been consulted or is the "list of sources used in the preparation of academic work." Hence adding the page numbers of the pages consulted would not be out of line. Furthermore, I would like to point out, that this is not my "Strange idea of a bibliography" but one which, if I clearly remember, was advocated and thought through school. (i.e: Telling us to place the various chapters or page numbers which we have read in alphabetical order... and also having a work cited with specific passage cited.)
The template I placed in the article earlier Template:Pagenumbers, was placed above the book section. This template in of itself substantiates this idea requiring page numbers but do take a look at the bold text above. This point, I believe we agree upon. Correct? In short: For the books section we should place the pages that where consulted. For the work cited (or references as we now have), I believe, where applicable we must place the specific page number of the citation. (Where applicable (This appears to be supported by [MLA].)(I'm going to buy the book! And I'll get back to you with an official authorative answer on that though) Finally, again, for the Bibliography we place the pages consulted, because that's the way it's always been done for essays and my recommendations may be inferred through the previously mentioned sources as well as the information on what a "bibliography is" found through MLA.org with their example of the MLA International bibliography.) --CyclePat (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I believe the books section should contain those chapters or sections believed to be relevant, rather than those actually consulted. (Page numbers may depend on the format (hardcover, paperback, "trade paperback", etc.), which most editors will forget to record.) After all, one may have to read through a book to find the relevant sections. I still say that those sections of a work read or even read while researching the article are not appropriate for inclusion. I would note also that our < ref> templates do not seem to allow placing the references in alphabetical, or even in "first reference" order if you consider the ref name= options. A "bibliography", in the sense of sections read, is not appropriate in the case of multiple editors who may be loons less rational than ourselves. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a sad commentary on our recent debates that I find this section more intresting to read than the entirity of the previous few months? --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it's about improving the article, which is a surprising and welcome change. --Golbez (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. It's the wrong venue, though, although I'm not entirely sure where the right venue is.... WT:CITE? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:CITE is the most relevant guideline, I believe. This is a MOS change which goes way further than what we, as editors of a single page, have the authority to implement. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart of NPOV (3)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This continues from the archived section

Related: Wikipedia_talk:NPOV.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PTR, you ask for a concrete proposal for textual change to discuss. I will oblige, but am reluctant to do so, because I see no point in this, as long as Heamo and others believe we should not include facts even when reported once by RS, but no longer deemed very important by those same RS. So, here is such a fact which I would like included:

A passport of one of the hijackers was reported found intact near the WTC.< ref>Las Vegas Review Journal, September 16, 2001.< /ref> Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble earlier discovered a passport belonging to one of the suspected hijackers a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.< ref>BBC, September 16, 2001< /ref>A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.< ref>http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm< /ref>

This fact was then paramount in gaining acceptance for the claim that the attack was done by Al Qaeda. The existence of these reports is undisputed. Why is it not in the article?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everything can be included in the main article which is why there are sub articles. This fact is already included in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks which this article links to. --PTR (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. You're right, some minor facts belong in subarticles. But facts in subarticles are not balancing this article. Each article on Wikipedia must be balanced in itself. The NPOV article does not prescribe to balance POV articles with counter POV articles. So I would like this fact included. The news travelled the world then, it cannot have lost its significance now.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There should then be some reliable sources that discuss the finding of the passport in more depth than just that it was found. Do you have any more sources on this? --PTR (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See below  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, I propose the following reasoning: (let me know if you want me to address more specific #any of the five points you made )

  • We (Wikipedia) only include those facts which have been reported by RS.
  • RS have reported on the existence of a minority view, let's label it B. (This view is indeed mentioned in the article.)
  • We (Wikipedia) are to remain neutral: not engage in the debate, but describe it.
  • RS are themselves expressing their view (A), presuming it is the truth.
  • Nor they, nor you have, to my knowledge, offered a final proof that "A" is the truth.
  • It was claimed it is not up to us to decide whether "A" is true or not.
  • We need a way to agree on how to balance the presenting of facts.
  • Views should be attributed. This holds for the majority RS view as well as the minority view.
  • For practicle purposes, I can agree to not using "alleged" and "according" in every other sentence of the article, it would make it ugly to read, and I would like the article to read pleasantly as it does now. But to compensate, it should be made clear in the beginning of the article that the article is describing a view in stead of an unchallenged account of factual events, which it sort of suggests in its current form.

Haemo's view that we are to omit any fact which is not deemed important by RS (who themselves hold view A) is not acceptable to me, when these facts could shine a new light on view A. Selective omission distorts the balance of the article in favor of a single view. We rely on RS for our facts, but not for unattributed opinions, and therefore not for fact selection. So we need to reach consensus unaided.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But when you say that selective omission distorts the balance of the article, you forget the other side of the coin which is selective inclusion also distorts the balance of the article...which is the problem here. It's true that we should be describing debates and not participating, but in this case there really isn't a debate. There's a small group of people claiming that some conspiracy or another was the real cause of the events, but no one is engaging them in a debate about it. In other words, there's no public conversation/debate about what really happened, no political debate...no mainstream debate among scholars, civil engineers or architects. There's no debate among those expert reliable sources that we draw content from...the coverage that exists is limited to a description of a cultural artifact and doesn't go beyond that.
Wikipedia's job is to describe the truth as reliable sources see it, and to describe the debate/discussion of that truth among experts. But it's not our job or obligation to include every POV when describing something. RxS (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I had not forgotten that we cannot include all facts; we have to reach consensus which facts to include, in what balance. You are partially right as far as I'm concerned. I agree that selective inclusion could distort neutrality. When an article is Neutral point of view, subsequent inclusion can distort it. When an article is biased by point of view to begin with, inclusion can correct it. You are right that the Reliable sources are not debating among each other. They are debating "outsiders". They hold view A; the outsiders (without exception all of them non-reliable sources) are holding views B. And wikipedia should be impartial (perspective C), not follow the Reliable sources.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not follow the RS? ... I believe you're looking for Unencyclopedia. Okiefromokla questions? 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Reliable sources are good for Verifiability but not for Neutral point of view.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing can be published in Wikipedia without a reliable source to back it up. This is a very simple concept. Providing disjointed factoids (yes, even reliably sourced factoids) in a manner which encourages readers to synthesize a non reliably-sourced conclusion is no better than including a synthesis itself. If a reliable source existed to link these things together then it might have been worth noting; but if one does not then it cannot be included, plain and simple. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jc-S0CO, I am wondering, are you saying that the Reliable sources are following Neutral point of view in regard to alleged government involvement in 9/11 ? (In case the RS are not following Wikipedia guidelines, should we not depart from their approach?)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I'm just going to restate this, because apparently you still don't understand our guidelines. We rely on reliable sources for telling us which facts are verifiable, and which reported facts are relevant to the subject. The onus is not on us to evaluate, as you say, whether or not they have "proven" that the facts they report are relevant, or what-have-you. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. To put it bluntly:
  • Editorial evaluation of the "proof" or veracity of a reported facts expressed by reliable sources is original research.
  • Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research.
  • The inclusion of facts which you, and no reliable source, believe undermine the "mainstream account" of the events on this page is original research.
  • Judging facts as relevant to a subject, simply because they are published is both wrong, and original research. Simply because a fact is published — for instance, the number of windows in WTC7 — does not make it relevant to a subject unless a reliable source makes the connection before we as editors do.
  • The entire purpose of all non-experimental sciences (and even in some situations experimental science) is first the decision of which facts are, and are not, relevant to a given topic, then the addition of those facts into a cohesive whole. You are arguing that Wikipedia editors usurp that first role and perform original research on this, and any other article.
Including facts, opinions, events, etc. which are reported on solely because, as you say "these facts could shine a new light on view A" yet, as you say are "not deemed important by RS" is original research, and that's what's unacceptable, and why this proposal has failed approximately six times by my count. This isn't getting any less "totally contradictory to our guidelines" each time you say it, and it's not getting any more acceptable to the other editors here. I've suggested before that, since you have a fundamental problem with Wikipedia's underlying policies that this might not be a good place to expend your effort — because it's certainly wasted a lot of other people's time. --Haemo (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (quoting Haemo) "Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research." ... I cannot find this second claim of yours in the guidelines, would you please provide a citation?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, Xiutwel, it would be wrong to publish "John Hinkley Junior shot President Ronald Reagan; Reagan later died." While both of these statements are true with a multitude of reliable sources to back them up, when placed together they draw a conclusion for readers which is fallacious: that Reagan died as a result of being shot. The same thing applies here: we cannot invite readers to come to their own conclusions by presenting disjointed facts. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree your quote would be misleading, but such additions are not my intention, naturally.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
To expand, you could believe really, super-strongly that death of Hitler was caused by his vegetarianism. Adding facts — reported, reliable facts — to the death of Hitler article about, for instance, Hitler's vegetarianism, his reported manic behavior prior to his death, bizarre vegetarian statements he made reported by some people familiar with his last days in the bunker, clinical studies showing that some forms of vegetarianism can lead to manic behavior, etc. is what you're arguing. No reliable source thinks these facts are relevant to Hitler's death, but you are arguing to include them nonetheless. You have just performed an original synthesis to imply that Hitler's death was related to his love of vegetables. --Haemo (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree this would be misleading, but such additions are not my intention, naturally. We do not write about vegetarianism in death of Hitler, but I assume it deserves mentioning in Hitler. Sorry, but you are giving examples which do not apply here.
I would welcome an answer to my question above: do you think the RS are NPOV ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what you're arguing we do here; include factoids which "contradict the mainstream account" (of Hitler's death) and which are reported by reliable sources, but not deemed important or relevant to the subject by reliable sources. Reliable sources are not necessarily neutral; this is a truism, but unpopular views still must be reported on by them, and facts minority views point to must be reported on as deemed relevant, either by reliable sources directly, or as party to the minority view. For instance, suppose a reliable source reported that certain "vegetarian theorists" believed that Hitler's manic behavior was caused by his vegetarianism, which lead to his death. We could then include those facts, since a reliable source has explained that they are believed to be relevant. We can also attribute the relevancy to a particular view, possibly in a section called "Vegetarian theories". However, without that reliable source, it's against our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you agree to leave the fictional Hitler analogies for a moment and let's discuss (again): do you think that the Reliable sources are following Neutral point of view in regard to alleged government involvement in 9/11 ? and what unsourced conclusion might our readers draw when we simply report that the passport was found?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Or are you saying that we could include the passport discovery in this article (which on September 16, 2001 was deemed relevant by RS to establishing the identities of the culprites) were it not for the fact that since then, conspiracy theorists have been building a case on it?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The fictional Hitler analogies are useful, because they disassociate the subject from one which you have a very strong point of view on. Indeed, you disagree with your own suggestions when applied to articles where you don't have a strong prior opinion about the material! The question "are reliable sources following neutral point of view" doesn't make any sense — because "the neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources". It's a policy for tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, not primary or secondary sources; reliable sources often cannot meet our guidelines, because in that case our guidelines would be self-referential! I'm not sure what context your insertion of the passport will be, so I can't really speak to it. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

split: passport issue

(deindent, and adding a subsection to make editing easier) Haemo, I suggest the passport text above be included at the end of the section 2.1 - The hijackers  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PTR, you asked above: "There should then be some reliable sources that discuss the finding of the passport in more depth than just that it was found. Do you have any more sources on this? " — I do not see why any RS should discuss any more than that. The passport was found, ergo its owner was a hijacker, just as the authorities already claimed. What would you expect them to write?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated, but just as a request: please note that this is the 22nd section/subsection you have created on this page. It would really be better if we could focus on one thing at a time in a single section instead of branching like this, without as many section breaks. Let's tackle these issues one at a time. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How could a passport survive if most of the black boxes ("indestuctable") did not survive? That seems impossible. Also, at the WTC, the steel was reduced to molten scrap. How could a passport be found there? Highly unlikely if not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

split: NPOV issue

(deindent) Haemo, I think the Hitler analogies were indeed useful to show a point; but we agree on that point! What we differ on, however, is that the two cases would be largely analogous. I think they are not at all. Any fact which has been in the 9/11 commission or in newspaper articles regarding the 9/11 commission, 9/11 investigation or responsibility, is automatically relevant to the issue of balancing between views A and B. (War exercises. Molten metal. Cut beams. Removed debries.) I am not saying that any fact which is relevant should be put in; we should try to balance the amount of facts pro and con fairly. When you say that my question "Are the RS NPOV regarding 9/11" is irrelevant, you are in fact almost saying they are POV. And that is why we can rely on them for producing Verifiable facts, but not for selecting those facts in a NPOV manner. So, we have to devise an other way to agree on that. If you can read the NPOV policy another way, please quote it.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not; neutrality in the context of Wikipedia does not apply to reliable sources. It is a way of weighting the views expressed by reliable sources; it cannot be a property of a reliable source, since that would make the guideline incoherent and self-referential. You don't seem to get this. --Haemo (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To be clear: I do not demand of any reliable source to be neutral in order to be used. But I do demand that we distinguish between the alternate (significant minority-) views which RS do report on, versus the majority views which they themselves hold. I think we should balance those two views, and not unquestioningly follow in our narrative (and in our fact selection) the particular view that the RS themselves hold and therefore promote in their fact selection. Once facts or theories have been reported on by RS, they remain part of the debate, which then must be represented in a balanced way by Wikipedia. No self-referential incoherence here that I can see. On the other hand: I have not seen any quotes from you which address the problems of Circular reasoning, Selection bias, or a citation from the WP:Guidelines for your claim "Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research." Would you be willing to try and provide at least one out of those three, for a start?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If a minority view, of a fact or theory is relevant, then it will have a reliable source reporting on its relevance. Wikipedia does not report on the debate, as editors, we report on the debate when (and ONLY when) reliable sources do so. You have a fundamental disagreement with our policies here, and no amount of restating that disagreement will change it. The statement I have made, above, is not circular or biased — it is textbook guidance from our guidelines on original research. You disagree with them — so I suggest you either try to get them changed, or do something else with your time. Because you have wasted a lot of people's time with this already — not the least of all, your own. --Haemo (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide us a quote from the guidelines, asking us to use RS in determining relevance? I would say relevance is for the editors to decide. Common sense tells me that, when describing two sides of a debate neutrally, we should also include the (agreed upon) facts that side B uses. How could we omit them and be neutral?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. [...] If the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research". The problem you have in your suggestion is that there are no reliable sources asserting which facts "narrative B" in this situation uses, or their relevance. Without reliable sources, the determination of which facts fall into this category is original research. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that I and others have copied and pasted that exact quote to this page before, to no avail. This user has been told these things many times, over and over, but does not understand or refuses to understand. Okiefromokla questions? 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what I've been trying to say. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Haemo and Jc-S0CO, I am not pursuing narrative B - there is more than one "B", in fact: each theorist may have his/her own theory - but I am suggesting that we should discontinue pursuing view A as the narrative for our article. That would not be neutral. Facts about 9/11 which have ever been published in RS are potentially relevant for our article on 9/11, and I believe we make our own editorial choices thereafter. You still have not provided to convince me otherwise a quote from the guidelines I am looking for, i.e. that RS should be determining which facts we select - instead of our own WP:Common sense. If you look at the full quote which you did give (below), you can see that that text is about editors making claims using A+B => C, where C is invented by the wikipedian, using seperate sources for fact A and fact B. I am not inventing any C (though I have my own private opinion), I am just saying you cannot leave out all the facts which make narrative A look plausible. I am not putting facts together. I would like to put facts in, standalone, without narrative A to support them. For instance: the passport which was found. What could be synthesis about that? Currently, only facts which support narrative A are allowed in: That i.m.o. amounts to synthesis: fact-picking to support a narrative.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.
Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. - from WP:SYNTH,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you please let me know to which of the 11 attempted summery points below you disagree?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

some quotes from the discussions above

I would like to give some quotes which rather highlight my concerns about this 9/11 page being NPOV, and about it unduly presenting opinions as if they were facts:
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • The big problem about this [issue] is that, it is not the truth that counts, it is verifiability. --Si lapu lapu 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Si Lapu Lapu
  • We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. --Okiefromokla 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (posted on my talk page)
  • Bulbous, you can certainly keep asking questions. By all means, try to find out the truth if you don't think the view based on seemingly reliable facts is correct. Write a book. Call government officials. Get in contact with others who share your view. Watch Fahrenheit 911. But keep it out of Wikipedia. [...] --Okiefromokla 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "if a RS has interests in the topic at hand, all claims made by that source must be attributed to it, and not taken for granted in writing wikipedia." — Xiutwel 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If [these statements ] can be sourced, then they can be added. --Bulbous 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, they don't belong because they are just a list of factoids [...] --RxS 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] If sourced (from news reports, or other reliable sources) they would be selected excerpts of news reports, which could still be refused a listing in the article under WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suppose that on a given matter, there is a view A and an opposing view B. This leaves us 3 choices: taking stance on side A, taking stance on side B, or remaining neutral, C. // I wrote earlier: if we want to uphold narrative "A", in stead of position "C", we need a RS which says so. // In order to justify continuing to use the NFSM which is currently complied with —both by wikipedia and other professional reliable sources— I believe we need some reliable source which gives us the authority to do so; either: // * which reliable source can give certainty that "narrative A" would be the correct one; or // * which reliable source can give us certainty that the NFSM itself will lead us to a correct narrative? see also: Circular argument and Confirmation bias. — Xiutwel 13:30/18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on the contributor. It is not our job to find citations for your content. ~ S0CO 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...]I am not asking for RS for my content, but for the present content of the article,[...] — Xiutwel 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We already have reliable sources that "Narrative A" is true. --Okiefromokla 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...]So, what is the best [...] source we have?[...] — Xiutwel 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • it is not our place to prove anything. ~ S0CO 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say. We don't say it's a view that the reliable source have unless the reliable sources say it's a view.[...]--PTR 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] [The facts] should be let in, so each can make up his own mind. This is not synthesis, this is presenting facts neutrally.[...] — Xiutwel 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...]We rely on reliable sources for telling us which facts are verifiable, and which reported facts are relevant to the subject. The onus is not on us to evaluate, as you say, whether or not they have "proven" that the facts they report are relevant, or what-have-you.[...]//Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research.[...] --Haemo 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] You're right, some minor facts belong in subarticles. But facts in subarticles are not balancing this article. Each article on Wikipedia must be balanced in itself. The NPOV article does not prescribe to balance POV articles with counter POV articles. [...] — Xiutwel 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] We (Wikipedia) are to remain neutral: not engage in the debate, but describe it. [...] Views should be attributed. This holds for the majority RS view as well as the minority view. [...] — Xiutwel 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] When an article is Neutral point of view, subsequent inclusion [of selected facts] can distort it. When an article is biased by point of view to begin with, inclusion can correct it. [...] The Reliable sources are good for Verifiability but not for Neutral point of view. — Xiutwel 20:22 / 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • are you saying that the Reliable sources are following Neutral point of view in regard to alleged government involvement in 9/11 ? — Xiutwel 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (quoting Haemo) "Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research." ... I cannot find this second claim of yours in the guidelines, would you please provide a citation? — Xiutwel 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] So, we have to devise an other way to agree on [the selection of facts]. If you can read the NPOV policy another way, please quote it. — Xiutwel 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Here you've done it again: by cherry-picking pieces of comments, you can twist what is being said into whatever you want it to be. Both of my quotes which you have listed above exclude the parts of the comments you made which they were addressing, changing their meaning into something which was neither stated nor implied. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, I am not presuming to summarize the debate, I am summerizing MY concern regarding the POV of the article; In no way do I intend to distort the debate or anyone's words. Please feel free to include the quotes you think I should have included, into the archived section. I only made it "archived" to avoid new editors replying to these quotes, which would make the whole thing incomprehensible.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As it is, this cherry-picked archive is incomprehensible to look at and no clear conclusions are drawn from it. It should really be removed, being as this talk page has already degraded into an impossible maze of topics and subtopics as a result of this ongoing debate. The root cause of our problem here appears to be disagreement over what is the definition of a reliable source. The current consensus is against the inclusion of the material you are proposing, because individually these factiods you have provided are not notable enough to warrant inclusion. However, your concern appears to be that the "mainstream account" is not WP:NPOV. These issues really do not belong on this talk page. If you dispute what can be considered a reliable source (ie: on the basis of if the source itself is POV, and what is considered POV to begin with), you should take it elsewhere -- such as to the policies themselves. As it is, continuing to add on to this talk page is going nowhere and (whether intentional or not) has clearly crossed the line into disruptive editing. I don't mean to sound rude, but that's the way it is. I would appreciate if you would please either replace the above archive section with a single concise argument or take this debate elsewhere, because as it stands, it accomplishes nothing and wastes a lot of people's time. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, after looking at your discussions from almost 2 years ago on 9/11-related material, I have to wonder: If Wikipedians have always disagreed with you on these points, will there come a time when you stop pushing them? At the very least, I respect your determination, but your issue seems to be with Wikipedia itself — you want to change the nature of Wikipedia because, obviously, you have a slant that violates fundamental policies, and people have told you many times. Though I strongly disagree with you and your precieved problems with Wikipedia, I have all the respect in the world for your efforts. Nevertheless, its time to realize (after more than a year of being told) that Wikipedia isn't the place to do this. If you get a PhD and write a paper that garners support from the scientific community, then maybe we will have a reliable source to give credence to your views here. In the mean time, continuing to clutter talk pages with massive drawn-out arguments about this "Narrative based fact selection mechanism" and your related concerns that violate Wikipedia policy is just wasting time. Take up policy changes elsewhere, or maybe, after 2 years, it could be time to stop. Really. And if you ever need help with anything in your future endeavors on Wikipedia, I'm happy to do what I can. Just ask. Okiefromokla questions? 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jc-S0CO, Okiefromokla, it is not all Wikipedians that disagree with me; it may be a majority perhaps, but as you can see from the 37 page archive, I am not alone, I am representing the interest of a significant minority view against a majority view because I value neutrality.
    I hear you are frustrated with this ongoing debate; I can imagine it is frustrating for all of us. I for one would love to make progress towards consensus faster than we are, but I am not complaining (only to my wife). Since you refuse to correct my summary, I will strike it, especially when you think it is only confusing things more.
    I do not believe as you do that we differ on what a RS is. We differ on how the RS should be used by Wikipedia. I say we can only use them for finding verifiable facts, not for copying their opinion as if that were the neutral opinion. You appear to say that we should use their opinions to select the reliable, verifiable facts we omit. I cannot see a basis for this in policy. If you can, would you quote it? Our policy is to be neutral: Describe both sides of any debate fairly and sympathatically. Even when the RS are not doing so, then we still should.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the issue further by misrepresenting our positions: I have not at any time said that all Wikipedians disagree with you. But to date, you would appear to be the only steady contributor on your side of the debate. I am not discouraging you in any way from further discussion, but it's safe to say that the present consensus on this page is against including your material. Now, as a rule, I do not alter other people's contributions to the talk page unless I am removing vandalism or trite topics in violation of WP:FORUM. It's a bad idea to do otherwise and can lead to unnecessary unpleasantness; hence I did not want to touch your summary lest I be accused of distorting your meaning. The point I was trying to make was that the collection of quotes you provided did not lay out a clear case for anything in particular, and there was no need to confuse the topic more than it already has been.
To be clear:
  • I don't know where you're getting the idea that I support thrusting opinion into Wikipedia. I was not aware that I had suggested anything of the sort.
  • It appeared to me that you wanted do to exactly that, albeit indirectly, by posting a series of disjointed facts in a manner which would encourage a reader to synthesize a conclusion which was not directly supported by a reliable source.
  • The facts we omit are omitted on the basis of notability, not on the opinions which may or may not be present in the sources used.
~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for pointing out to me that my attempt to further discussion in this manner was clumsy. I see now that it was not helpful, rather the contrary. I apologize and suggest we try again in the "attempted summary" section below. Please add additional points when necessary or strike the ones which I have mis-interpreted as consensus.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV

I have added a POV tag. There has been an ongoing dispute since it's start, and it's an obvious rule violation that it has been removed wihout having that incredibly long, continuing, multiple independent user and heated dispute settled in a fashion that would end the constant feeding the archive. --Striver - talk 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"there is no legitimate dispute here" ?

05:13, 17 February 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (185,122 bytes) (revert. there is no legitimate dispute here)

That's a very "interesting" viewpoint, ICBeer: now, after 3 weeks of discussing, it appears there is not even consensus on whether there is a dispute here. The article is (admittedly so) representing a single view, and not neutral. We are discussing on how to resolve this. Please note that I only placed the POV category on the talk page, not in the article, where it belongs, in order to avoid an unfruitful edit war over that. I would appreciate it when the tag stays on the talk page. I feel very sad that it was removed, because I would like to see wikipedia as a collaborative effort. Were you feeling frustrated by this ongoing discussion?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
When I say legitimate dispute, I mean that arguments from both sides of the dispute are made using policy. In this case, the folks who would like conspiracy language added to the article are ignoring the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are saying that including facts which reliable sources reported on in 2001, but are not reporting anymore, would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT? I disagree, it is not that simple. Equitable treatment of a minority point of view, albeit just mentioning some facts, can hardly amount to 0%. How many facts would you deem equitable? The current article seems to have 196 references in accordance with narrative A. Does that leave room for inclusion of a view facts which neutralize the A-bias in the article?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Narrative A = Factual. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Okiefromokla questions? 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ice, Okie: That is your opinion. It may well be correct. And you are entitled to it. But pushing your opinion as factual is the definition of POV, when there exists a significant minority view. So, even when you are correct about it, you are violating NEUTRAL. See?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No. "Narrative A" is the only one supported by reliable sources. I don't care if 80% of people believe something — it's useless here without documentation. You are misunderstanding notability, and most Wikipedia policy, for that matter. The fact alone that many people believe something does not mean we give it the same level of respect as sourced material. We cover it as a social phenomenon, not plausible fact, which is what the conspiracy section and article are about. Okiefromokla questions? 02:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

video link for inclusion

I noticed the following link was added and removed, I put it here for discussion:

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That description is hardly representative. The video, titled "Rise and Shine" (notably not "Comprehensive coverage of the 9/11 attacks") is accompanied by the following note left by the poster of the video:
"An ever growing number of people around the world are starting to see the blindingly obvious - Big Brother is riding into town on the back of 'Terrorism'."
Very NPOV. And then there are the first words which come out of the narrator's mouth:
"The notion of a U.S. war on terrorism is simply a fraud. There is no war on terrorism. The anglo-americans are backing terrorists exactly when and where it suits them..."
A conspiracy theorist rant which is not even primarily related to the 9/11 attacks is unpresentable. A rant misleadingly labeled as something else is completely unacceptable. This video has no place on this page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also external linking guidelines; how is a link to someone's YouTube channel an encyclopedic purpose which contains "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail"? It's a channel; it contains a dynamic list of the videos they think are interesting. Why is this channel special, important, or encyclopedic? --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

attempted summary / Heart of NPOV (4)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I(Xiutwel) will make an attempt to summarize the debate of the past weeks so far. Would you all please correct me, and/or add? This is what I hope and think we editors are all agreeing on:

  1. There exist in the world several views on the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks; let's call the dominant view: "A" and all the other views: "B". When describing 9/11, one can assume that view A is correct (perspective A), or take a neutral perspective: "C". (Perspective "B" would be out of the question for Wikipedia to use.)
  2. View A is held by most, if not all, Reliable sources (RS).
  3. The RS are usually presenting facts which they deem relevant in their perspective.
  4. The proponents of view B, in the world, form a significant minority (not a tiny minority).
  5. Wikipedia policy dictates to use for establishing notability only reliable sources; this holds for article topics and for facts.
  6. Wikipedia policy dictates to have verifiable sources for each statement or fact in an article.
  7. Notability is eternal: something cannot suddenly stop being notable.
  8. Wikipedia is bound to use the narrative in the neutral fashion: describe all sides of the debate fairly and sympathetically.
  9. Coverage of views should be proportionate: a significant minoriy view should not receive as much attention as the majority view.
  10. There is difference of opinion between editors on what the above means for the selection method of: which facts to include in this article and which facts to omit.
  11. The current 9/11 article is written from perspective A. 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: after we have all agreed on the above (or a variant thereof), we can discuss further how to proceed in achieving consensus.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

addition; disagreement

We seem to be in disagreement on:

  1. The way WP:SYNTH should be interpreted. DEBATE: Is it forbidden by wikipedia policy to mention facts in an article, when no RS using them to form a conclusion in line with the article, or is including such facts "#good editing" and is it only forbidden to draw conclusions yourself, cherry-picking facts to substantiate a non-RS based claim?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
further discussion
ad 10., quoting Jc-S0CO 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC) : The facts we omit are omitted on the basis of "notability", not on the opinions which may or may not be present in the sources used.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, that this is what is happening. But I believe firstly that using this method of establishing notability is in error, see WP:N#TEMP, and secondly: because this error is opinion-related (#NFSM) due to bias present in the RS, it is i.m.o. leading to a violation of our WP:NEUTRAL policy.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with the above synopsis. However, I tend to question the term "Reliable Sources". We have seen, historically, that the major media have at times been anything but reliable, especially when large-scale power-political interests have been at stake. The uncritical hyping for war against Spain with the Maine incident as a pretext is one example; the uncritical acceptance of the weapons of mass destruction propaganda is another. (Many "fringe media" were more reliable in that respect.) What adds to the difficulty in cases like WMD and 9/11 are the close ties between major media, the government, and the military-industrial complex for which war (or the possibility thereof) can even be seen as a raison d'être. A relativization of the concept of "reliable sources" would be one step toward a truly neutral point of view. Another step would be a healthy critical attitude toward information coming from all sources - including official ones. I contend that currently Wikipedia is not doing a good job from that perspective. In particular, an official explanation should not be automatically presented as fact regardless of all or any evidence to the contrary just because it is promoted by authorities or the predominant media. Vesku (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If your objective is to challenge Wikipedia:Reliable sources, an existing and long-standing policy, then you should discuss your objections at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and not here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Vesku, I agree that the name is confusing, but it I believe it is accepted among wikipedians that reliable sources are not necessarily trustworthy. I interpret it as: they can be relied upon to have a certain level of trustworthiness (over which opinions will differ), but which does not vary much. The essence is the predictability of it. If there is some blogger on a farm, we cannot predict the trustworthiness of his articles. That difference, i.m.o., makes a reliable source.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to hear what others are telling you. This violates Wikipedia policy. We cannot consider a view unsupported by reliable sources to be equal to a view that is supported. There is, as you say, a significant minority who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that's covered here. We have a section in this article for that, which links to another article about that entirely. You have shown an obvious bias in this matter and have pushed relentlessly for inclusion of a slant based on your conspiracy theory, despite good faith efforts for God knows how long to help you understand Wikipedia policy. So, I will not agree with your list. It's another obvious, transparent, and rather bad attempt to pursuade people to bypass Wikipedia policy by misleading them, nothing more. I will not be participating in these discussions further, and I hope other editors on this page will follow my example. Please do not clutter this talk page with these proposals again. Okiefromokla questions? 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie, I've replied on your talk page.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(copied from User Talk:Okiefromokla):
I am sorry to hear you feel this way. I was not at all implying that we should resort to non-RS sources. I am just saying they can be wrong. They are only human.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't agree with your "points of consensus" because the root of them is your disagreement with fundamental policy to push a belief, and that's not what the 9/11 talk page is for. Your list is an obvious attempt to disguise the bypass of policy to make a case that your conspiracy theory should be treated equally in the article despite the lack of reliable sources. There isn't a point to discussing it any further. Okiefromokla questions? 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Okiefromokla, I am not trying to trick you into anything with my "points list" above. I am trying to find out what we agree on, so we can focus our discussion. Hoping to reach full consensus soon on how to proceed with the article, and end this tedious discussion. That's why I would like you and Haemo and others to let us know which of the 11 points you disagree on, and which you agree on. Then we can stop debating things we agree on. Currently, I am certain on one issue of dissent, and I've added it above. (Please add or refrase points when you dislike my wording.) Are you still disagreeing? Of the list itself? Of all the points on it? Of some points on it?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop this. The list you have made has nothing to do with what you are trying to change our fundamental policies. If you want them changed, then do so on the correct talk page. Stop wasting our time here — it's totally unproductive. --Haemo (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to change policy. With all respect, you are violating WP:NEUTRAL because you misread WP:SYNTH. If you deny this, point out in the above list where I am wrong.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It is quite the opposite. You are trying to fundamentally change how Wikipedia deals with original research. The guidelines are in plain English, yet you do not seem to understand them — this may be because English is not your first language, but at this point I no longer care. Do you understand why you are the only one who has this novel interpretation of guidelines? Does that surprise you? Does that make you think "maybe I'm wrong and need to go think about what I'm arguing". Specifically, I disagree with this "There is difference of opinion between editors on what the above means for the selection method of: which facts to include in this article and which facts to omit." There is not a disagreement — there is one editor (you) who simply refuses to understand, or abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. This isn't a disagreement — it's you not being able to work within guidelines. I suggest you either decide to work within them, or get them changed — but regardless, stop wasting everyone's time. You might want to read tendentious editing for a spot-check on your behavior, because it fits you to a tee. --Haemo (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is written as the known evidence and facts can be determined. I haven't seen any new additions that are needed in well over a year. If anything, several sections need to be streamlined to make the article more of a summary of the events of that day. There certainly isn't any reason to expand on conspiracy theories, especially since we already have several articles that already expand on these silly notions.--MONGO 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one question/comment linked to the statement about determined facts. What about, say, the flight path data and animation of flight 77 provided by the NTSB as a result of a FOIA request by Pilots for 911 Truth? The flight path animation stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (the official impact time being 09:37:45), just short of the impact, when the plane is shown to be several hundreds of feet above (almost directly above) the street whose light poles it is supposed to have knocked down. In other words, there is a discrepancy of several hundreds of feet to the official flight path, but the NTSB has reportedly simply refused to comment. See "Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html This is just one example of how much there still is to "determine". Perscurator (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No comment. What about this, then? A contributor to the History Commons project has recently obtained a 298-page document entitled "Hijackers Timeline" (redacted) from the FBI, also based on a Freedom of Information Act request. Some examples of the new revelations: some of the hijackers were evidently assisted by employees of the Saudi government; hijackers Marwan Alshehhi and Hamza Alghamdi purchased hundreds of dollars' worth of "pornographic video and sex toys" during the summer of 2001; and hijacker Hamza Alghamdi booked several flights after 9/11 - a continuation flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco later on the day of the attacks, and on September 20, he seems to have planned to fly "from Rome to Casablanca, to Riyadh, to Damman, Saudi Arabia".
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423
Perscurator (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Perscurator, very interesting news for me!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, as you contacted me to do so, I have addressed each of these points at my talk page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE: According to User:Vesku's talk page, Vesku and User:Perscurator are the same person. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note
: Please add further comments outside the archived bit, if necessary.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 39

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 39

ARCHIVE NUMERO 40

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposal to unprotect and act

Let's face it — this protection serves no one. I think I would be willing to unprotect if everyone agreed to avoid making controversial edits and started to watch what they say. So, I'm going to get this started:

I promise:
  1. To avoid making any controversial changes to 9/11-related articles, except to undo new changes which I feel are controversial (See (2))
  2. To limit myself to 1 revert per day, in cases when I feel that changes have been made which are controversial and do not have consensus.
  3. To assume good faith on the part of other editors; universally.
  4. To treat others with respect and civility, even when I get frustrated.
If at any point I fail to live up to these promises, send me a note explaining how you think I violated them. If I have, I understand that I will have become too heated, and recuse myself from all 9/11 articles (excluding ArbCom as necessary) for a week.

Signed

  1. Haemo (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Sounds good to me. Okiefromokla questions? 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm game. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sure. RxS (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Not like I make many actual article edits anyway... --Tarage (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Quite :). --Green-Dragon (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Why not? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Of course. By editing the Wikipedia, one implies that they will follow the Wikipedia policies. I take it as a contractual obligation. User:Pedant (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Quakers don't make promises, but the numbered points, above, ought to go without saying. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I encourage other editors to take this upon themselves as well. --Haemo (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008

Just a clarification, these are much more stringent than usual behavioral guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that this is more stringent than usual guidelines, but doesn't seem unreasonable to use those guidelines as personal policies across the board.
Further than that, I apologise for saying the article sucks, which was maybe taken as a disruptive and insulting comment. It wasn't meant that way. I won't clutter this discussion with further explanation, but if you are interested, read User_talk:Pedant#sucks User:Pedant (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My first impulse was to sign this, it sounds so good. But, having 10 or so editors who are (in my opinion) violating WP:NPOV with their interpretation and application of that same policy, a lot of edits I would call "good" will be in fact be controversial among editors. Promising this promise serves to preserve the status quo of a biased and flawed article which violates WP. I do not wish to promise to help that; ofcourse I will do my utmost to avoid edit warring and uncivilty! Hope you can appreciate this... cheers,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I can't make anyone sign this, but as Pedant points out this is how Wikipedia is supposed to function and any editor who believes in the Wiki process should be able to follow these guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Haemo, how about this: I have not promised to abide to the above. No suppose I raise a POV flag. Does that mean that you have now promised to not remove that flag? Removing it would be controversial (just as raising it...). I believe your proposal will turn out very difficult to follow.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As it says, "To limit myself to 1 revert per day, in cases when I feel that changes have been made which are controversial and do not have consensus." --Haemo (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject of the ongoing investigation

{{editprotected}}

Please change the following sentence: A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m. as a result of debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequent fire.

to

The collapse of the third building, 7 World Trace center (WTC 7), which was not hit by plane, occurred at 5:20 p.m. and it is a subject of ongoing investigation. [133],[134] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk • contribs)

But there's no consensus for this proposal. Discussion is more appropriate than repeated use (which may be considered abuse) of {{editprotected}}. Counter-proposal:-
Change the sentence A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m. as a result of debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequent fire.
to
A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) was hit by debris from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m.
This states what was observed and does not attribute the collapse to anything. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done There is no consensus for this change. Feel free to re-request when there is consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point the anon is making. It currently reads as if it's a proven fact. How about wording it so it covers all bases?: "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) was hit by debris from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. The collapse is the subject of an ongoing investigation." Wayne (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The point seems a bit moot to me, as Sheffield Steel pointed out, "But I note that the word "fire" occurs 91 times in this 56-page document." I don't believe we need to ad undue weight to this. --Tarage (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments

All bright, now please, be kind and be polite and explain to the community why is there a need to paddle through all this further? This is really not the question of anything but --- proper citing.

Please, do examine the summary (or rather) conclusion of the first reference.

L.3.6 Technical Approach for Analysis of the Working Collapse Hypothesis

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

We all know that we cannot postulate anything; it is not our mission to bend the facts, basically, any person which objects to the proper citation is in violation of our own guidelines.

Sheffield Steel, per your objection, if you wont to observe something go to the observatory, further more, if you wont to implement particular observation, you'll need to reference it in some manner, because current references, which imo are satisfactory, do not, in any way whatsoever, support your – observations?! Honestly… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not suggest a different wording. Both of your revisions are supported by the text; it's just the connotation which remains debated. --Haemo (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you kindly clarify your statement? I'm not much for guessing games, and I'd have to admit that I fail to recognize any connotations. The proposed revision goes no further from stating the facts. We could go onward, but I'd guess it would just stir the spirits… Must say, I'm curiously expecting some further input, if you please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying both of your revisions are supported by the facts — it's the explicit mention of things like "was on fire" or "was not hit by plane" which provide connotations for the reader. You might consider thinking about what would be acceptable to everyone. --Haemo (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, thought so, and if that is the case we can simply state:
The collapse of the third building, 7 World Trace center (WTC 7) occurred at 5:20 p.m. and it is a subject of ongoing investigation. [135],[136].
I'd also suggest we add a third reference [137].
Would that be satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a strong opinion about it, but it might be helpful to mention some of the points SheffieldSteel made. --Haemo (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Uf, you've just mentioned connotations? Did you not? Look, I'm afraid that SheffieldSteels revision is a shuffled version of existing sentence and as such it doesn’t lead anywhere, so no improvement would be made. If you'd like such broad take, we'd also have to add the building was not hit by an airplane fact as well as no steel framed building collapsed due to fire fact as well as 9/11 Commission forgot to mention the collapse of WTC7 fact as well as (I'll restrain)… which would in return lead to more connotations… We could seek consensus to give WTC 7 well deserved section, but I'm reluctant to pursue such course if we're failing to reach consensus on the simplest of citations. Again, I'd suggest we take one step at the time and keep things as simple as we can while stating facts and leaving observations and conclusions to the visitors. Please, share your thoughts.
It's not a citation issue, which is the point. It's trying to concisely and neutrally summarize the citation used. Also, please sign your posts to make it easier to follow the discussion. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm following what you wrote to the letter; at least I'm hoping so. 78.0.69.70 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my choice of words offended you somehow; rest assured that I am not offended by yours. That aside, you do seem to have missed the point of my proposal, which is that it avoids saying that the collapse was caused by fire and debris impacts - which was, or so I thought, the problem with the original sentence. Hence, those objecting to the current version (and I assume that those objecting to the current version are those who want to see a different version, apologies if I am mistaken) ought to be happier with this. My suggestion was in fact an attempt to find a compromise between those who want to say "there is no doubt, the case is closed" and those who want to say "nobody knows anything for sure" (or whatever).
As for sources, this fully supports my proposal. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really want to talk about the investigation? We could do. This is from L.3.5 Summary of working collapse hypothesis...

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
  • An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
  • Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse...

Of course, they're being very careful about this, as good engineers should. But I note that the word "fire" occurs 91 times in this 56-page document. We can say as much, or as little, as we want to about the investigation. But let's not kid ourselves that they're going to attribute this collapse to anything other than some combination of fire and debris impact... because they're not considering anything else. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Where were we? Yes, an apology if my initial reply was inappropriate. Let me share an opinion on some of the points you've made above while reiterating the fact for which there should be no objection whatsoever.
The Collapse of WTC 7 is a subject of ongoing investigation.
Having that fact in mind we can conclude that neither of the POV's you've mentioned carries any real weight. These opinions you had used to clarify your point are just that, opinions, one may think that the NIST will somehow manage to solve the unsolvable, other may think it will show integrity and offer evidence for the most probable of the hypotheses. At this point in time, we can only guess what NIST will come out with, and we're not here to play guessing games or turn postulates into evidence or to affect readers opinions with our particular POV's. Would that be correct?
To illustrate, you've chosen to point out the Summary of working collapse hypothesis which is fine, but it lacks conclusion (or rather disclaimer) which clearly states:
•While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it is evaluating the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
•The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.
•This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.
I'd say that the simplest of the offered solutions, the one without any connotations is currently the fairest solution with regard to our NPOV policy. Please, share your thoughts. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about my proposal there? Your meaning isn't clear. The best solution is to remove material which violates policy, and add material which is notable, reliably sourced, and missing from the article. I think you'll agree that my proposed rewrite of the initial sentence...

“ A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) was hit by debris from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. ”

... removes the problematic assertion that the collapse was caused by fire and debris. So can we agree on that? The investigation is already covered in its own section. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, do say, why would you think (emphasize) that fire and debris are more (or less) important than the lack of plane or why the sentence wouldn’t take the reference for what it is and state that we are in the middle of the ongoing investigation? Would you like to suggest another reference? 78.0.91.39 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should we include anything about it "not being hit by a plane"? It was "not hit" by lots of things. It was hit by debris. We have a reliable source (the NIST report, appendix L) saying so. If you want to say more, then according to WP:PROVEIT the burden of proof is on you, as the editor wishing to include material. Also, of course, there are issues of notability and relevance, which is where obtaining WP:CONSENSUS comes into play. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you implying that I should prove that the building was not hit by the plane? Or are you implying such well known fact is not important with the regard to the issue at stake? Whatever be your point, I'm not proving anything beyond obvious, so I'll repeat it once more, the current construction of that sentence is an open fallacy which is bordering with cover-up! Again, your proposed revision is based on the reference which cannot be presented as anything else but ongoing investigation. Add such variable, and you may yet prove you're willing to seek consensus with NPOV on your mind. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not say something like "struck by falling debris, and neither of the two planes" instead? --Haemo (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be more npov-ish approach, if we state it along with the fact that we're dealing with ongoing investigation. I'm honestly not sure why we can't have a proper citation? I'll listen. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as far as I'm concerned the citation supports all of the revisions proposed so far. --Haemo (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
With purpose of timesaving, would you rather endorse longish, fire, debris, plane, investigation revision or trimmed down, subject of ongoing investigation version. I'm certain that there are related articles which deal with the topic in… some manner. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I've missed proposal above, so I'll repeat it here with slight changes.

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which was not hit by the plane, suffered debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. The collapse is the subject of an ongoing investigation."

As Wayne said it, this would be close to covering all of the bases. Please, share your thoughts. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Try this, it's a little more robust:

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which was not struck by either plane, suffered debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. NIST is currently investigating the collapse as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2."

Eh? --Haemo (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with it, keep in mind that we (for obvious reasons) also have to change the beginning of section which states that Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure into Two of the three buildings… 78.0.91.39 (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think that to say 7 WTC was not hit by a plane at best looks clumsy - let's give our readers credit for not forgetting which planes hit which buildings so soon in the article - and at worst makes it look like we're pandering to conspiracy theorists, who are the only group I've seen who want to emphasise this fact. Many things could have happened on that day but did not, and we should not write about every one of them. For example, the article doesn't say "a plane did not crash into the White House" - even though that was reportedly one of the alleged targets. I would welcome an explanation of why this fact - this plane that did not hit 7 WTC - should be recorded.
As for the investigations by the NIST, they are detailed at length later in the article, and do not need to be covered in this, the first major section, entitled "Attacks", which could easily grow too large if we were to allow such material to be added.
As for the last proposal above, editing three buildings collapsed due to structural failure to two: it's not possible for buildings to collapse for other reasons, as far as I know. Of course, I could be wrong on that, so... I suggest that we remove the phrase "due to structural failure" rather than to change 3 to 2. After all, three buildings collapsed, and three buldings are the subject of the paragraph. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, stating that no plane hit WTC7 restates what's already been written elsewhere in the article. Probably more to the point, reliable sources all agree that structural failure caused the collapse (of course), they also all agree that the cause of the structural failure was debris from WTC 1. The only question is the specific mechanism of the collapse (and they are closing in on that as well). That's the only clarification needed, if any is needed at all. I'd be opposed to the proposed changes to this point. RxS (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Good morning sailor, do say, have you been following the discussion or are you just parachuting blindly? Which reliable source states that building collapsed due to debris and fire?!!! Wikipedia?! Get a grip and try to control yourselves fellows, honestly! 78.0.91.39 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice, you might want to review this [138] the next time you feel the need to snark. The proposed remedies section has some material relevant to the editing style you've shown on this page. Consider this a warning to keep your comments civil while editing this talk page. Thanks. RxS (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All bright, I'll ignore this last spoof for a moment. Sheffield let's remove the structural failure then, take no grudge but I'd deeply appreciate if we could all kindly restrain from the usage of the term conspiracy theory. Where I bode from, that would be description of this article in its current state, which I for one find somewhat confusing. Must say, apart from this conspiratorial argument you've just pulled, I'm not sure what is the reason for such strong objection on plane fact? One of the explanations which you might welcome would be that lack of plain is in direct connection with this long-lasting investigation. If you insist, I'll provide more of the reasons why this fact shouldn’t be neglected, but in my experience it will lead to unnecessary tension. So, please, if you could kindly agree on the revision above, while I'll agree with your suggestion on structural integrity, so we may wrap up this lengthy discussion and move onward with improving of the article. What's your say?78.0.91.39 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the friendly gesture. Let's see what others have to say on the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


How about this instead?:

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), suffered debris damage from 1 WTC, instead of a direct plane impact, and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. NIST is currently investigating the collapse as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC."

Eh2? --Haemo (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If that will satisfy and calm the spirits, so be it, imo, the word currently is not really needed. I'd also suggest the implementation of that third reference which is a bit fresher than the offered ones. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Change "debris damage" to "serious debris damage" and change "investigating the collapse" to "investigating the collapse mechanism" and I'd be fine with it. RxS (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which was not struck by either plane, suffered serious debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, and collapsed at 5:20 p.m. NIST is currently investigating the collapse mechanism as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2."
(built from Haemo's first suggestion) Not that I'm fond of wording it like this, but is certainly an improvement to me.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), while not directly damaged by either aircraft, incurred severe damage from falling 1 WTC debris and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:30 PM. NIST is currently investigating the collapse as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2."
It's awkward to say that it was "not hit by a plane;" I think we can credit our readers with the ability to remember which buildings were struck. "Direct damage" might be a better descriptor in this case. Thoughts? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it. I'm stealing it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

So far I've hear no argument (other than plain assertions that it is self evident) that we must include the non-impact of the plane. I'm also unconvinced that the investigation needs to be mentioned in the Attacks section when it is already documented, at length, in its own section. Nevertheless, if there is to be any progress on this article, someone will have to attempt to compromise. With that in mind, I propose this revision.

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7), while not directly damaged by either aircraft, was struck by debris from WTC 1 around 10:30am. The southwest corner was damaged from floors 8 to 18, and there was some damage to the edge of the roof parapet. Between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., fires were observed on many floors, ranging from floor 7 up to floor 30. The building collapsed at 5:21 p.m. that day.[28]

The NIST launched investigations into the cause of collapse of the three buildings, subsequently expanding the investigation to include prevention of progressive collapse, and fire resistance design and retrofit in structural steel.[29] The report into WTC 1 and WTC 2 was concluded in October 2005[30] and the investigation into WTC 7 is ongoing.[31]

So there you have it. Non-plane-impact, ongoing investigation... any problems? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Haemo (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually just made a minor change of the wording for clarification (not changing the meaning, I hope). There was also a problem with ref 16. Feel free to revert if there's a problem, but keep the fix to ref 16 :) Okiefromokla questions? 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, that second paragraph shouldn't even be in that section. It should be in Investigations, shouldn't it? The ongoing investigation of the WT7 collapse isn't mentioned there, but the rest is pretty much covered. Okiefromokla questions? 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Structural failure

While I'm glad to see this improved, I'll have to ask why we are stuck with the claim that:

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack.

If we had acknowledged the ongoing investigation then we had acknowledged that we don't know what caused the collapse of third building. Although I don't think passionately about the issue, I'd have to note we have a notable flaw, in purely logical sense. 89.172.60.72 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't know what caused the structural failure — fire, structural damage, thermite, laser beams, etc. However, it's basically uncontentious that it collapsed due to a structural failure and not, say, some other form of failure that can affect tall buildings. --Haemo (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like a bullet, poison, myocardial infarction can all cause heart failure, so can faulty structure, weakened structure, overloaded structure, thermite, thermate or explosives can all cause structural failure. By saying the buildings collapsed, we are saying the structure failed, since the structure was presumably built to not collapse. But saying that 3 buildings collapsed due to structural failure seems to me that we are saying that the 3 buildings failed for the same reason, while investigations into the collapse mechanism continue. I don't like the sentence any more than "I live in a house building with my dog animal and my mother." because it seems redundant, and because it synthesises a link between buildings which each suffered separate architectural insults, and which may have all collapsed through different mechanisms and for different reasons. User:Pedant (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bush

Where was Bush when the attacks happened? I'm asking because someone told me he was reading a book to little kids, and somebody went to him and told him what happened and he answered very nonchalantly.--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Was covered well on TV. "Nonchalantly" is the wrong word, because it suggests couldn't care less. The look of alarm on his face suggested otherwise. Bush didn't want to alarm the kids, so he carried on for a few minutes before leaving the classroom. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your reply is not accurate and it is misleading; those who are interested in Bush's response may find extremely detailed (wiki) timeline here, from where anyone can draw conclusions on their own.
Not alarming the kids? It was nation's most desperate hour, simple excuse me kids, would do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this isn't the place for this kind of discussion. Talk pages are to discuss improvements to the article, not the subject of the article. If you have questions like this, the appropriate forum is the Reference Desk. --Haemo (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Stucture and clarity re: "Responsibilty"

The "Responsibility" section must change. The title is too vague. I suggest, since we understand the terrorists listed in the introduction flew the planes into the towers, that we retitle that section, "The hijackers," so those people can be defined with greater depth. Also, the section concerning Memorials should be tied in with the Victims section. Lastly, I propose the addition of Noam Chomsky's text, 9/11, be added to the reading section as it is a scholarly work. GuamIsGood (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure about the first one. While they were "Hijackers", changing it from "Responsibility" seems like an attempt at removing blame... pardon me if I'm assuming bad faith, I've just seen a lot of tricks lately. Your second sugestion seems like a good idea. The third, however, if I'm not mistaken, has been shot down already. Perhaps you could look into the archives? --Tarage (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, Noam Chomsky is a reliable source, and not only is acceptable in the reading section, it is good for use as a reference. If this was shot down before, and prematurely archived, maybe you can point that out. User:Pedant (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the more important issue is that we don't just discuss the hijackers in that section, so changing the name to merely "The hijackers" is incorrect. --Haemo (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Haemo: more than the hijackers is discussed. In the conventional view, there are 4 types of responsibility: a) the hijackers (19-20); b) the people behind them (bin Laden); c) those that failed to warn or ignored warnings or failed to prevent; d) those that failed to intervene. In other views there are other actors: a) those within American government that organized the attacks; b) (optional) the hijackers and the people behind them (c); d) those that found out and decided it was no use to try and tell anyone. Even if we ignore the latter four, I think it is confusing to mix all four a,b,c,d in one section under one caption. I suggest to rewrite the entire paragraph.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware that 9/11 by Noam Chomsky was ever "shot down," Tarage. In fact, I was the one who brought up its relevency, which was refuted about as convincingly as you have above. You can find the transcript in the previous archive. As for my suggestion to replace the "Responsibility" section title, it should be taken under consideration (also reviewable in the previous archive) because many people understand that the numerable documented history of United States military and political intervention in that region was the only reason why the hijackers attacked. Unless we are willing to agree that U.S. government policy is also responsible, the title should be changed. Also, there is a "Motive" sub section attached, so for clarity's sake this article needs to be fixed. As an addendum, I still suggest that the "Memorials" section be tied into the "Fatalities" section. GuamIsGood (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I completly dissagree with your asertion that Wikipedia must say something about the motive of the hijackers outside of the motive section. Doing so connects dots that should not be forcibly connected. It would put far too strong of a bias into play. --Tarage (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and further... I don't think we can say anything about motive yet, how can we know the motive? We don't connect dots. WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL, etc. User:Pedant (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

There's a recent suggestion to delete/merge/keep Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

See AfD NOM here.

Personally, I haven't decided on my preferred action, but I figured that the general public of September 11, 2001 attacks contributors might be interested.

Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've indefinitely move-protected this page, since it attracts a lot of stupid vandalism — esp. page-move stuff. I reckon we'll need to go back to indefinite semi-protection, since within 1 hour of being unprotected it was vandalized, but we'll wait and see. If anyone objects, I'll undo. --Haemo (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving it where? --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) There's been more IP vandalism. I think it makes sense to consider semi-protection - after the Arbcom decision, no one with any sense is going to risk getting their user account banned. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration decision

Now that the arbitration case has closed, would it be appropriate for someone with better wiki-fu than I to make a warning template? Something akin to Template:Uw-balkans? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Case in point: diff
I'll whip something up. --Haemo (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Danger, danger Will Robinson — In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. --Haemo (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
More danger Will Robinson!!! — In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. --Haemo (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The desired templates are {{Uw-9/11}} and {{Uw-9/112}}. --Haemo (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice, thanks a lot! // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The death count math is wrong...

I quote: "2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks",... "one person from lung disease",... and "Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998"

2974+1+24=2999

Either exclude the mention of the person with lung problems, or revise the death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.67.142 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the second number only refers to direct victims of the attacks; so it doesn't include the lung disease person. --Haemo (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten this section to clarify this point. --Haemo (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

lead sentence

I still object to the opening sentence, as stated before and for the same reasons, which I feel were not adequately addressed, and which were in my opinion, hastily archived. Just for the record, and I'm not trying to open a can of worms, just want to be clear that I do not consent to that wording, and in my opinion consensus does not exist for the sentence as it presently reads. You cannot have a reliable source for a 'fact' which it is impossible for anyone to know. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what is "impossible to for anyone to know"? --Haemo (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."
O.K. (1) it is impossible for anyone to know that they were suicide attacks. Everything about the motives or intentions of the alleged hijackers is speculation. All such speculation originates with the Executive Branch of the US government, which is (at least) one of the parties to the dispute, along with "Al Qaeda," which may or may not have had anything to do with the attacks with or without the cooperation of the Executive Branch. (2) It is impossible for anyone to know that Al Qaeda did it. The biggest smoking gun indication that Al Qaeda did NOT do it is the obviously phony "Osama confession video."
Unfortunately, it is of the nature of the national debate on these issues that criticism of the Official Conspiracy Theory is "not falsifiable" by any methods likely to occur. Logically, the OTC has already been disproven because parts of it have been disproven. That's the nature of the debate, although it isn't fair to supporters of the OTC. To disprove "conspiracy theories," you have to disprove every single one of them, which nobody has competently attempted. Responsible academic supporters and critics of the OTC agree upon this fact.
So, you're starting the article with a statement which cannot be proven, but which is merely an accusation, based, if at all, upon extremely questionable evidence, against presumably innocent people, who were never even convicted of a crime. Some of this confusion could be alleviated by attributing the various accusations to their sources. Wowest (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh... yeah... got any RS to back up this soapboxing? --Tarage (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Tarage, do you actually have something meaningful to contribute or are you just muddying the waters? The whole point Wowest is making is that there are not going to be any reliable sources. Maybe not ever. But the statements are there in the article. Why are the statements there if there is not a reliable source? Do you not understand what is being discussed? If so, perhaps you might refrain from making your usual personal attacks and accusations, and just think harder. User:Pedant (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There ARE reliable sources that give a best guess as to the intent. Just because we don't have 100% factual proof that X was intending to do Y doesn't mean that if the vast majority of RS make this assertion that we should ignore it. Wowest made a claim that the Osama video was 'obviously phony', but backed it up with nothing. That, in my book, is soapboxing. Unless we are suddenly allowed to make wild claims with nothing to back them up... Am I not understanding what soapboxing is? --Tarage (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have to be in a very generous mood to allow the possibility that you are unfamiliar with soapboxing. But still, a 'best guess' does not sound to me like a reliable source. Please stick to the subject of this discussion or start a new section and discuss what you wish to in that section, not here. The subject here is the lead sentence of the article, and whether a reliable source is a source that uses 'best guesses' or uses facts. Who judges what the 'best' guess is? Facts are facts and guesses and assumptions are not. If we are to use 'best guesses' we should attribute them as such, hmmm? User:Pedant (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not about to start an argument with you about what is and is not a reliable source. We have plenty of guides for that, which you can look up in your free time. The fact remains that the reliable sources say this, and that is what we put. I don't understand why that concept is so hard to grasp. And again, you claim to want me to stop with the persional attacks, yet continue to make these snide jabs at my editing record. Which way do you want it? --Tarage (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. My best example I have found is that an accepted textbook which was recently in widespread use said something to the effect that , when he was a young boy Christopher Columbus dreamed of being a famous explorer. But when he was a young boy, he wasn't famous, didn't keep a diary, etc, and even if he did, actually, "dream of" something, nobody can know his dreams... someone might know that he said he dreamt such and such. Like I said before, "suicide" attacks/by al-quaeda/upon the united states. The first and third items hinge on INTENT and to make any statement as to the truth or falsity of some dead person intending something is to make a statement about something which cannot be known. And "by al-quaeda": if a certain air force General crashed his plane into the Ottawa Parliament building, and died on impact, would it be proper to say that the USA attacked Canada? Or more accurate to say that the plane hit the Parliament Building? The whole article is riddled with similar unverifiable assertions, which are duly cited with references... but for which it is not possible for there to be a reliable source. Wikpedia should make statements that are true, not just mostly true or almost true or possibly true or we hope it is true. User:Pedant (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Except, while we may not be able to say with 100% accuracy, and such a thing is impossible, the vast majority of RS point to this being the most probable answer. Unless you have RS to dispute this, then the whole argument is moot. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
By what reasoning do you call a source 'reliable' when they make claims that are neither verifiable or falsifiable, for which there is no real evidence? User:Pedant (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said, you don't need absolute proof that X indended to do Y if you have RS that come to this conclusion. RS are allowed to do synthesis. We are not. --Tarage (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I do not support the claim that the Osama video is 'obviously phony'. Unless you have RS to back up that accusation, this has been OR at best, and soapboxing at worst. --Tarage (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Tarage, your entire list of contributions appears to me to be soapboxing. It is sweet of you to put parameters on what sort of thing you are willing to call this discussion, but you have not contributed any content to this discussion, and perhaps you might think of refraining from joining in a discussion when you have nothing meaningful to say. Let's say I am asking that as a favor. User:Pedant (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So you wish for me to stop 'persional attacks', yet you are right at home using them against me. Can we archive this redundency yet? --Tarage (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you have already insisted that you have the privelege of calling me a troll, even when asked politely to stop, I feel somewhat at home pointing out that you maintain a single-purpose account as evidenced by your contributions. This is not a personal attack but a complaint about your intent, which I am using a 'best guess' to ascertain. QED, it is true that you maintain your account with the intent to disrupt discussion. No do not archive this discussion. That is just another way to disrupt the discussion, to 'archive' it. It is quite important that the lead sentence's lack of sources is addressed, before we can move on to the rest of the article. The lead sets the tone of the article, and as soon as someone reads the sentence, they will know that it is not going to tell the truth, but just assert 'best guesses' as if they were actual facts. User:Pedant (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Privelage nothing. And, as I recall, I asked you to continue that line of discussion on my talk page, which you have not. But since you are hell bent on attacking my editing record, what can I do? You've questioned what is and isn't an RS, when there are clearly guidelines that are in place, and have been met. You, nor Wowest have provided a single RS to back up your claims. The most that has been said is "I don't like the way the article looks. Change it because I say so." Again, I may not have the firmest grasp on what soapboxing is, and I will be the first to admit that, but I don't know what else to call this. I'm not sure what else I, or anyone else can say. EDIT: And I do appologize for again dredging up User:Pedant's and my dispute on this talk page. If an admin feels it fit to strike these messages from the talk page, I would have no objections. It is never my intent to bring persional issues to places where they don't belong. --Tarage (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject here, as I have already reminded you is this:

I still object to the opening sentence, as stated before and for the same reasons, which I feel were not adequately addressed, and which were in my opinion, hastily archived. Just for the record, and I'm not trying to open a can of worms, just want to be clear that I do not consent to that wording, and in my opinion consensus does not exist for the sentence as it presently reads. You cannot have a reliable source for a 'fact' which it is impossible for anyone to know. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any claims except for "You cannot have a reliable source for a 'fact' which it is impossible for anyone to know". Please discuss elsewhere, all other subjects. Let someone who has something to say about 'facts which cannot be known' discuss this, and since you have nothing to say, please do so. User:Pedant (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That I have not responded much does not imply that this issue is unimportant to me. It's just that I've been catching up on Real Life issues a but. Pedant is correct: the lead is making assertions as if they were certain when they are in fact not certain at all. They need to be sourced and attributed, since there exists no accepted authority which can state which is and is not true. I propose we either provide sources and attribute or delete the lead. Let's borrow some inspiration from other language wikipedia's to see how it can be done better.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Solicitor General Lies about Phone Call

In The Attacks paragraph we state>

During the hijacking of the airplanes, some passengers and crew members were able to make phone calls using the cabin GTE airphone service and mobile phones.[20][21] They reported that several hijackers were aboard each plane.

That second reference above contains proven fallacy and it should not be presented or true facts should be implemented. If we need to mention the phone calls, then we should state it as it is, and as unfortunate as this whole nightmare is U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson lied to the public. It should be well known today that alleged call of his wife never happened. Undisputable evidence which refutes Solicitor General shameful claim was introduced as part of Prosecution Exhibits presented during United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Trial which are available for download and public scrutiny at this location. If you'd be so kind to share some thoughts on how are we to present this unfortunate, but well known lie? 89.172.60.72 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently you are objecting to the statement that Barbara Olson, the wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, called her husband from American Airlines Flight 77 to describe how the passengers and crew had been forced into the back of the plane by hijackers in this 2001 CNN story. First of all, could you provide a reliable source stating that Mr Olson lied about these phone calls? Secondly, could you point out what it is in this second document that is "undisputable" evidence demonstrating that he lied? --Haemo (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Uf, uf, uf! Had to take a quick look, as it seems, if reliable sources would be mainstream sources which after first day never mentioned the collapse of WTC 7, then finding reliable source which will explicitly state that Mr. Olson is a liar might be difficult. On the other hand, if we are to accept the undisputable evidence provided by U.S.D.C. while accepting it as a reliable source we'll have no need to start painful discussion about need for a new section with working title Mainstream media and 9/11.
To answer your second question, once exhibits are downloaded one may place query on call allegedly made by Barbara Olson which will give return information that connection couldn't be established and that call lasted zero seconds. 78.1.107.142 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there were also a number of calls which did not have a source determined — her second call could have been one of those. After all, Mr Olson mentions that he lost contact when the plane crashed — which coincides with one of the "unknown" calls that had a substantial duration. Without reliable sources making the claim that none of the other calls was the one Mr Olson mentioned, and thus he was lying, we can't change the article to reflect what is essentially original research — or at best a fringe claim. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, I'd say that you're doing what you say I'm doing. To clarify, hearings showed that government never connected four calls to Barbara Olson, those calls were made, and I'll quote, by unknown caller. You may assert what you wish, but officially and as we heard in the Court of Law, only call attributed to Mrs. Olson was unconnected call to the Department of Justice. If you have a complaint about these facts you should forward them to FBI who, as far as I can tell, had done the original research on that subject. As per our work here, we should at least state that there are serious doubts concerning this and other allegedly made phone calls. Any thoughts? 78.1.112.245 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
But, you haven't shown any evidence that there are "serious doubts" about Mr Olson's claim. At best, you've shown that the Government never was able to positively identify a call from Mrs Olson's phone with the properties that he claims it had. I don't have a complaint about these facts, because they don't show anything — there were a bunch of unidentified calls from that flight, and one of them could be Mrs Olson. I'm not pushing original research here — the claim you're making is that Mr Olson lied about receiving the phone call in question. However, you have not presented any evidence that this is the case, nor have you presented any reliable sources making this claim — instead, you've pointed to much evidence which supports a much, much weaker claim and doesn't support the "Mr Olson lied" argument at all. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the issue here is not what that document says — what we need is a reliable source saying that Mr Olson lied. Otherwise, this is just novel synthesis. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
How to heck had we come to this synthesized synthesis policy? I've presented the clear evidence, which you choose to disregarded while implying all sorts of thingies which have nothing to do with the topic. The fact is, hearings showed that government never related four calls to Barbara Olson, those calls were made, and I'll quote, by unknown caller. You may assert what you wish, but officially and as we heard in the Court of Law, only call attributed to Mrs. Olson was unconnected call to the Department of Justice. If you don't want to call Mr. Olson a liar, then say that he was confused while we notice that US Government itself showed clear evidence of his confusion. [139] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.112.245 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to call him anything. The point being made here is that Wikipedia, as a project, does not state things without a reliable sourcing saying them first. A revision in which Mr Olson is called a liar, or "confused", without a sourcing is contrary to the stated goal of this encyclopedia. The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Frankly, I think he has a history of opportunistically lying and it's really sketchy that there was no record of his call — but that's not what we're here to do, and that's not the kind of project I'm here to work on. --Haemo (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Please accept an apology for those, somewhat itchy and scratchy responses. One would think that hundreds of thousands of editors would participate in making this article as free as it should be. So few voices… I find it disturbing… Tell you what, imo, this lack of reliable sources is the shame of us all, along with our policies it often leads to the dead-end where we all know there shouldn’t be one. In any case, thank you, although we made no improvements today, I'd say it was insightful exchange. While we may pursue this further, it will lead us where we've been before, therefore I'll ditch the efforts. Hopefully, such visits into past may be changed by future. 78.1.112.245 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, hundreds of thousands of editors, across several million articles ;) Fair enough, though. --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with that source? Or do you object to calling him a liar based on the evidence presented? Or do you believe the evidence does not show that he lied, but only that what he said was not the truth... or something else? I'm not sure what the objection is. User:Pedant (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to speak for Haemo, but the source does not make a claim one way or the other. To do so seems like synthesis to me... --Tarage (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer to know what Haemo's answer is, since he appears to have the intent of writing an accurate article. Your intent seems at odds with collaborative efforts to do so. I am dubious about you even having read the material. User:Pedant (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to speak for him, and you have every right to hear him out. I was just attempting to stave off another repetative argument the likes of which we seem to be stuck in these days. However, since you refuse to show even the smallest amount of respect for me, there is little I can do. I can just forsee that no matter what he says, you intend to drag this on and on and on, as I have seen done before... --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, how can you say what my intent is? If you want no more repetition, then just don't involve yourself in discussions which you cannot or will not add anything meaningful to. Of course I don't show you respect, I deal with facts and it is a fact that I do not respect non-productive editors who maintain single-purpose accounts, blithely flout wikipedia policies, and disrupt potentially productive discussion with irrelevant interjections, false accusations and name-calling. I have however, at all times attempted to be civil and courteous in my interactions with you, and have several times pointed out that we would do best to work collaboratively rather than argue. We can still do that, whether or not we have respect for each other. Out of respect for other editors at least, all editors should follow all policies, all the time. User:Pedant (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, what I said was that the source given does not support the contention that he lied. You can interpret it to say that he lied, but that original research — it's not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to be looking around for documents and saying "Aha! This documents contradicts this statement he made, ergo he is a liar". That's what the issue was here — we don't discuss something unless reliable sources do first. No reliable source says Mr Olson lied about the phone call, thus we're not going to say he did. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Calling a living person a liar is a very bad idea. We should, however, point our readers to the evidence presented in this court case.. How about this sentence? :
Phone records as presented in (such and such) court case do not positively confirm these calls as having been authentically made. Doubts exist whether the 2001 cellphone network could have provided calls of such duration from that plane.

Or something like that. Maybe attribute the doubts to some one.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe"? The court case provided no such evidence, and the only "evidence" out there is a study by conspiracy theorists to argue that the calls were faked. No reliable source could possibly be found which would support this revision. --Haemo (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Revising the Lead

This article has been subject to numerous presumably good-faith revisions by apparent newbies, characterized by the "A Gang" as vandalism. I think we can all recognize real vandalism. We have been through a ridiculously prolonged series of debates based upon an effort to prevent certain widely-held beliefs to be documented here, and based upon repeated name-calling and general disparagement of the people who hold these opinions. It is not necessary to promote any particular viewpoint in order to achieve balance, but if 20% of the population believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, that's 60 million potential new editors, some of whom will be greatly offended by assumptions.

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."

O.K. Let's see what we can use without offending anyone.

  • The September 11, 2001 tragedies in the United States are often referred to as 9/11 (pronounced nine-eleven).
I don't think anyone is going to object to that.
  • On that date, four commercial passenger aircraft were reportedly hijacked, after which their identification transponders were disabled. None of the pilots entered the four-digit code indicating that a hijacking was underway, however.
  • Subsequently, two aircraft tentatively identified as AA flight ___ and UA flight ___ crashed into buildings 1 and 2 at the World Trade Center in New York City.
  • According to the U.S. government, an additional aircraft, ___ flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth aircraft, identified as flight 93 crashed into an abandoned coal mine in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
O.K. -- The only problems I see are that some of the early witnesses to the crashes at the WTC identified the aircraft involved as being smaller than commercial passenger aircraft and as being white in color, with circular blue logos near the front of the aircraft.
  • According to the U.S. government, the hijackings were a suicide attack carried out by a previously unnamed organization now identified as "Al Qaeda.
It takes a few more sentences, but everything controversial is sourced, and no unsourced theories have been introduced. However, I think we need one more point to avoid vandalism.
  • In the confusion following these events, several contradictory assertions were made and several facts were unreported, giving rise to numerous conspiracy theories alleging wrongdoing by various individuals and governmental agencies.
There. Nobody is actually blamed. Nothing controversial is alleged to be factual. No actual facts are omitted. The controversy is acknowledged and nobody is called a wing-nut. That's my proposal for the lead. Anyone have a way to make it better? Wowest (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If we could condense it without omitting anything, I think that this would be an excellent start to fixing the article, and achieving a stable, consensus-based factual article. I don't have any objection (I support this proposal) to moving forward along these lines. Thanks for taking the effort to write and format that all so it is very readable too. User:Pedant (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No thanks, the existing lead is fine.--MONGO 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead is exactly what reliable sources say, and it's referenced. That's what we do here, we don't report facts so much as we report what reliable sources report. And as far as any controversy about this, there is none to report. There's a lot of You Tube videos and web sites but no controversy in the academic community or among reliable sources. RxS (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly: what reliable sources say about what happened is described in all the details in the article 9/11 timeline. This can obviously be summarized in several ways and we are not forced to choose the way of a certain reliable source if we have a better and less problematic way to summarize the same informations.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted the lead needs improving but that is not it. Your suggestion is so NPOV that it has become POV if you understand what I mean. Wayne (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, where are your RS to back this change up? --Tarage (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll endorse Wowest initial revision and suggest we work on its improvement. Tarage, please point at the points you'd like to see sourced? 78.0.65.205 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets start with his accusation that the Osama video was 'clearly phony'. I'd like to see a RS say that. Or rather, enough RS that say that to trump all those that support it. --Tarage (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, where did he make such statement? 78.0.65.205 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. He says it up a ways in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#lead_sentence
To quote his own words: The biggest smoking gun indication that Al Qaeda did NOT do it is the obviously phony "Osama confession video."
I wish to see reliable sources to back up this claim. Otherwise, it is an oppinion, and thus can't be used as an argument here. Unless I am mistaken? --Tarage (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus attempt re: lead sentence

I believe there is a consensus developing: "The lead sentence needs some work of some sort"

Without discussing exactly what needs to be changed, do other editors agree that the lead sentence needs some work? Please discuss only this subject in this section. User:Pedant (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it does need some work. User:Pedant (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I think it correctly summarizes the current reliable sources. --PTR (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No. It is fine the way it is. Reliable Sources make that claim, and we only report what reliable sources say. Nothing more, nothing less. --Tarage (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's fine. It accurately and concisely summarizes the article, and the reliable sources used in the article without giving undue weight to minority views about 9/11. Think about it — neutral point of view opposes giving minority views undue weight — compromising the entire article by re-writing in this form is massive undue. You might as well rewrite Apollo 11 to begin "The Apollo 11 mission was an alleged manned space mission which the government says landed on the Moon." --Haemo (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    1) Nobody is saying that the lead sentence should give undue weight to minority views and 2) why do you compare with Apollo 11 and not for example with Pearl Harbour?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, all of the proposed changes do exactly that — I chose Apollo 11 because it has about the same popular support in contemporary polling. --Haemo (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    How the proposed changes would give undue weight to views that are not cited at all? On what grounds can you say that they have about the same support and what would be the relevance of "popular support" for wikipedia?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it does.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with it the way it is. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, to say the least; do say, what needs to be sourced? The sheer amount of doubt? Fellows, whether one likes it or not, the tide turned, very few individuals will take so called official conspiracy without recognizing the enormous amount of unanswered questions. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far as to say that people who blindly accept unacceptable are minority, for a very long time that is, so perhaps their POV should be ignored and/or called fringy as this Apollo diversion was, eh? So what's this all about? What needs to be sourced? 78.0.65.205 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We care about polls why? And here I thought Wikipedia was built on Reliable sources, not the whims of the masses, which are always changing I might add. --Tarage (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
All right then, here, have a reliable source which suits your remark.
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
Fisk received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times, and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award. In 2001, he was awarded the David Watt prize for "outstanding contributions towards the clarification of political issues and the promotion of their greater understanding" for his investigation into the Armenian Genocide by the Turks in 1915. More recently, Fisk was awarded the 2006 Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize along with $350,000. 78.0.65.205 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though Fisk calls them ravers, I'd say this is a pretty clearcut source for at the least "a significant minority view exists". I'm not trying to get the article to say anything conspiracy nut-ish, just don't think we can accept that there is a possibility of any source having access to the state of mind of the alleged perpetrators, so just on the face of that I object to 'suicide attacks' and 'upon the United States' (but only when stated as fact, of course I recognise that this is a widely-held opinion... but see Common Knowledge. At this point, nobody knows, and I assert that it is impossible to know. A source which states as fact something which cannot be known is not in my opinion a 'reliable' source. Regardless of the policy (which we wrote anyway), reminding all of WP:IAR. User:Pedant (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
One source a strong article does not make. You are going to have to come up with a lot more than that I'm afraid. The problem is, we have amassed a substantial amount of RS that support what is said in the opening statement. The link you just posted, while a RS, is not enough to warent a complete overhaul of it. At best, it is enough to be put into the Conspiricy Theories section. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if you think something is not reliable. We have guidelines that are quite clear. Please leave your persional oppinions out of this. Also, while the WP:IAR clause does exist, I'll stick to current policy, thank you. Also, if you would read WP:IAR, you would notice the following: Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. I am not going to throw out all of our other policies. Sorry. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
IAR is one of the most abused policies in Wikipedia. It does not mean that we can disregard any policy which stands in the way of one's political agenda or beliefs for the purpose of furthering said position. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources - this has been largely aknowledged - are not reliable for *everything* they say. They are not reliable for istance when they express an opinion as a fact or when they state as true something that is unknown or when they endorse the point of view of a particular side of a debate.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

'this argument yet again'

Not going to get into this argument again with yet another person. If you have a problem with Wikipedia guidelines, take it up with them. We have RS guidelines, and they apply for the sources that we have. If you apply this Well they can't possibly know concept to everything, then we'd have articles filled with Well, it might be possible this happened, but it is also equally as possible that a cow jumped over the moon. because NOTHING in life can be said with 100% certanty. With what RS we have though... it's preaty safe to bet that what they say is as close to what actually happened as we are going to get. That is, unless you can come up with a pile of RS that say differently... --Tarage (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Tarage, you cannot have it both ways. Either you 'are not going to get into this argument again with yet another person' -- in which case, don't... or you ARE 'going to get into this argument again with yet another person.' -- in which case your statemnt is nonfactual.
You (Tarage) continually turn other editor's comments inside-out, restating their point so that they mean a different thin and then you attack that restatement which is not what was said ... this is a 'straw man' argument, a well known logical fallacy which by your repeated use of shows that this is either intentional or ignorance. Either way it is illogical and disruptive.
"If you apply this Well they can't possibly know concept to everything, then we'd have articles filled with "Well, it might be possible this happened, but it is also equally as possible that a cow jumped over the moon."
Is that helpful or relevant or accurate?
"because NOTHING in life can be said with 100% certanty."
Again either inentionally or ignorantly missing the point and restating it and attcking your own restatement. The point isn't whether something can be said with absolute certainty, but whether a source which says something is a fact, when that thing is a thing that nobody can know can be considered reliable, simply because they have a reputation for fact-checking. 'If a fact cannot be checked, it should not be stated as a fact but as an assertion of fact, or as a statement, judgement, assessment, assertion, allegation, claim, theory, hypothesis or opinion -- or something of that nature. A reliable source should not be one that out of journalistic sloppiness(or other reason), allows a confusion between facts and theories.
"With what RS we have though..."
I maintain that there cannot be a reliable source which can state a fact in the absence of possibility of that source actually having a possibility of knowing whether something is true or not.
"... it's preaty safe to bet that ..."
Nothing in the guidelines and policies allows us "safe bets", we are required to have reliable, verifiable sources.
" ...what they say is as close to what actually happened as we are going to get."
Which is not an acceptable rationale for inclusion.
"That is, unless you can come up with a pile of RS that say differently..."
No, see burden (edited for emphasis on relevant paassage):

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

...

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may reasonably object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. It is important to strike a balance between being quick to remove unsourced material that is clearly wrong or in some way damaging, and at the same time making sure that challenges are reasonable. Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion.

No reliable source exists for 3 prominent facts, in the lead sentence, which is the reason I and other editors have a problem with it. With only a handful of people weighing in on whether the first sentence has a problem or not, we have at least 3 editors who feel that it does need work. We can't effectively resolve this in any other way but to reach a consensus about what goes into the article, that's why it is protected, because lack of consensus caused an edit war. "Wikipedia is founded on the principle that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience, and a strong community spirit, each of which are undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring."
Edit warring is not necessarily characterized by any single action; instead, it is characterized by any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. ... so let's work together to achieve a consensus about what really is acceptable. My view is that a source must actually be based at its origin, in something someone knows, not just "what they say is as close to what actually happened as we are going to get". User:Pedant (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Your argument is basically this — "X is not true. Any reliable source which states X is true is not a reliable source because they are being "sloppy" and reporting a theory as a truth". I think the issue with the argument is clear, and what Tarage has requested is if you say seriously believe that there is discussion over whether or not X is true (i.e. X is a fact) then you need to present some reliable sources which state it's not, to disagree with the ones that do. Right now, there are multiple reliable sources which explicitly say "X is true" and your rationale for disregarding them is flawed. --Haemo (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Haemo, but I've given up on trying to debate him. Everything I say falls on deaf ears, and while I try to remain atleast somewhat civil, he continues to call into question everything about me he can grasp at. I have far better things to do than sling mud, so I won't. If he wants to enact these changes, against consensus, so badly, he can. But for his one edit, I'll be here with my one revert, and we will be back to square one. But to be honest, the way the article is right now, square one isn't a bad place to be. --Tarage (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, I think you are mistaken. Pedant argues: the RS have no clue about whether "X" or "not X". Logically, when they cannot say whether "X", they also cannot say whether "not X". What I mean is: any RS which either claims "X" or "not X" when in fact they have no proof for such a claim is wrong in making it. So it goes both ways, and I feel you are not doing justice to Pedant's reasoning.
The RS are just making presumptions, and repeating each other. For example: the scientists who claim that the WTC's collapsed due to impact damage are presuming the innocense of the White House, and started hypothesizing there. One can always make a hypothesis which looks plausible. And other RS will copy such a hypothesis, assuming it to be correct without doing any background checking.
I agree we should always rely on RS, but you seem to be biased in selecting them, Haemo.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
See, that's a judgment call on your part — you argue that "logically they cannot say whether X is true of not" thus, any source which says "X is true" or "X is not true" is wrong. You argue that they're just "making presumptions" and then citing one another as authoritative. However, what you think they "logically" cannot know is a judgment call on your part — you think they cannot know something, and thus you wish to disregard their statements because "they are wrong". You have previously accused me of being "obsessed with the truth", but I am not the one arguing that "any RS which either claims "X" or "not X" when in fact they have no proof for such a claim is wrong in making it".
This, however, is the opposite of what our policies say we should be doing. We are not supposed to be making judgment calls about which reliable sources are "wrong" or not. This is a fundamental disagreement you have with our policies on Wikipedia, and which Pedant has also. He acknowledges this, and has decided to try and make changes to the policies on the relevant. I hope you do the same, because arguing about it here will not accomplish anything. --Haemo (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article status

It has always bothered me that this article is featured in other languages, but not on the English Wikipedia. What does it take on our part to get this article to FA-status? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was the edit warring and vandalism... but I could be wrong. --Tarage (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has to be stable according to the featured article criteria, which this article will have trouble achieving, but I think that the article should be able to achieve the other criteria. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not too far from good article status... I'll have to go into the archives and see why it failed GA nomination in October. Okiefromokla questions? 19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. That didn't take long. It wasn't really reviewed back in October. As Tarage said, it was basically automatically denied because of edit wars. You could make the argument that the article is much more stable now because of the Arbcom decision. Any edit wars are sure to result in bans, so, there should be no problems. Anyone want to put it up for a GA nom? Okiefromokla questions? 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose GA based on lack of consensus for inclusion of dubious 'facts' from sources otherwise considered to be reliable. I think that making the article good is more important thatn awarding it Good Article status. We all know that the

"WRONG VERSION is the version of a page that is protected during an edit war. The Wrong Version is biased, nationalistic, libellous, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikipedia generally. There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version."

I think we need to fix the article before flogging it around as an example of some of the better work of which Wikipedia is capable. I sincerely feel that we can achieve a consensus that the wing-nuts on both ends of the bolt can agree is actually factual. Then as actual facts appear, we can add to the article instead of correcting its mistakes. User:Pedant (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one slightly amused at the fact that the cited text is actually satire? I don't know if User:Pedant is aware of that or not, but either way, it is amusing. --Tarage (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about making serious suggestions for improving the article. Judging from your reply, I must have been unclear. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You might wanna try making it conform with policy, such as NPOV. But I know, my words are wasted, because you are in the belief that it already is...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

in the introduction the sentence "resulting in the collapse" does not comply to NPOV. "followed by the collapse" would be more accurate. There could be many causes of the "collapse" (like improper structural design, bad quality of Iron, high temperature fire, bad fire protections, explosions...). Lpele (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say it "does not comply to" WP:NPOV? Editors sometimes cite NPOV when they think the article isn't true, or doesn't say what they believe. The plane impacts initiated a chain of events which led to the towers' collapse. Bearing in mind that the lead should be a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic, how could the introduction be better worded? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
He is actually making a suggestion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. I must have blanked it out somehow. I think that to say the impacts were "followed by" the collapse is rather too vague. It almost implies coincidence. I would prefer the term to be strengthened, rather than weakened. I would suggest "causing" or "leading to". Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It is the same, I don't see why a link should be made in introduction, it is interpretation. I think that this article should focus more one the facts than on one therory and explanations. There is such a shift between what the facts I know as million of telespectators round the world and what is said in this article, I have got huge doubts about NPOV on that article. I'm just a French guy that switched on TV on september 11 and saw a tower on fire, journalists were reporting explosions and plane crash, then a second plane crashed, journalists were reporting lots of witness about explosion, I wanted to know why this planes crashed, but journalists kept talking about explosion, I switched to CNN : they were reporting explosions in the basement of the building in some stories under the plane crash, BBC World too. Then I saw building exploded then collapsing in a few seconds, reports of explosion in the basement just before the collapse. and this article it talking about a theory telling that in some circumstances, building can collapse when hit by a plane, maybe, but this is not what I saw on TV, I didn't see tower collapsing but exploding from the inside, with some parts going up. So I just went to my basement to get French press published on september 12 and september 13 and what they said about this events, and I'm not mad, they said there was explosions then building collapsed. not in one sentence, but they give plenty of witness reports. And when I read this article, the word "explosion" is not on the article at all ! Why ? About two third of live report on all TV were about explosions, why is there no chapter about reports of September 11 on TV, saying that millions of people saw live througout the world "fire on the first tower, another plane crashing the 2nd tower, fire at the pentagon", that they reported lots of explosions and why don't you say in the introduction that "three towers completely collapsed and got desintegrated in a few seconds which produced huge clouds" ? Talk about the facts first, none of my newspaper of september 12 and 13 made an explicit direct link between plane crash and collapsing. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", september 11 didn't affect my life and I don't care about US politics but I would like to see more information about the facts to see which theory comply more to what was observed. I don't understand why this article don't show the facts properly. As far as I know, none of the live media or newspapers that covered 9/11 apologizes for giving bad information that day. It is the opposite, there were plenty of reports about explosions.Lpele (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dutch newspapers reported the basement explosion as well (Sept. 12).  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we're getting a little too WP:FORUM here, but I'll just say that initial reports were almost complete speculations. When Flight 11 crashed, people thought the pilot had a heart attack. When the second plane hit, people realized it was terrorism. It like that, the pieces fall into place as more is revealed. People focus too much on what news reporters were speculating and reporting on 9/11 and not on scientific facts and studies performed afterwards.
Fuel and debris from the flights traveled down elevator shafts and injured many people as well as blowing out windows in the lobby. But basically, it all comes down to verifiable sources. The FEMA report, the NIST report, and the 9/11 Commission are all verifiable sources despite what conspiracy theorists may argue. But I've written too much on the subject…didn't mean to preach here. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
VegitaU, do you have RS for this or is it OR? Fuel and debris from the flights traveled down elevator shafts and injured many people as well as blowing out windows in the lobby.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, what people are missing here is that we don't report facts as such. We report what reliable sources report. You talk a lot about live coverage of the events that day. It's pretty clear that, as with any rapidly emerging story, there was a lot of confusion. Our interpretations of what we think we saw on live TV doesn't really matter. In any case, since that day there has been a lot of reporting and that reporting is what we draw from. Not eyewitness accounts and not live reporting that was transmitted that has since been superseded. The lead reports what reliable sources report, that is, that the collapse was a direct result of the impact of commercial aircraft. The contributing causes (structural design etc) are well covered in this and other articles. RxS (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
??? What we saw on TV doesn't really matter ? I saw on TV that "three towers completely collapsed and got desintegrated in a few seconds which produced huge clouds" like millions of other people and they reported lots of explosion, this article doesn't talk about that, but it is false or you decide it "doesn't really matter" because it doesn't fit to what you would expect. when all tv media and press report the same thing, they are reliables sources, sorry. Please tell me your source giving the duration of the collapse. What is the average size of the stones found ?Lpele (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You want to debate 9/11 with me? Are you sure? Well… okay. But this isn't the place to do it. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, surprising isn't it! You nor I are reliable sources....I think I'd point you to WP:RS for an overview on how we decide what to include in articles. More to your point though, those reliable sources may have reported a variety of things on that day but since then they have had more time and more resources to present a deeper and more considered picture. We report what the current thinking is of reliable sources, not what they might reported extemporaneously and on the fly that day. Again, the encyclopedia would be unmanageable if we all could include what we thought we saw on TV. RxS (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Issues such as poor design or fireproofing serve only to distract from the key question. Even if the buildings were badly designed, even if the fireproofing was sub-standard, even if the relevant floors of the WTC buildings were packed floor-to-ceiling with explosives, it was still the impacts of the planes that began the process that ended with collapse. The good faith interpretation of this thread is that some editors think the collapse process is important enough to be covered in the lead of the top-level article on the attacks. I do not think so, but I would bow to consensus if it disagreed with me. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think it is worth to add a chapter about the facts as they were covered live by TV and seen by billions of people and created such terror fear : just to say that people saw on TV, first tower on fire, second tower hit by a plane. lots of reports of explosions, people screaming, fire trucks alarms, three building collapsing each one after the other and desintegrated in just a few seconds creating huge smoke clouds and fire on pentagon. This article should talk about it even if these facts are inaccurate because it is still what people remind, anyway as far as I know, none of these facts are inaccurate, and they look to me more important than the theory described in this article or how these facts should be explained or interpreted. It is just what millions of people saw on TV and what was reported on all press the next day, so it is what people know about it. It is not worth talking about ? not a word in that article about reports of explosion, about desintegration of building, about collapsing in a few second. So this article is just talking about something else and when people read it, they feel that it is lying to us, why hiding such obvious facts ? families of people killed will be happy to learn from you that this building was full of explosive and they thought they were working in a safe place and they were working over a barril of powder, you think it is a minor fact so ask people working in new WTC7 what they think about working over a barril of powder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpele (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
When I say "Even if X, Y" I do not mean to say that X is true. I mean to say that Y is true whether or not X is true. Apologies if this confusion is due to a language issue. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with Sheffield Steel's first comment that this is not a POV issue. Planes hit the towers, undisputed. Towers failed structurally, and then collapsed, not disputed. The problem is that the first sentence overstates the facts, by making a causal link between the two facts (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) which cannot yet be established. It's not a POV issue, it's a WP:RS issue, which has not been sufficiently worked out. (whether a source which is otherwise reliable -- because they have a reputation for rigorous fact-checking -- can be a source for a statement that could not have been fact-checked.) Maybe we need some discussion at Talk:WP:RS . There is discussion in a similar orbit to this subject here. Maybe we should all (anyone who feels they can productively discuss this) take it there to get a wider opinion base on the underlying concepts of sourcing. User:Pedant (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, see, this is the issue here — your dispute over whether or not certain facts and statements in this article are reliably sourced is based on the fact that you have a different interpretation of our policies which goes beyond what they say. You basically argue that we should disregard reliable sources which report certain facts which you do not believe they could know — however, that's a judgment call on your part, and the main reason why our policies don't endorse that interpretation. If you want to continue this argument, I suggest the place would be on the relevant policy pages — not here. Local consensus, even if you achieved it, does not override policy. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, we're not interested in facts as "truth". In fact the first sentence at WP:V is:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
If you're not happy with the relationship between facts and reliable sources the relevant policy pages would be the place to have that conversation. RxS (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. The right place to discuss this is at WP:RS or the Village Pump. This article still needs some work to avoid this sort of shoddiness, the article will never be legitimate journalism as long as it states hypothesis as fact. User:Pedant (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No Pedant, I disagree with you. The policy need not change. The threshold for inclusion is V, not T. But we are still responsible for the wording, and we should not word speculation by RS as the undisputed truth whenever we know there exist significant minority view interpretations which contradict such claims!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undindent)Wrong. This isn't a democracy; facts don't change based on popular opinion. There are countless media publications that explain in detail the findings of 9/11. That there may be some fringe sources that want to dispute this is fine in their own section (conspiracy theories of 9/11). -- VegitaU (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC),

Just want a source for 3 assertions of fact, in the lead sentence and so far there is no source.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor is a crystal ball a source.
At some point someone made the assertions, and they have been repeated, simply because news outlets generally get their stories from the same sources everyone is carrying the same story.
Who wrote the actual story? Not who repeated it, who WROTE it? That is the source, and what is their source?
At some time some person "X" said "suicide attack" and other sources repeated it. It isn't possible to say definitively as a fact that the intent of the hijackers was suicide.
At some point some mind-reader reported the intent was to make a suicide attack upon the United States and anyone who reported that as a fact simply does not check where their facts come from or don't care about accuracy, which to me destroys any reputation they may previously have had for fact checking. That seems to me to stray into the area of undue weight, that all the different news outlets have repeated the story does not make it any more true.

The issue is what you view as "speculation" is what other has reported as true. It violates undue weight to compromise the entire based on a minority view. --Haemo (talk)

No, you are misstating it. What I am saying is not that it is speculation, but an assertion of fact. An assertion of fact needs a source. Clear policy.
The policy is good, all of our policies are, and I don't have a problem with them, at all, but only with their misuse. Because WP:V and WP:RS, etc., don't explicitly state that we don't publish unsourced speculation as fact, several of the editors here believe thet these unsourced speculative statements pass muster as reliably sourced facts. But the intent of the policy is clearly that we do not use unsourced statements, so maybe the policy page could use some discussion.
Factuality isn't the issue as we all know. "Verifiability not truth." It certainly can be verified that "countless media publications that explain in detail the findings of 9/11." so that is fine to report.
But that's not what we have done in the lead sentence. There are unverifiable statements of fact there, with no source citation, I have requested citations and according to policy, since there are none, it would be well within proper procedure for me to remove them. That just makes me look like a tendentious editor, so I prefer to resolve this backstage rather than in the article. User:Pedant (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, maybe a better example:

"This is a fundamental disagreement you have with our policies on Wikipedia, and which Pedant has also. He acknowledges this, and has decided to try and make changes to the policies on the relevant. I hope you do the same, because arguing about it here will not accomplish anything."

The above statement by Haemo (Not picking on you, just making an example that we can all readily understand.) contains several statements of fact:

  • You have a fundamental disagreement with our policies on Wikipedia

--synthesis

  • Pedant has a fundamental disagreement with our policies on Wikipedia

--untrue, mischaracterization of my state of mind, you are not a reliable source for reporting my state of mind

  • Pedant has acknowledged that he has a fundamental disagreement with our policies on Wikipedia

--untrue. I have written extensively about why we have our policies and why they are needed and how they have come about and what they mean. I am in complete agreement with, if not the exact text of the policies, but with their intent, and when the intent of a policy is to never state assertion as fact, and to remove statements not supported by reference, I think that is exactly what we should do.

  • Pedant has decided to try and make changes to the policies.

--untrue. no source for this assertion. synthesis. unwarranted conclusion.

  • arguing about it here will not accomplish anything.

--crystal ball.

Any source which reports that "it was suicide" rather than "X says it was suicide" is not doing a reasonable job of fact-checking. If the source does not fact-check, how can it be a source with "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking"?

User:Pedant (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not in disagreement with the policies, I just disagree with what they say". Right. Your argument, once again, amounts to saying "Any source which reports something I disagree with as true is not a reliable source". That's a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's policies, right there, and it's not a "mis characterization" to state. This argument over whether I'm a "reliable source" for your state of mind has nothing to do with anything and is incredibly silly. You don't seriously believe me stating my opinion about the article, your arguments, and this discussion falls under the many content policies you just cited, do you? --Haemo (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You misquote me, or at least your putting that sentence in quotes appears to me to be intended as seeming to be a quote. You have made statements about what I believe and what I intend. (do you dispute this?) Those statements are in point of fact false statements. (do you have evidence to the contrary?) To me that seems ironically similar to some news agency making similar claims (which may or may not be true) without the ability of knowing.
Regardless, I have asked for sources for assertions of fact (defined by wikipedia as: as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.) and neither you nor any other editor has provided the references.
"Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
(do you dispute that the above is in fact official wikipedia policy?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You made false statements about me that were not framed as opinion and appeared to me to be intentional falsehoods. I object to that, if only on the basis that making false statements to another editor about me interferes with the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia. Colleagues don't spread rumors about each other. User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I really only want to work on the encyclopedia, and not to get treated cavalierly as if I were some sort of random troll. My extensive body of productive work on wikipedia speaks for itself. I am requesting citations vis a vis WP:VERIFIABILITY for three unreferenced assertions of fact in the lead sentence. (do you dispute that this act of requesting citations falls within wikipedia guidelines and policies?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No references have been provided (do you dispute that as of this moment, and for the past several weeks there have been no inline citations to a reliable source for those 3 statements for which I requested citations?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I intend to remove the text in question, if sources are not provided. (do you dispute that this is in accord with policy?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nineteen men boarded the four planes"

Is there any evidence they actually boarded these planes? I'm not familiar with the reference [78] but I'm wondering if such evidence is available in this reference?

If there is no evidence then either another reference should be used or this claim should be change to a allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd start here, there are also photos of them at the gate:
[140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147] RxS (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe none of the photos are proven. Apparently the Atta ones conflict with eyewitness accounts (photos show two hijackers dressed casually while the security check in staff say they wore suits and ties). I've read that they are likely to have been taken during dry runs prior to 911. The photos/videos of the other hijackers are not clear enough to positively identify them. We know hijackers boarded the planes but their identities are assumed from evidence other than from them boarding. I think only two were positively identified by airline staff on the day. Osama has not been charged due to insufficient evidence. By insufficient we mean there is evidence but not enough to satisfy a court. Wayne (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read those sources? The computer at the terminal verified the terrorists were selected for special screening. Betty Ong verified the passenger seats the hijackers used on Flight 11. There were calls from the other three aircraft. What exactly are you implying anyway? That there weren't hijackers? That the 19 identified weren't involved? You forget that Zacarias Moussaoui was successfully charged with crimes linked to 9/11. Anyway, once again, if you have any credible sources to back up your claims, post them. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I advise you to actually read what editors write before going off on a totally unrelated tangent. I said "We know hijackers boarded the planes but their identities are assumed from evidence other than from them boarding". Where do you get "there were no hijackers" out of that? Just because they signed in does not mean they used their real names. Only two hijackers were visually identified. Wayne (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And I advise you to actually read all the evidence available that confirms their presence. Remember this isn't a forum for conspiracy theorists. -- VegitaU (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE!!!!!!!!!! Nowhere did I deny their presence and in fact I said they hijacked the planes. I apologise for the caps if you are not a native english speaker. If this is not the case I suggest you refrain from commenting on what people write. Wayne (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a polite reminder — please don't use this page as a forum to discuss evidence for, or against, conspiracy theories. Instead, use it to discuss improvements to the article. --Haemo (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Those pictures do exist and they could be genuine and apparently the source makes the assumption that they are genuine, and multiple reliable sources accept that claim. It's at least a possibility that that there is evidence that a given group of people boarded the plane, so I think to remove the statement from the article, we need other reliable sources specifically contradictory to the present sources. I'm not saying it's true, just that (my opinion) we have no good (policy-based) reason to remove the statement. This is not a court, our burden is that we have a good-faith reason to believe that our information was reported by someone as true (and I add that it should also be information which the source has a likelihood of actually knowing). (and I still suggest we start at the top of the article and work through it from one end to the other, rigorously and scrupulously. Any other approach seems to me to be flailing about unproductively.) User:Pedant (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to rework the article just so it reads like a conspiracy theory. The U.S. Government sources for who hijacked the planes is more than sufficient, as are all the repeated information posted by other entities which aren't generally in agreement with the U.S. such as China, Russia, the UN and the European Union...are they also questionable sources? Oddly, even Al Jazeera has recognized the hijackers in numerous avaiable links..here's one I see [148]...there are plenty more of course if one looks for the facts instead of misinformation.--MONGO 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If they can't know they don't know , and you want to use them as "reliable" for something they have no way of knowing. Let's get that plain. That is what you are saying. User:Pedant (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Something you think they can't know. That's what you're saying — as I mentioned about, you're straying really far from policy here. --Haemo (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
When the EU writes that "Osama did it", that's not because they have studied the matter, it's because they are assuming good faith on the part of the White House. (Which is what all civilised naive people tend to do until they finally learn not to assume to easily.) The 9/11 Commission assumed good faith as well. Since none of them did any serious research, assuming good faith as they were, they can hardly be called an RS for anything other than presuming the official version to be true. It's just a presumption. It may be correct, it may be false. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission did present the hearing of Norman Mineta, and that should not be censored out of this article.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Right, Xiutwel. And when "Troofers" say missiles hit the Pentagon, it's because they have studied the impact, right? It's all about the sources! Start including some mainstream sources that say "Star Wars" death rays hit the towers, or stop flooding the talk page with nonsense. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that reliable sources aren't reliable because they're just repeating assumptions they've made when they say something is true is completely at odds with policy and isn't going to go anywhere. Pedant has wisely chosen to talk this issue up at the relevant policy pages — I hope you do the same, because consensus on a fundamental rewrite to policy is not going to occur here. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to see why you have a problem separating speculation from fact. You speculate on my state of mind and my choices, but you don't have any way of knowing what I have chosen to do or what will occur at some future time. Yet you have no problem simply stating your opinions of something you cannot know as if they were facts. Now imagine if a hundred other editors started repeating it, editors with a reputation for accuracy... without it being necessary that you or any other editor actually lied, or intended to report faulty news, we would have hundreds of reliable sources to choose from. But the only person who can tell you what my choice is is me. The only people who can tell you the hijackers intended to die are the hijackers. If this information were based on that kind of evidence it would have been reported just as widely as the unsupported assertions have been. User:Pedant (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The only people who can tell you the hijackers intended to die are the hijackers.


I'm not "speculating", I'm assuming good faith that when you said "The right place to discuss this is at WP:RS or the Village Pump" that you were actually going to follow through with that and discuss it at the right place. To respond to your analogy, which is completely ridiculous since reliable source are very different from Wikipedia editors, it's not our job to look at a reliable source saying "X is true" and say "Oh, they're speculating, so we can disregard that". Mostly because, as you have demonstrated, the determination of their "speculation" is based on your personal incredulity that they could know something is true or not — and that simply not how Wikipedia operates. You had the right idea when you were going to try bring it up on the talk pages for the relevant policies, instead of trying to rewrite a global policy on a single article — something which simply will not happen, and just wastes the time of everyone involved. --Haemo (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
First, nothing in either of those articles says "terrorists do tell us they intend to die", because there is no sound on the video, and according to the article itself, "lip readers had tried without success to decipher what was being said" on the video. Neither article states that the terrorists said they intended to die. (do you dispute this?) User:Pedant (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, please stop posing as if you are lecturing me on wikipedia policies. I know the policies and as I have said before, the right place to argue about policies and what they mean is on the talk page for the policies themselves, or on village pump, or in the WP: namespace somewhere, not here. Let's keep this page for the purpose for which it is intended, discussing the form, language and content of this article. User:Pedant (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do so many people just want to argue?

It's very simple. If someone questions the "truth" of a statement, you explicitly source that statement. It is undeniably true that "the U.S. Justice Department named nineteen individuals, fifteen of them residents of Saudi Arabia, as the hijackers." Period. That's exactly what the secondary sources say. To say that the Justice Department's statement is true or untrue is both OR and POV, but there is no need to make such a claim, either way. Again, the "Justice Department indicated that the alleged hijackers were members of an organization called 'Al Qaeda.'" The Justice Department is a primary source. Al Quaeda is a primary source. The news articles are secondary sources, appropriate for citation, but not for claims that what the primary sources claim is THE TRUTH. Otherwise, what? "Freedom fighters today struck a blow against The Great Satan" because the majority of editors, that day, are Muslims? Pedant has it right. NPOV is not POV, unless taken to extremes. "Something possibly happened somewhere, today, and it was apparently seen on the news?" Nobody is saying that, either. Wowest (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Wowest. Attributing seems to be key here.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's more that we are so tired of defending every sentence in this article that we lose sight of the bigger picture. I'd be a lot more open to sugestions on improvements if I didn't feel like these arguments had been played out before. I don't think I'm crazy when I think I've seen most of them before, but maybe I am. I guess what gets to me the most is when there is an argument, and the person bringing the sugested change doesn't provide any sources. This article is stable. It may not be correct in some people's eyes, but it hasn't had any major changes in the recent months. To blindly come in and start demanding changes be made, without bringing something new to the table... rubs people like me the wrong way. But I appreciate that you are trying to find a middle ground here. --Tarage (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel happy when you express what annoys you, because may be that is a first step towards more joyful cooperation. About the stability of the article: when edit wars are always won by the same side, that does not mean the article is stable.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is not stable, the only reason it has not changed substantially is that it is being kept stable by brute force, by a relatively small group of editors, who are comfortable with poorly-sourced statments and unattributed assertions of fact, but only when they agree with that editor's POV. If you think the article is stable, then walk away from it for two weeks. A genuinely stable article is neutral in point of view, and does not make controversial assertions without attribution. This article is not stable, but tightly-controlled. User:Pedant (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Pedant, you have insulted me, and every other editor who is working hard to make this article the best it can be, by insinuating that we are doing harm by reverting vandalism and keeping consensus. Then again, I expect this kind of behavior from you... --Tarage (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you picked any controversial subject which was written neutrally, and told all the editors who wanted to keep it neutral to walk away, you'd have edit wars within the week. Neutrality is not committing the argument to moderation at extreme lengths. You cannot please editors who hold fringe views about a subject no matter how neutrally an article is written. See, for instance, evolution which is currently fully protected because someone keeps trying to replace the article with biblical verses supporting creationism. --Haemo (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You forget that we have independent secondary sources, too. Okiefromokla questions? 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have secondary sources which are independent of the American-dominated global market, unbiased, making no presumptions, are scholarly, and support the A-view? Please list them, they could be really useful. But I doubt you have any.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh COME on... are you going to take up Pedant's rediculous attack on what is and isn't RS? If you are even thinking of trying to argue that 'because a source comes from American-dominated global market, it isn't a reliable source', just stop. I don't want to hear it, and I don't think anyone one else wants to hear it either. Go take it up with the Wikipedia guidelines. --Tarage (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I encourage you to try to redefine our definitions of reliable sources, since the current definitions don't appear to be adequate to you. Until that happens though, we will use sources allowed by the current guidelines, including American sources that report viewpoints you disagree with. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear! I second that opinion, sir. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is something he's argued before. That reliable sources aren't actually reliable because they probably have interests, monetary or otherwise, with the American government, and that includes domestic and foreign academics and scientists. Of course, regardless of his belief, it's been quoted to him that Wikipedia is not a place to correct systemic bias. That's specifically mentioned at WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla questions? 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's completely bogus as an argument, and one which we've heard before. The correct place to address it is at the relevant talk pages, not here. --Haemo (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nineteen men boarded the four planes" - part 2

I was just wondering if there are any reliable sources that proof the nineteen men on the security camera pictures actually boarded the flights. If there are such sources I think they should be added as references to this claim in the article.

Btw, I appreciate your efforts in writing and maintaining this article. I just want to contribute as I feel adding these references would improve the article a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG... well besides their passports found at crash sites, their body fragments found at crash sites, the audio of people describing them on the plane... What else do you want? Video footage of them actually sitting down in their seats?
This is becoming ridiculous. Someone please advise me how to deal with this incredulity. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
VegitaU, it is forbidden by the A-gang to mention that the passports were found at the crash site, so that does not count. archive 38  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from referring to other editors as "gangs" or what-have you. It's not polite and there is no cabal. --Haemo (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you provide RS to discredit the mountain of RS we have, this argument is moot. I refuse to even talk about 'constructive edits' unless you can provide solid proof that the current verson isn't correct. If you can't, then don't even bring it up. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And what exactly are you arguing then? If it's supposedly forbidden to mention the passports blown out of the buildings, why is Atta's luggage (IDing all hijackers) allowed? Not following your logic. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
All I'm asking is to add references to the claim. I'm not saying the claim is untrue. I apologize for causing you anxiety.
Well, we have multiple references which say that they were captured on camera getting on the flights, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. --Haemo (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, good. Please end this debate by listing some reliable second party or third party sources for photographs of nineteen terrorists boarding the four airplanes reportedly hijacked on the morning of 9/11. I haven't seen any photographs anywhere, but that's just me. Wowest (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry there aren't any. Please upload some reliable second party or third party sources for photographs of missiles hitting the Pentagon, Flight 93 landing safely at Cleveland, or death rays from space collapsing the towers. I haven't seen any photographs anywhere, but that's just me. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept your apology, but nowhere in this article does it say that missiles hit the Pentagon, that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland or that there is such a things as death rays from space. Nor, have I ever proposed that those statements be added. The article DOES say that 9/11 was a suicide attack by al-Qaeda, however, which sounds like OR, but Haemo says
                   "we have multiple references which say that they 
                    were captured on camera getting on the flights"
So, fine. Let's assume good faith on Haemo's part. Please give us some URL's for the photographs and definitively end this part of the debate.
Wowest (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
My name isn't Haemo, so I'll leave that task to him. What we do have are: bin Laden's video where he admits to having have chosen the "brothers", links between the "alleged" hijackers to al-Qaeda. Martyrdom videos from two of the pilots (Atta and Jarrah) in Afghanistan. Video shots of all those men boarding aircraft. Testimony by witnesses on the planes. Passports of those men at the crash sites. Body fragments of those men at the crash sites. Recordings of those men on Flight 93's CVR... Where exactly do you get confused, Wowest? I'll try and clear it up. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And here's a reliable source stating "A surveillance video from Washington's Dulles International Airport the morning of September 11, 2001, shows four of five hijackers passing through security checks before boarding the plane they would crash into the Pentagon." This other source and this Chinese source even have the pictures. --Haemo (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But those are all indirect indications that they could have boarded the planes (ignoring the passports and body parts). To then state in the article that they actually boarded the planes is a little bit far fetched, at least based on those references. We need other references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources explicitly say they boarded the planes. This is exactly what our policies require — you appear to require some other level of proof which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources saying that photos show the men boarding are secondary sources. If a source showing the actual photos were to be found, that would constitute a primary source. We already have the sources that are preferred according to policy. On that basis I think this thread is unlikely to improve the article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Status and the end to all of this

I think there is a strong case for a GA nomination. The last one failed because of an edit war, but edit wars aren't going to happen anymore because of the Arbcom decision. I see one thing that might be problem with a GA attempt: A few editors are very loudly objecting to the article. So, for these editors, I ask: Is there any form of dispute resolution that would appease you regardless of consensus turning out your way or not? If consensus is to keep the article as is, would such editors stop their pushing?

I have a few concerns with that:

  • Another DR would be useful only if active editors on this page will promise to accept consensus if consensus is formed.
  • There's been canvassing to conspiracy theorist websites/blogs in the past, and that's always a possibility again.
  • People from both sides would need to recognize that there may be emotional people arguing with little regard for policy (probably IPs and new accounts), and that such arguments do not count when deciding if consensus has been formed. Consensus in article discussions always means within parameters of current policy.

We need to decide if we are going to try for a GA nom right now in light of the fact that there is only a tiny minority against the article, or if we are going to try another form of dispute resolution to end all doubt before making a GA attempt. Either way, it's a shame not to have this well-sourced comprehensive article as a GA. Okiefromokla questions? 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to cite the one unsourced fact. Other than that, I think linking to conspiracy theories is enough in light of the hundreds of mainstream sources we do cite. I say go for it. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Done; I've added a citation. --Haemo (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. I wouldn't have known where to look. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We also have an issue with the books section; it needs to be expanded, but I'm not really "up" on what are the most authoritative books on the subject. What's the point of the books section anyways? --Haemo (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this would be a big issue in a GA nomination, but I could be wrong. I'm more experienced with FA noms, where a good book section usually comes up if it's reasonable that there would be many books written on the subject in question. A quick search for "9/11" in the Cambridge University Press [149] brought up only one book:
9/11: Mental Health in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks
Edited by Yuval Neria, Raz Gross, Randall D. Marshall, Ezra S. Susser, Foreword by Beverley Raphael
Hardback (ISBN-13:9780521831918 | ISBN-10:0521831911)
DOI: 10.2277/0521831911
However, a search for "Terrorism" drew many responses, and looking at the descriptions, the following deal in some way with 9/11, al-qaeda, or the long-term aftermath of 9/11.
  • Unmodern Men in the Modern World, Michael J. Mazarr, Paperback (ISBN-13:9780521712910)
  • Deadly Connections, Daniel Byman, Paperback (ISBN-13:9780521548687)
  • Non-State Actors and Terrorism, Volume 0, Robert P. Barnidge, Jr. Hardback (ISBN-13:9789067042598)
  • Terrorism and Disaster, Edited by Robert J. Ursano, Carol S. Fullerton, Ann E. Norwood, 1 CD-ROM, 1 Paperback (ISBN-13:9780521533454 | ISBN-10:052153345)
See what you think. They look good to me. Anything scholarly listed in a highly reputable collection like Cambridge Press is probably going to be good. Okiefromokla questions? 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We also have some pretty bad MOS issues. For instance, bin Laden is properly written "bin Laden" not "Bin Laden" and Al-Qaeda should be written "al-Qaeda". I'm going to find-replace all of these to standardize. --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's all done, but I fear we have lots of other issues. Having written several GA's before, we need to pay a lot more consideration to things like this. For instance, we overlink like crazy this article. I see multiple instances where things are linked twice in a single section — I think al-Qaeda alone is linked a dozen times. Also, we have two templates for the "Attacks by al-Qaeda" box. Why? There are a lot of issues here. --Haemo (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
They just require a little time, but it's not too much thinking. We don't have any content or reference issues that would be a big deal that I can see at the moment. But thanks for pointing those examples out. I'll go through and see about tidying up a bit sometime soon. Maybe some of the other editors can do a good comb through the article and look for MOS issues too. It's really not all that much work considering some of the stuff I had to do to get my previous FAs passed. Annoying, yes, but do-able. Okiefromokla questions? 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are some reference issues. Some of the references are incomplete or set up wrong, so we'd have to fix that too. Okiefromokla questions? 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mind lettin' us in on the wrong citations so we can take care of them? -- VegitaU (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"edit wars aren't going to happen anymore because of the Arbcom decision." -- Okiefromokla . You really think so? I think you're being too optimistic. Please remember that Wikipedia is listed very high in most search engine searches. It currently seems that every day, somebody looks up 9/11, comes here for the very first time, becomes offended by the blatant POV in the article and tries to fix it. Then, someone else calls his presumably good-faith edit "vandalism," and here we go again. The best solution I've thought of so far to reduce such incidents (you probably can't get rid of gross vandalism) is to explicitly source the statements that contain opinions rather than universally-obvious facts, or that are likely to get challenged. The list of reliable sources someone posted above contains statements from those reliable sources that "the Justice Department accused nineteen individuals associated with an organization [which most of us had never even heard of before] called al-Qaeda, with carrying out the hijackings and piloting the aircraft to their crash-sites." NOBODY can challenge that. It's the simple truth, and you have reliable, second- party sources to say so. Such simple changes would end the apparently common perception that we are circulating government propaganda or lying about what happened, and the newbies would stop biting the article. The TRUTH of whatever the government says is obviously unverifiable, sometimes for reasons of national security, but the fact that they said it is widely documented. If the government said so, then it isn't "allegedly" anymore. The government said so even if Mohammed Atta was never convicted of a crime. Wowest (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And everyday someone clicks on evolution, get offended by the "blatant POV" and tries to "fix" it. Wikipedia is not censored, and is not going to bias its coverage of any particular subject because it offends people who hold minority opinions about it. That's not neutral point of view it's undue weight and is at odds with how every major encyclopedia covers the subject. --Haemo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Haemo and: :Why don't you do that, Wowest, if you care so much that the article is POV? I think it's pretty damn solid as is. Put some suggestions up (cited, of course) and see if it stands to consensus. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Using a DoJ sources is ok is you're going to say:
The DoJ accused nineteen men .... The DoJ is no position to say they actually did it. The only thing wikipedia can do is report what the DoJ said or did. This article blatantly takes DoJ and US government spin for the absolutely thruth, so much that sources are not even referenced. Wikipedia and readers loose, some editors win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 41

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

9/11 by Noam Chomsky

The scholarly text, 9/11, written by Dr. Noam Chomsky should be added to the book section. 67.173.87.139 (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it about? Is it well-accepted in academic and journalistic fields? We're kind of discussing what the purpose of the "Books" section is, above, so perhaps you could chime in there. --Haemo (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The book is about 9-11. Yes, it is accepted by academia, you can find it on university bookshelves across the country. The purpose of a book section is to have facts of a subject in print so that each can be checked against the public record. GuamIsGood (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean like, what does it discuss regarding 9/11. Lots of stuff is on bookshelves — that doesn't mean it's authoritative. Currently, the "Books" section appears to be confused — is it additional references? If they are references, why aren't we citing them? Is it a "further reading" section? No one knows! --Haemo (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The book section is always comprised of any materials written about the subject of an article. 9-11 by Noam Chomsky is an authoritative text. I repeat that you can find it at the Harvard Book Store http://www.harvard.com/ and Noam Chomsky is a leading political writer who has contributed to the national dialogue for forty plus years. GuamIsGood (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No it's not — that's patently untrue. And I would point out that the Havard Book store also sells What the Bleep Do We Know, so you're not really convincing me here. --Haemo (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to convince you. You have no power over reversion here. The book is a historical treatment complete with citation written by an accreditted professor about the attacks. So I added it. GuamIsGood (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're not going to even try to get consensus for your edits, then I don't know what you even bothered posting here. You haven't addressed any of my concerns, nor have you made a compelling arguments. I know others object to this inclusion (not me, personally) but I don't endorse it based on what you're arguing here. --Haemo (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky is an accredited authority. 9-11 is a work on the subject of 9-11 and is in mass circulation. I added it to a book list in need of expansion. What exactly are your concerns? GuamIsGood (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, for example, this scathing review by the Library Journal, for instance, advising libraries against stocking it:

MIT-based Chomsky revolutionized linguistics in the late Fifties, but for nearly as long he has been better known as an energetic and constructive debunker of American establishment politics and behavior. However, the current Chomsky contributes nothing to the legacy he established decades ago. These two most recent productions do not reveal systematic efforts to sustain or develop any aspect of his prolifically expressed critique; indeed, they are not so much authored as collaged, with Chomsky's sanction, from talks, after-talk Q&As, and interviews with generally converted interlocutors. Understanding Power draws mainly on vintage utterances from the Nineties, and its most penetrating passage takes on, of all pressing matters, literary theory. Chomsky, who is relentless in condemning the media as incapable of any function other than converting the masses to elite desires, just as relentlessly samples mainstream reporting sources for instances of corporate and government ill doings. In trying to illustrate that he is not a crude conspiracy theorist, he conveys the opposite impression. The shorter 9-11 could not have been planned, of course, though it mostly consists of interviews conducted while the calendar still read September, suggesting both the urgency Chomsky felt to get his perspective on the record and his utter disinclination to reexamine any of his cemented opinions about world affairs. Chomsky condemns the attacks specifically and then suggests that the deaths are entirely the responsibility of capitalist globalization, which nonetheless he asserts is irrelevant to the September 11 actors. However, consistency is even less a priority for Chomsky than humility. Apparently, Chomsky believes that he has discovered the concept of blowback, not to mention imbalance in coverage of the perpetual Israeli-Palestinian murder-and-misery fetish. For him, a direct line runs from Reagan's mining of Nicaragua's harbors to the flying of commercial airliners into buildings. 9-11 is a worthwhile purchase for public libraries intent on demonstrating (or risking) balance; Understanding Power is not half as useful as Chomsky's earlier, authentic innovations in political literature, especially Manufacturing Consent (coauthored with Edward Herman). Libraries truly wishing to ensure representation of the most lucid nonconventional opinion should first check that their subscriptions to the Nation a proud carrier of Chomsky for 40 years are current. Scott H. Silverman, Bryn Mawr Coll. Lib., PA Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

That sounds, uh, less that "authoritative" in any sense of the work. Simply being about 9/11 and being in circulation is not enough here — we want an authoritative, accurate, and comprehensive list. Not "any" book on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We can cite unpublished librarians editorials all day, but the point is that 9-11 is relevent and if it is not included here in the article on 9-11 we, as editors, are doing a great diservice to the Wiki mission. GuamIsGood (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hardly...Noam Chomsky is a linguist and political activist. The "unpublished" editorial you talk about is actually published and has been compiled by Amazon in its reviews. Every book need not be mentioned and politically motivated groaning and whining of a specialist in languages has little bearing on the subject at hand. BTW, I have read the book...his "theories" have holes so large you could fly an airliner through them (pun intended)... — BQZip01 — talk 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, we have the editorial of one man in Scott H. Silverman who wrote his opinion in the Library Journal and of another editor who intends unscrupulous puns. I REPEAT: Noam Chomsky is an accredited academian with an extensive list of circulated scholarly works who wrote a book completely analyzing the 9-11 attacks. GuamIsGood (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed both added books, as no consensus was reached. Until you have consensus of atleast a notable majority, they should not be added. --Tarage (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The first book was not added recently! What are You doing? There was no consensus to remove it. Please re-add it. Also, I guess you, Tarage, do not think it is right to have the book 9-11 about 9-11 in the book list either. It would be easier to have a consensus if you stated your position on the texts relevency. Why? GuamIsGood (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No one concurs with your opinion. Ergo, there is a consensus to remove it. How was my pun in any way "unscrupulous"? Did I lie? cheat? steal? violate the law in some other manner? Just because the subject of the book is about 9/11, it doesn't mean it should be included here (see above). — BQZip01 — talk 03:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the first book. I apologize, and re-added it. As for the second book, consensus is required to add it. It has been stated above that Noam Chomsky has quite a bit of controversy surrounding him. Unless you have consensus from a majority of the editors here, you should not blindly add things. But, it appears an outside source has re-added the book. I will abide by the standards we agreed to earlier and not engage in an edit war over it, but I still disagree with it's addition with no consensus. I would ask that you yourself remove it because of this. --Tarage (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Chomsky stays. I don't agree with everything Chomsky says either, but he shouldn't be blackballed. And the above book review is pure opinion, nothing more. He definitely qualifies to have his pertinent book listed here. SkeenaR (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pure opinion by an academic organization saying that the work is of poor quality and hastily constructed, and which advises public libraries against buying the book. Are we at least not at the standards of your local library? --Haemo (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Heamo, you should lighten up. Does that one outfit have the final word? I think not. Chomsky is a pretty popular fellow, and I know he meets criteria for inclusion. SkeenaR (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As a member of the Chicago Public Library, I am proud to say that 9-11 is on our shelves. GuamIsGood (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As a member of the Los Angeles Public Library, I proudly point out that we have the book in English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese. So there! Los Angeles rules!
The library does not have Chomsky books I used to own, like "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax." Oh, well.
Wowest (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is lacking to add him. I would ask that you remove it. --Tarage (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a tie. SkeenaR and I v. Haemo and ?. Tarage could make consensus.GuamIsGood (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is FAR too quick to find consensus. This has only been going for less than a day. Four editors, even if they completly agree, do not make consensus on an article as large and important as this one. --Tarage (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you rethink your position. Keeping a book by him out of the list seems frivolous. He meets all criteria for inclusion. SkeenaR (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But consensus is lacking I am fully willing to debate his inclusion, but adding him with no consensus so quickly after being sugested is a foolish thing to do. --Tarage (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
...and what would those criteria be? Why is this section even in this article? I vote to remove it entirely as being completely against the format for articles. — BQZip01 — talk 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I admit I too felt it was a tad... troubling. Any book added will probably have PoV one way or the other. I was running under the impression that only the report was included. I don't exactially agree with the other book there, and especially with the one recently added. I second this motion. --Tarage (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) What are the criteria for including books anyway? I didn't see anything in the MOS about that. Personally I think Chomsky's full of crap, but that's not our criteria for inclusion. This debate might be easier if we knew on what basis we were arguing rather than ILIKEIT. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of Chomsky's book is not a question of liking it or not. As this is an historical event, the fact remains that an analysis of it by a credible author is grounds for inclusion. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL! What policy/guideline does that criteria fall under? WP:ILIKEIT? or just WP:IAR? — BQZip01 — talk 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But we can't include every book by every credible author. So how do we choose? Or do we just say, since we have ~200 references, why do we even need a "Books" section? I'm all for getting rid of the whole thing. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We are not debating every book by every credible author. We are discussing a specific text, 9-11, by a specific (world known) author, Noam Chomsky, in a specific article, September 11th attacks. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, books are good. Isn't this supposed to be a helpful resource? SkeenaR (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But right now we have three books. One is already in the references list (9/11 commission report), another is under dispute here. Our job is not to catalog every book written on the subject, but to provide further reading. If all the best books are already referenced, why do we need another section on an already overly-long article? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time figuring out how including a book written specifically about 9/11 by a massively prominent political person like Chomsky can do anything other than improve this article, whether you agree with him or not. SkeenaR (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And it might not be a bad idea to find a couple more books to make a decent section. Books are good for further learning. SkeenaR (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Most sense anyone has made all day. This section should be expanded. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c * 6)The problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion, there is no precedent for adding such a section, there is no policy/guideline that says this section should exist at all. — BQZip01 — talk 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that literature pertaining to a historical event is apt in the article about said event. Therefore, the criteria is obvious: A book is included if it is easily obtainable and pertains to the subject of the article. Both of those criteria are met by Chomsky's book. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"Easily obtainable" and "pertains to the subject" is criteria which encompasses hundreds if not thousands of books. What sets this one apart, among all others? Considering that, and upon noting that this particular book has been scathingly reviewed, I fail to see how its inclusion would be an improvement to the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-Yes, You do. GuamIsGood (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I thought I had raised a legitimate concern, not that I was being "aggressive against all things peaceful or open minded."[150] Work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia goes smoothest when we at least try to assume good faith among our fellow editors. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-Excuse me. But it seems that you only consider pieces written by government employees or mainstream journalists legit. I argue that the analysis of a leading academian is also noteworthy because it offers another insight into the events of 9-11. GuamIsGood (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the use of reliable, verifiable, and notable sources, thank you very much. That includes credible reports by governments, journalists, and academics, regardless of their politics. The problem is, we have already pointed out to you that the interview methodology used by Chomsky in this book has been called into question by reliable sources, and you have still not established why the book (not the author) is notable for inclusion in the first place. Simply being on the subject of 9/11 is not enough - that alone does not set the work apart. We are not obligated in any way to include this book, and have some fairly compelling reasons not to at this point. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To assure the inclusion of Noam Chomsky's 9-11 I should address the concern of what sets his work apart from others. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Noam Chomsky is the eighth most cited person ever- ranking before Hegel and Cicero, and the only living person on the list. That sets him apart from others and, I hope, cements his relevency here. GuamIsGood (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem crass but... what what does being cited for Arts and Humanities got to do with his inclusion here? Unless I missed your point... --Tarage (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Solution!

List of books about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Simply explain the criteria about the books, it would be a useful list, and it ends the senseless bickering here. — BQZip01 — talk 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good idea. Like I said, I can't see how listing books about the event by well known figures can do anything other than improve the encyclopedia. SkeenaR (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea, too. Instead of fighting over this, we could spend our time working on the article's references and MOS issues so we can get it nominated for GA. :) Okiefromokla questions? 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes please. Let's start with the first sentence. It's not linked to a reference for any of its assertions of fact. Reference -- or remove? User:Pedant (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If I do remember correctly, that particular line of discussion was already closed. A UN source was provided supporting the sentence, among many others. Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge them is not legitimate cause to remove the sentence from the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously. Let's move on already. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No. That source does not contain the word suicide, and it is not a reference for the assertion that the attacks were suicide attacks. You cannot just arbitrarily decide that discussion is closed on whether we need references for assertions of fact in the lead sentence. There is copious policy that requires assertions of fact to be referenced.
Without references, the statement will be removed or edited to remove the uncited statements. Clear policy. Provide a reference, or it will be removed. This discussion has been ongoing for 2 weeks or so, how long will the entire article take if we take two weeks debating whether we should choose to reference,or choose to remove the statements of fact that are not supported by reference and which have no citation? It isn't a GOOD ARTICLE if it doesn't cite sources. User:Pedant (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the statement that it was a suicide attack is in any sense "controversial" — but this source explicitly uses the words "suicide mission" [citation needed]. --Haemo (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Haemo, please read that article again, because it simply does not use the words 'suicide mission' except in an insert that refers to THIS article as the source. User:Pedant (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not true.

The twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were constructed to withstand attacks. But the organizers of the September 11 strike devised a plan that had not been anticipated and for which no effective defense had been prepared: to use a large fuel-laden commercial airliner as a highly explosive bomb. No trained airline pilot would willingly fly his or her aircraft into a building full of people, even at gunpoint, but the terrorists had a way around that problem. They would do it themselves, as part of a suicide mission.

This does not refer to our article at all. --Haemo (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This source is just endorsing the US goverment's allegations without attributing it to the governemnt. Why can't we attribute it instead? Wiikipedia has no particular authority and cannot andorse this or that account without attribution.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
How on earth do you conclude that? Because they agree? They state it as a fact [citation needed] — we have a reliable source explicitly saying "X is true" and your reaction is that we should disregard them because they're just "endorsing" another view without attributing it. That's totally at odds with our policies, and is a ridiculous argument to boot. You could disregard any source for any topic on that basis, which is why Wikipedia isn't run on such a principle. --Haemo (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Our policies do not imply in any way that whenever a source says "X" we can write "X" as a fact and without attribution.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still a little disturbed as to the logic of thought here. There isn't any disagreement that these 19 men were, firstly, present on the flights, broke into the cockpit, and commandeered the plane. The planes subsequently crashed. If it's not suicide attack, what is it? They "accidentally" flew themselves into both Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the ground in Shanksville? I don't get it.
There should be no judgment over THE TRUTH from the part of wikipedia. The article should say.: According to US government agency ABC in several statement they made nineteen men .... Then it doesn't matter if that's true or not. Readers know source and can decide for themselves.
Stop selling this article as THE TRUTH. Just report what happened as reported by the various thousands of sources. I can understand it may be hard for editors who happen to be US citizens to accept this but we have to face that this is what wikipedia expects from editors. If you can't stomach that I suggest you step aside.
Anyway, I can assure you that in this talk page this kind of discussions will never end if you don't start to show NPOV judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "When they all come, we finish it off." -- VegitaU (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've given up trying to use logic to attack such an illogical argument. --Tarage (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I and others have addressed these "problems" ad nauseum, but for the sake of clarity, let's talk about it.
  1. "There should be no judgment over THE TRUTH from the part of wikipedia." I'll grant you that. What is in the article needs to be verifiable, which this "contested" section is.
  2. "The article should say.: According to US government agency ABC in several statement they made nineteen men ...." "Attributed" doesn't mean every sentence has to explain where it comes from. That is what footnotes are for. If you want to know where it came from, check the given reference.
  3. "Stop selling this article as THE TRUTH." It is verifiable. It's truthiness is irrelevant.
  4. "Just report what happened as reported by the various thousands of sources." Already done.
  5. "I can understand it may be hard for editors who happen to be US citizens to accept this but we have to face that this is what wikipedia expects from editors. If you can't stomach that I suggest you step aside...I can assure you that in this talk page this kind of discussions will never end if you don't start to show NPOV judgment." Please read policy and guidelines for Wikipedia. Your personal interpretation is at odds with application of them. If you do not like them, you are welcome to try and change those policies/guidelines, but this is not the place for such discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your argument about "attribution" and footnotes is incorrect and misleading. If the goverment of the state X says "Y" we cannot just write "Y" as a fact and put the footnote, we cannot because this would mean that we are endorsing what the government is saying. Instead we have to say "the government says Y". It is completely irrelevant wheter we or the journalists trust the government. I don't think this obvious thing can be denied in any way.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you seriously contend that any of the innumerable facts reported as fact by reliable sources are not true, then provide a reliable source disputing them. Your proposal gives absolutely massive undue weight to minority views about 9/11 — which completely violates our policies. It's equivalent to rewriting Apollo 11 to begin "The Apollo 11 mission was, according to the US government, allegedly the first manned mission to land on the Moon." It's not going to happen. --Haemo (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
NO. The burden is on the person adding the facts to cite references. Any unreferenced facts can be removed by any editor. That's what the policy is. User:Pedant (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Truth is irrelevant. We just have to report the positions of various parties involved. You assume certain facts are true because they are reported by reliable sources. Other may disagree. This article is not the place to claim anything reported is true or not true. In this article we need to report.
NPOV clearly states that prevailing positions need to be reported in a balanced way, without promoting any one of them as the truth and others as wrong interpretations of the truth.
I find this article is defended by US citizens who seek to establish their and their government's version of the facts as THE TRUTH. This is unfortunate and POV. I'm looking forward to the day this article will be NPOV although I feel it probably won't happen in my lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a policy. Read it — it clearly explains that we do not give undue weight to minority views. It is not the "truth" we are defending here — it's the version which is supported by reliable sources (another policy). If "others disagree" then provide a reliable source disagreeing. The simple fact that "others disagree" is not a reason to compromise how an article is written as that, plain and simply, violates our policies. You say a lot about NPOV but you don't actually appear to understand that policy at all. PS: not a US citizen, but anyone who reads my actual contributions instead of this endless discussion would know that. --Haemo (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you seriously contend that any of the innumerable facts reported as fact by reliable sources are not true, then provide a reliable source disputing them. Your own words. Truth seems to be an important part of the equation.
I'm sure the conspiracy theorists commenting on the burning of the Reichstag were considering a minority view during the 30's as well.
As a belgian citizens I known how it feels when your own governments sets up false flag operations against it own population. As of today none of these operations have been proven to be false flag operations but it is the majority view. Btw, notice how balanced that article is compared to this one.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints...in this case it isn't a significant viewpoint. In other words, there's no public conversation/debate about what really happened, no political debate...no mainstream debate among scholars, civil engineers or architects. There's no debate among those expert reliable sources that we draw content from...the coverage that exists is limited to a description of a cultural artifact and doesn't go beyond that.
We've been over this a lot, and there's a limit to how often we have to repeat these concepts. These topics are under a Arbcom resolution and if this constant repetition doesn't stop I will ask for Arbitration enforcement. RxS (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A 2006 poll says nearly half of the respondents put some kind of blame with the Bush administration of the 9-11 attacks. This does not make alternative views more credible yet it does make it harder to contend they are minority views. Also, I'm assuming this poll is not a source worth mentioning according to the people who have high-jacked this article.
Enforce (read: oppress) whatever you want. This article reads like US propaganda and your enforcement won't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't accuse other people of things like "oppressing" others, or defending actions comparable to the Riechstag fire. "Blame" can mean anything from incompetence to CIA-Mossad laser beams. It's not reflected in reliable sources, and still comprises a fringe theory. --Haemo (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done with putting up with this sort of stuff. Please review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories and consider this a warning as required in the remedy section. After the Mongo thing, I'm not going to be shy about requesting remedys. RxS (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, enough is enough. I know that User:Aude is on the verge of giving up, and I know I am too. After the underwhelming ArbCom case, we've really got to bring this to a conclusion in some fashion — it's wasting everyone's time. --Haemo (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just what makes the 9-11 attacks different from the Reichstag fire? They had a suspect back then too. I'm sure there was an abundance of reliable sources and government sources back then too. Reporting on this kind of events, like the 9-11 attacks, the Reichstag fire, the Nijvel gang or the Aldo Moro assassination is walking a fine line. Jeez, did anyone notice how only the 9-11 article labels alternative views as conspiracy theories (which is obviously NPOV)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Enough. This is not a soapbox and you've moved rather far from discussing improvements to the article. This is not productive. --Haemo (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read that poll you cited? People blame Bush and Clinton administrations for failures to prevent it… not for causing it. The very poll itself says "terrorists" as a separate entity from the U.S. Government. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The US government has defined the word 'terrorist' in such a way that the US government or its agents can never be terrorists according to the legal definition, even if they behave in a way that would be called 'terrorist' if it were any other entity besides the US govt or its agents.[citation needed] User:Pedant (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've referred the IP to Arbitration enforcement. As I've said, time permitting I'm not going to be shy about asking for arbitration enforcement on these topics. We don't have to put up with insults, soapboxing, repeating the same issues over and over etc anymore. RxS (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we've been too soft on this disruption. What else do we need to do before nominating for GA status? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is that little matter of unreferenced assertions of fact in the lead sentence. It sure would be nice to finish up with that and move on to the second sentence and more... User:Pedant (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We've been over it. Your suggestion does not follow policy and will not help us improve the article. You've been referred to the correct places to get policy changed. That's pretty much all there is to say. --Haemo (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No. It isn't a suggestion. Uncited assertions will be removed. That's the policy. We don't need a new policy, just cite the references. (real references not just "Oh here, read this read that, we've been over this" but actual references that actually make the claim reflected by the assertions in the article.) As an admin, Haemo, I would think you were familiar enough with policies that you wouldn't be dragging your feet over my request that we actually follow them. User:Pedant (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am. Your suggestion is at odds with policy because you reject the references which have been provided for reasons which are not based in policy — the assertion is not "uncited" it is cited to references you don't believe are valid for one reason or another. Continually arguing a point which is at odds with policy, and which numerous editors have told you so is pointy and disruptive. You are well aware that these articles will not be toleranting such disruption, so I suggest you think carefully about continuing this argument. --Haemo (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are so sure that the alleged "suggestion" do not follow policies then please stop repeating it and cite the text of the policy you are referring to.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link if any one is interested: [151] RxS (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Add the book, this is ridiculous. He is an accredited author. --Green-Dragon (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate or Not?

Now that the most disruptions are protected against, we can focus on improving the remainder of the article. What else do we need to do to nominate this article for GA status? What do we need to include/exclude, cite, etc.? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See this section. There's a list there of 9/11 books that could be added to the book section, and I was hoping others would check them over before we added them. Other changes needed:
  • Some articles are wikilinked more than once (only the first mention of something important should be wikilinked). For example, the 9/11 commission report, should be wikilinked only once.
  • There are issues with references. For example, reference 17 has only a name with no other information, and one or two others have this problem. I have also noticed that the references are set up in a wide variety of ways. We need to check them to make sure they are streamlined and complete. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for how to set up references. Anyone who wants to help out with this but finds the citation templates confusing, go here: Wikipedia:Wikicite, or check out the other tools for making citation temps.
There's really not all that much work needed, and I really believe the article is close. It may be helpful for other ::editors to do a sort of critique/peer review of what is needed. This does not mean editors can rant about controversial requests currently being discussed in other sections — keep that out of here. It could be helpful to make a summarizing list for anyone who wants to help work on it. Here, I also proposed a dispute resolution idea that might work as long as editors agree to accept consensus that is made within established policy. I'd like the community on this page to decide if that is something we need, or if we should dive right into the GA nomination. Regardless, we can still work on the technical issues in preparation for the nomination. Okiefromokla questions? 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, dead references. Take a look at the reflist, and check for ones marked dead. --Haemo (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dead links fixed. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I may look over the article this evening or tomorrow. I had some problems my laptop this weekend, but seems okay now. --Aude (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can generally help out with sourcing, since I have access to a number of good databases and scholarly materials, but I don't have the time to devote to going through the article at the moment with the detail necessary. --Haemo (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Anything you can do would be good. I can't do much today and on travel this week (NYC/Boston). I'm not comfortable bringing these pages up when in a public cafe, park, or on the train. Anyway, one thing to consider would be reorganizing some of the subpages. The "survivors" page, "non-american causalities" (do we really need that one?), and similar pages could be combined. Really, the definition of wikt:casualities includes both those killed and those injured/involved. By organizing the subarticles, I think it becomes easier to include good summaries here. I'm still working on it, but have a draft in the works - User:Aude/Casulties_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks. Some of the other subarticles need dire attention. I expect to have a block of time available next weekend to do some copyedits and sourcing. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Other sections which are weak include the "responsibility" and "response" and "reaction". The first is much too scattered, with materially liberally distributed all over — the second two do not seem comprehensive. They are poorly organized, and a section about the immediate response is scattered or largely missing. I think that one will be a big priority, so we should think about how and where we can source it to begin a draft. --Haemo (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to fix those sections up. I'll get around to it this week or next, but work and educational obligations are growing. :) Okiefromokla questions? 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should reorganize these as follows — the article is good up until the second section. We need a more reasonable organization — I propose we move the damage section before the "fatalities" and combine the "survivors" and "fatalities" sections into the new "casualties" section Aude is drafting. Afterwards, we should put in a new "Immediate response" section, preceding the "responsibility" section. Finally, we should discuss responsibility, then "aftermath" generally in the save order we do now. After the reorganization, the organization would look like this:
  • Attacks
  • Damage
  • Casualties and survivors
  • Immediate response
  • Responsibility
  • Aftermath/Immediate reactions
  • Long-term Effects/reactions
We also really, really need to include more about the War on Terror in this last section. A lot of the reorganization should be prompted by having a clearer flow of information — I'm looking at a roughly "timeline" approach for the central structure. A reader would be guided from the event, through reactions increasingly distant from the event. However, within each section the reactions would be logically grouped, not chronologically. I think this provides a much stronger article focus than the current one, which meanders all over, often dealing with some topics too much and others not enough. This will be the biggest obstacle to a higher rating — depth of focus needs to be consistent.
For example, the "statements by others" section is really out of touch and is like a tiny ghetto of selected opinions without a cogent rationale for why they are there, or why they aren't integrated with the main body. The "other potential hijackers" section meanders all over, talking about people without explaining why they are important, giving too much depth on some while not enough to others. Frankly, the "responsibility" section needs a major overhaul. --Haemo (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to the "responsibility" section, I'd like to break it up so that it starts by introducing the immediate reaction to who might be responsible, then segues into the conclusions that are currently discussed. I think a "Planning", "Action/Hijackers", "Motivation" layout would be productive. I'd also like to include some material about the government's intelligence failures, which are currently stuck in another section. --Haemo (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can do copyediting, grammar and spell-checking. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to help in organization and flow. I can restructure segments as need be - one can look at Global warming#Social and political debate for an example of my work. Would immediate response constitute local emergency services, or international response? Because if it is the former, then per chronology I would place it between damage and casualties, not casualties and responsibility. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's try and keep it focused. Currently, the section which it leads into is about the attacks — very focused on just those events. So, let's try to keep that sort of focus — the emergency response nationally (and internationally where applicable like Operation Yellow Ribbon) preceding the towers collapse, then afterwards. Let's keep the focus on just those actors who were involved in responding the attacks. We can leave all the condemnations and political supports for later — focus on actual actions taken which were aimed at responding to the developing situation. For instance, currently we lump in Canada's airspace shutdown with Malaysia expressing its regret for the events. That's way out of order. --Haemo (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made a number of fairly small and I hope uncontroversial edits in sections 1-3. I'm starting to slow down, so I shall stop to rest. If I've made any stupid mistakes, do please correct them. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of Haemo's proposition I suggest this for consideration:

1 Attacks (Delete taxicab/lightpole picture)
1.1 Fatalities (Survivors written into the end)
1.2 Damage
1.3 Memorials (It is a well written section and would tidily cap the Timeline frame)
2 Responses (Open with reworked FDNY Recovery & Response paragraph)
2.1 Public (Open with Public response paragraph)
2.1.1 Muslim Americans
2.1.2 International
2.2 U.S. Government (Open with Immediate national response paragraph)
2.2.1 Legislation
2.2.2 The War On Terror
2.3 Investigations (Write opening paragraph)
2.3.1 9/11 Commission
2.3.2 NIST Report
2.3.3 CIA Internal Review
2.3.4 Conspiracy?
3 Motive (I feel this section is the better segway into defining the perpetraitors/tie in Responsibility paragraph)
3.1 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
3.2 Osama Bin Laden
3.3 Hijackers
3.3.1 Potential hijackers (Meld those denied visas and Others here)
3.3.2 Zacarias Moussaoui
4 Effects
4.1 Health
4.2 Economic
5 References
6 Books
7 See Also
8 Links

What does everyone think? GuamIsGood (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to me to put "memorial" before the immediate response. Motive and responsibility should also precede long term effects. I'm not sure "conspiracy?" works best in investigations, since it properly falls under responses. --Haemo (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-In the proposal Responses encompasses Public, U.S., and Investigations, so Conspiracy? falls under Responses. Motive does precede Long term effects. The Memorials tie in is an aesthetic choice. GuamIsGood (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything objectionable in the general structure suggested by GuamisGood(Commentarian) above. User:Pedant (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything horibly wrong with this idea... I think perhaps though that sections #2 and #3 should be switched. That is just my petsional oppinion. --Tarage (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just chopped out a bunch of the "See also" links where were already in the article per the MOnSter. Keep your eyes peeled for other ones — redundant Wikilinking is a serious issue in this article, and a lot of the links in that sections were hangers-on from less comprehensive versions. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some copyedits and reorganization in the "responsibility" and the "casualties" sections to reduce the bloated TOC (too many subsections). I'm stopping at the motives section for now, but it needs work and be condensed somewhat. --Aude (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More reorganizing is done. Put some rescue/recovery details in the first section ("the attacks"). Then, discuss the hijackers, Al-Qaeda, planning of the attacks, and their motives. This discussion should come before reactions (since we then bring up hate crimes, etc.) and the response/investigations also need to come after the planning/motives/responsibility section. Ordering the other way around (as suggested above) seems like putting the chicken before the egg. It makes sense to then discuss the response, then long-term effects, etc. in the last sections of the article. --Aude (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Before GA

I oppose nomination for good article status at this point. Before we nominate this article for GA (indeed, before we consider the article to be a 'good' article), we need references for the unsourced assertions of fact in the article, in particular I am thinking about the lead sentence. I've been asking for these references for a couple weeks, and it seems that is a reasonable time to delay before removing the unreferenced material.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

In case I am not making myself clear I am challenging, in the first paragraph, "suicide attacks", "by al-Quaeda" and "upon the United States". I intend to remove any of those three that remains uncited. User:Pedant (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed to you before, and a reference cited. Your objection is noted. --Haemo (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the very first sentence. It has no inline citations. I've purged my cache and looked at it again. There are no citations. They are not there. Stop wasting my time saying that they are, and just put them there. Or revert my edit when I remove the text, and then put them there, or whatever. Without citations the text must go. User:Pedant (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that ... pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. User:Pedant (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The source has been given to you. If you really want to add an inline citation for something which should be manifestly clear given the other sources provided then go right ahead. --Haemo (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I'll do it for you. There. --Haemo (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It was probably best to do so anyway. WP:LEAD states controversial statements should be cited. While it isn't really controversial to believers, it's open to attack by others. Can I strikethrough the "oppose" above? -- VegitaU (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't. Unless there is a consensus that an editor is disrupting the page, altering another editor's comments is generally frowned upon. Pedant is entitled to their opinion, and there's no harm in it being recorded on this page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kicked out for being lousy writers? Good lord... --Tarage (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Take it up with Jimbo, Tarage, I'm just quoting him. I expected the good editors working on this page to be familiar with the quote, or at least to readily ascertain its source. I certainly don't think "bad writing" is grounds for being removed. User:Pedant (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Except you have a bad habbit of quoting things way out of context, like in this example. --Tarage (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

fuel capacity

Each of the airliners had a jet fuel capacity of nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons (91,000 liters).

Do we have information on how much fuel was actually onboard each craft? User:Pedant (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean at impact.
  • Flight 11 had about 10,000 gallons
  • Flight 175 had about 9,100 gallons
  • Flight 77 had about 10,000 gallons
  • Flight 93 had about 7,000 gallons
-- VegitaU (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why does this feel suspiciously like a leadin for OR? --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Because people just want to argue and say "it was a conspiracy" whereas others just want to state "no it wasn't". Let's stop, this is silly now. The question being brought up is not was there enough fuel to burn down the WTC's, but rather should the amount of fuel in each plane at the time of impact be present in the article. Let's stick to that question, and please, editors, do not make this another dispute. --Green-Dragon (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I appologize for my bad faith. I've just seen far too many innocent questions like this get turned into something else. I'll strike my statement. --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, back to the question asked: I think the reason we haven't put any specific numbers is there is too broad a range of speculative and incorrect information. 767s can carry (as was correctly stated above) about 24K gallons. Many newscasts and papers believed the jets were filled to capacity upon takeoff, but the 9/11 Commission disputes this (only in reference to Flight 11). They say it was loaded with about 14,000 gallons. It used about four-thousand in flight, crashing with about 10,000 left. Many papers say it crashed with 20,000 gallons. As for 757s, they can carry a little more than 10,000 so my source for Flight 77 is probably speculating. I invite other editors to try and find better numbers if you decide to put up the impact fuel loads. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
?????? The fuel is not speculation. There are records of how much fuel was in each aircraft and those figures are accepted by NIST as factual. The capacity of the aircraft is for international flight but these planes were on domestic routes so are never filled with more fuel than they need because of the cost of lifting the extra weight. I believe NIST found the fuel only started the fires but was not a factor itself in the fires intensity. Wayne (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is that there are lots of sources which all contradict one another for a variety of reasons. --Haemo (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Haemo. Search "Flight 175" "gallons of fuel" in Google News and you get a huge range of output. It's not speculation, I'm sure, since records are kept by aircraft maintenance and the rest is simple physics, but the newspapers themselves either didn't check or assumed all aircraft are fuel to the max. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked the question is that this is an article on the attacks and not about the aircraft and their operational parameters. The amount of fuel the craft could have held is not relevant, what is relevant is the actual amount of fuel on each craft, if we are to discuss fuel at all. It is, as I understand it, not customary to load a plane with more fuel than it needs, to avoid landing with full fuel tanks. In the case of the twin towers, the actual amount of fuel onboard is very relevant, as the fuel is one of the primary potential sources of energy which may have caused the collapse of 3 buildings and death of thousands.

I think that actual fuel loads are preferable total fuel capacity in the context of this article. We have some reliable sources for the actual fuel load don't we? User:Pedant (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

and if the Reliable Sources contradict each other, what is it about these sources that makes them "Reliable"? User:Pedant (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources contradict. Plain and simple. The NYTimes will say something; the Post will say another. Best thing to do is find the latest piece that is expected to be more accurate, avoid the issue altogether, or post the contradiction with both sources. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.'
The above is clearly policy. When two sources ("with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") disagree, then how do we decide which source is right? How can a source which is wrong on one detail be a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" to which we can attribute a different detail? and Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. (which seems to me pretty clear, sources shouldn't be used when the claims they are making are not appropriate to the source... such as when they are not in a position to possess the information for which they are the 'source'.) User:Pedant (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand you here... if even one claim a source makes doesn't match up exactially, the entire source should be concidered invalid? Is that what you are getting at? --Tarage (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pedant, et. al, this kind of minutia and policy discussion is exactly what other editors are talking about. Please take it to the appropriate policy page and discuss there. — BQZip01 — talk 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You're correct. I appologize for brining it up here. I'll strike my comment. --Tarage (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "minutia"? What do you mean "what other editors are talking about"? This section was specifically created to discuss the fuel capacity mentioned in the article. .(not 'minutia', not 'what other editors are talking about'... I'm talking about the article's content. The article says: Each of the airliners had a jet fuel capacity of nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons (91,000 liters). I don't see the relevancy of the fuel capacity, however the actual amount of fuel on each craft does seem relevant. I've asked if we have reliable sources for the actual amount. I've questioned the reliability of sources which make conflicting claims. All of this is relevant to the article. User:Pedant (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm questioning the "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" of sources which make statements of fact that are not accurate, or are unchecked. Where would one get the idea that such a source "has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking" if it isn't based on their accuracy and their fact checking? Where can we get the actual facts from? If we don't have actual facts, shouldn't we not include them? What is the relevance for the statement about what the fuel capacity is? User:Pedant (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you seriously think any of the sources used in this article are unreliable then there's a noticeboard to get some outside opinions. The correct way to deal with reliable sources reporting conflicting amounts of fuel is, in the absence of a definitive source, is to state that some sources have differed, and the give the range of values. Reliable sources make mistakes — the New York Times makes mistakes — the does not make it unreliable. It is this portion of your argument which BQZip told you to drop, and rightly so, since this is not the correct venue for it. --Haemo (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not debating the substance of your initial question (should this sentence be in here?), but your comments regarding policy. I mean that you have a tendency to debate policy/guidelines when this is not the locale for such discussions. You'll notice I included "et. al.", so this isn't specifically applying to you alone. Debates on this page have a tendency to spiral out of control and into areas not related to this article in any way. — BQZip01 — talk 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would think we could do better than 'a range of figures' or 'total fuel capacity' is my point. If we even mention the amount of fuel it should be a number that comes from some source that has a reasonable likelihood of being correct, and not widely differing numbers from numerous sources (whether they are reliable sources or not I guess doesn't make any difference to some of you). At some point the planes were fueled, and at that point there is a record of the amount of fuel. Maybe we just state the number from prior to take-off, and let the reader do their own synthesis using 'simple arithmetic' to determine the fuel at impact?

I dispute that I have debated what the policies are on this page. I have not done so, and I support the policies as presently written. "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." An assertion as to the amount of fuel onboard should come from a source that has the actual figure, and not a number of conflicting sources. User:Pedant (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And when sources conflict, we report differing results. How would we even tell which one has the "actual figure"? I left my magic truth-telling radar at home today. --Haemo (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying the NIST is not a reliable source for the fuel? If NIST did not access the records before stating the fuel load in their report then NIST should obviously be removed as a RS. Wayne (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read my argument. That is not what I said. The NIST is obviously a reliable source. --Haemo (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies then as I was misreading you as saying we should use the range reported by sources rather than the actual quantity noted in the NIST. Wayne (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

The following is a list of citations needed on various sections of the article. All editors are welcome to help us out in getting verifiable and reliable sources to match these facts. Please read the comments attached and either rewrite or cite the section. Strikethrough the points when they have been cited correctly.

Since this article is so long, all the sections have not been browsed for misleading or missing citations (as of 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)). Anyone can help out by continuing to other sections and verifying every fact or listing them here for other editors to check.

The attacks

Two of the airliners were flown into the World Trade Center, one each into the North and South towers, one was flown into the Pentagon, and the fourth, whose ultimate target was probably either the White House or the U.S. Capitol building, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

  • These "allegations", no matter how blatantly clear, need to be cited. Also, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, said Flight 93 was headed for the Capitol, as has been reported later in the article. There's no reason to speculate anymore with the last sentence.
    • I'm not clear which part is asked to be cited? The target of the 4th plane? --Haemo (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If so, there's a source here with mucho extra info. --Haemo (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression people would dispute the fact that planes crashed in with a fact (from some source) that a missile hit it. Remember the argument above about citing the "suicide attack". -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Hahah, yeah, the Encarta one will do that. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Using Encarta seems weak. Any number newspapers will do. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. The south tower (WTC 2) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175. The north tower (WTC 1) collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes.

  • I was shocked not to find any citations with this. Cite!
    • Here's a source for both times. I don't presume simple arithmetic needs a source. --Haemo (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I was referring mostly to the "structural failure" part. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Simple arithmetic? Haemo, you are an admin. (WP:SYNTHESIS) If we allow simple arithmetic in this case then we need to allow it in the case of all of the other mathematical synthesis which can be performed on the data we have. Policy seems pretty clear and you are dancing around it with your simple arithmetic. User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, right. 10 - 8 = 2 is the slippery slope to publishing proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem on Wikipedia. There's nothing even remotely contentious between noting that the impact occurred at 9:03 and the collapse occurred at 9:59, thus 56 minutes elapsed between the impact and the collapse. Common knowledge does not need a citation — and that includes elementary numeracy. --Haemo (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
            • "Certain kinds of claims should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations." ...specifically mentioned is "claims in areas of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy. This article is the first in the List of controversial issues (see Wikipedia:Common knowledge User:Pedant (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Fermat's last theorem: nothing wrong with an article about it, but if you want to make an interpretaion of Fermat's last theorem, that's synthesis. User:Pedant (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Are you seriously stating that the difference between 56 and 39 is an "area of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy". Really? --Haemo (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We could just remove that. It's mentioned about, but "structural failure" is really general. It's like "they collapsed because the building fell down". --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes. Structural failure explains any case where a structure collapses, unless it was built or intended to be a collapsing structure. More than that, it implies that the structure was unsound in the first place, an assertion for which I don't think we have a reliable source. 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We need a citation here, not a rewrite. Structural failure caused by: whatever [CITE]. Simple arithmetic was referring to the minutes elapsed, not the collapse. The words "structural failure" and such need a citation. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"caused by the impact" I would prefer "ignited by the explosion of jet fuel upon impact" because fire is not caused by "impact". User:Pedant (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
and simple arithmetic: source says fire started at X o'clock, other or same source says collapse at Y o'clock... synthesis is when we combine these two (by Haemo's 'simple arithmetic')... if we allow THAT as appropriate sourcing we will be allowing "buildings fell at free-fall speed" and other synthesis from applying mathematics to the sourced facts. My sense is that this is something that would be opposed by other editors. 'Haemo's simple arithmetic' puts us on a slippery slope with a tangle of OR at the bottom. User:Pedant (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's absolute nonsense. One is applying simple arithmetic to subject one time from another, with no dispute over them, and no possible source of error or dispute. The other is applying your knowledge of physics to a complex situation in order draw a conclusion. They're not even on the same order. You're stretching here to make a point and you know it. --Haemo (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that they aren't 'on the same order', but that is the only difference. Both are synthesis. But both are elementary calculations a competent 5th grader could calculate, and both are synthesis. Or do you think 'breaking the rules just a little bit' is different from not breaking the rules at all. We have policies, and this is not the place to try out inventive ways of getting around them. At least that's my opinion. I'm certain we can find a source that says how long the tower(s) burned before the collapse(s). If we can't, and since the arithmetic is so simple, "maybe" we just omit the synthesis and go with the facts as they are, from the sources that provide them. (and let the readers perform their own arithmetic) I'm not "trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point", I'm trying to remind you of a policy that it seems you are ignoring, one which that I know you are aware of. User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, they're not. You're deliberately making an absolutely ridiculous point here. If a source says "X started at 10:20 and ended at 10:40" we can say "X lasted 20 minutes" without running afoul of our original research issues here. We're not breaking any rules because no human on the planet earth is going to argue with that calculation — whereas numerous people have, can, and do argue with amateur physicists trying to apply their knowledge of kinematics to video analysis of a structural collapse. I mean, above you argue that subtraction is an "area of contention" where there is serious debate. Get real. You're wasting everyone's time for no good reason. --Haemo (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On United Airlines Flight 93, black box recordings revealed that crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers after learning through phone calls that similarly hijacked planes had been crashed into buildings that morning. According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers. Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03:11 a.m. local time (14:03:11 UTC).

  • Needs citations pretty much after every sentence.
    • This source is good for the first and last sentence. The CNN source (above) is good for the time (kill the seconds). This one (need registration) can be used for the middle. We could just use the first one, or the Encarta source in the article if we changed the wording. --Haemo (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't use Encarta (I've had problems with these kind of sources in the past) -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, we don't have to -- we can source it as-is. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
          • If we include the first sentence, we must include the fact that the recording confirms that passengers never succeeded in entering the cockpit. "According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." is synthesis, we should use the quote from the black box recorder, or provide a source for that particular interpretation of the words captured on the recording. User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
He's got a point; it needs a strong citation or multiple citations. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1,366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower (for more, see List of tenants in One World Trade Center).

  • The citation in the sentence after does not mention this.
    • We may have an error here. USA Today gives different numbers, and contradicts itself in another source. The New York Times gives others which appear more accurate, given the time elapsed. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd go with the NYTimes source given the time elapsed. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • USA Today: in what sense and by what reasoning is this considered a reliable source? I thought they had a bad reputation regarding fact-checking, not a good one. User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If so, this isn't the place to discuss it. You've already been advised to take your arguments elsewhere. Don't bring this up any more on here or I'll have to consider it disruptive behavior. You've been warned. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who brought up USA Today, and I have never used USA Today as a source. USA Today has been involved in several well-publicised incidents where there accuracy and/or fact-checking is in question, according to our article on them . User:Pedant (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So has CBS and the NYT. That doesn't make them unreliable. Take it to the appropriate venue, because you're wasting our time here and you've been warned. --Haemo (talk)
I'm just saying, I don't think we should use USA Today as a source, unless we use every different figure they offer, they don't seem to actually have one number and I'm not comfortable with us choosing one arbitrarily from amongst their contradictory figures. Are you? User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And for Pete's sake, will you guys stop 'warning' me? I acknowlege for the record, right here, that I have been 'warned' several times. If there's some penalty for insisting that we follow policy then just hit me with it. Otherwise I am considering these numerous warnings as threats and as behavior disruptive to the collaborative process. User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As many as 600 people were killed instantly or were trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (see List of tenants in Two World Trade Center). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed.

  • Same as above.
    • See above. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the 9/11 Commission, approximately 16,000 people were below the impact zones in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks. About 92% of those below the impact areas survived, evacuating before the towers collapsed. Of those above the and within the impact zones, only sixteen managed to escape — all from the South Tower.

  • Cite this. Citation that follows at the end does not mention any of this, but does have some good numbers and can be used elsewhere. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See above. Has similar numbers. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • according to the 9/11 commission (report? interview? seems to be missing a word?) and Of those above the and within the impact zones, (seems to have an extra word?) User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Either is fine. See the quote above to see that pretty much everyone else died in the fire or collapse. And it needs to be cited, Haemo. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Of those above the and within the impact zones," is this the wording you want? It seems to have an extra 'the' in it. User:Pedant (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did This section has been fully cited. Onto the next...

ArbCom case

I've looked at the header of this talk page long and hard but I can't find any mentioning of the ArbCom case. I'm wondering why visitors to this talk page are not informed of the fact there is an ArbCom decision regarding this article.

Also, I'm wondering if this and this page give a complete overview of blocked users.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm adding a notice to the top of this page. If someone with more template skills (1,336 of them more than me, to be precise) could convert this to a template, it could then be easily posted to other Talk pages. Thanks, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject of the ongoing investigation (Part II – Outrage)

When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, and the building collapsed later in the day at 5:20 p.m.[21]

I was away for a while, so I'll be happy to hear how exactly we came to this revision, who decided to work against reached consensus and for what purpose?! Arbcom case was clear; vandals (and that is exactly what we're dealing with here) who placed that revision need to loose their privileges of editing this article immediately! Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of stomping about in "outrage" and demanding severe retribution against the person who dared to alter this free-content encyclopedia, perhaps you should calm down and look for the change in the article's edit history, then explain what in this revision constitutes vandalism, contradicts the provided sources, or otherwise violates policy. I personally don't see outstanding vandalism or anything else wrong with it as it stands. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That person has been doing whatever to hex it wants in here for years and years while at the same time literary hundreds of fine editors were forced to take their indefinite leave in the same easily identifiable pattern and in front of the eyes of the whole community! And you find it appropriate to write about free-content encyclopedia? I'm extremely annoyed; I'll ban myself for at least a month! Tachyonbursts (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
With that attitude, perhaps you should take off longer than a month... --Tarage (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Section

Article states:

The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.

This statement is outdated and it should be removed, or another, more contemporary statement should be made which is in direct contradiction with the current one. Please share your thoughts. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ae911 isn't a reliable source. Please take a look at WP:RS, thanks. RxS (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've took a look, you'll need to pinpoint the reasoning behind your claim, because I don't see one. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then, why would you dismiss this reference? It states nothing, while it shows that our current construction is as outdated and as misleading as it ever was. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that if it is misleading, you'd need to show reliable sources to back that claim up, ae911 isn't a reliable source. That is, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As someone wanting to make a change, the burden of proof is on you to justify it. So for example, are they all really architects and engineers, do their numbers form significant part of the community of engineers, is the petition text relevant to what you want changed etc...RxS (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
<personal attack removed>
Well, I commend you on doing a lot of dammage to your cause. Hopefully though, the majority of editors will ignore your hate filled rant and continue to treat each side with respect. --Tarage (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this personal attack. Please don't encourage this kind of behavior by giving it attention. --Haemo (talk)

9/11 by 9/11

All right, let's stay focused. What else do we need? Citations look very good. Are we ready for a nom or peer review? I would like this article to the on the Main Page (that is, FA) by 9/11/08. I don't think that goal is impossible to achieve, but I need more input and action. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

VegitaU is inserting POV and he's acting against consensus

VegitaU, please get in here and explain your actions, revision you've just removed was reached through consensus, so please justify your actions before I report your disregard for our policies and Arbcom decisions. We will not waste our time on this once more. Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[152] For someone who just got blocked for legal threats, you don't seem to learn your lessons easy. Don't worry. I assure you I'm ready for an argument if you wish to report me. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Be kind, focus, quit with the unrelated gibberish and explain your actions. The revision you've just removed was reached through consensus. Would you like this stated in another language? Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of cooling this down, why don't you both settle down. The changes by VegitaU seem reasonable and don't make any assertions that aren't sufficiently backed up. While alluding to other "alternative" (read "insane") theories, they aren't outright in error in any respect. That said, this whole section is the result of a long, drawn-out consensus. I recommend against further changes of this nature unless you can prove consensus has changed. While Tachyonburst's (BTW, love the Star Trek reference there) comments could have been better tempered, the basic question still remains and should be answered: why should this be changed. I ask you to refrain from alluding to his past. He was reprimanded and "served his time". Unless the actions for which he was blocked are continuing to occur (which I do not believe they are), this has no bearing on the matter at hand.

In short, "Oh, behave! and follow the golden rule. — BQZip01 — talk 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable? No. But yes, yes we've been here before, one step forward, two steps back will lead us to the womb, it will. VegitaU just reinstated the fire and debris ****, while there is nothing to back that one up. It doesn’t flow, it has a flaw, we're dealing with the subject of the ongoing investigation, and that is a rock solid fact. That's what reference says, that's what we've all agreed on before Aude came along to keep as from coming along. There is nothing wrong with stating things as they are. By doing that we're doing what we're here for. VegitaU, you could have just reinstated the reference, yes? Uf! Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you ask me, Tachyonbursts appears to simply be looking for a fight. The two times he has started a new section in the discussion, he has made extravigant claims that one of our editors has done some unspeakable crime. The best/worst part is, while making these accusations, he brings no evidence at all. Only threats. I have to seriously question the validity of any statement coming from this individual, and sugest that perhaps, this is an elaborate attempt at trolling. I am trying to assume good faith here, but with legal threats flying around at the drop of a hat, I am having dificulty. --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that one editor feels justified because their preferred version has more sources, and the other editor, because theirs is (or was) the consensus version. I think a compromise could probably be reached by any editor willing to merge the two versions. Therefore, that's what I'm going to try. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what revision is the so-called "consensus version". I'm in this because his last edit, which was a copy of one done a few days ago, deleted a cited reference. And BTW, Steel, you screwed up the "compromise" edit. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I know my change isn't particularly clever, but hopefully it will encourage editors to do more than just revert one another. If you have a problem with it, I'd appreciate a discussion rather than a revert. Actually, you don't even need to discuss it - just tell me what I did wrong and I'll fix it. Sound reasonable? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have fixed, but I have no idea what you're trying to do. You ended up copying an entire paragraph over (with tiny details changed). "Three buildings in the World Trade..." and onwards with the same sources. The sources have to say one thing or the other. Not both. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I edited it back. I'm sorry SheffieldSteel, but simply jamming in both versons a comprimise does not make. If anything, we should leave it the way it currently is, and discuss the changes here before we make them on the article. I am not endorsing either verson, but changes like this need to be talked about first. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article gives an overview of the events on 9/11. Looking at the broad picture (aside from the conspiracy theory discussions), WTC7 was more of a footnote in the days events, no one was killed or injured when the building collapsed, etc. A lengthy discussion about the particulars of the WTC7 collapse does not belong in that part of the article. It could go elsewhere, but not there. As mentioned above, it would be nice to get this to be a good article. I think the edits take us away from there, by making the discussion in that section of the article imbalanced. --Aude (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with VegitaU that people can change the article and with SS's assertion that people shouldn't just revert one another. Make one reversion (max) then discuss it on the talk page...this would stop a lot of edit wars...including ones I've started... — BQZip01 — talk 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I try to adhear to this concept as much as possible, even when other's don't. I've used my one edit to say 'Lets hold off on changes till we talk about them here'. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I swear, I was just about to nominate it when I checked my watchlist and saw his edit. The rest is history. And so much for nominating it now; admin'll just say it's unstable and reject it. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We still have time. Lets all cool our heads and talk this one out. I don't forsee such a minor issue dragging on for months. Then again... --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c x 3)I attempted to remove the objections of both parties by creating a version containing both the former consensus text and the new ref. Aude's point about GA is a good one. I think deleting the mini-paragraph about the investigation would be a good step towards making this section more concise. But please don't complain to me about article instability. I haven't reverted this article other than to combat obvious vandalism. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is not unstable; it is collapsing as we type. Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite a defeatest attitude. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Why not calmly talk about your proposed edit rather than stand on the street corner preaching of the end of the world(this article)? --Tarage (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh,this is just lovely. Do say, if someone would promise you antigrav if we would simply get rid of the law, wouldn’t you smack him on the face and warn him what it all means, tell him as decently as you can, hey fellow, do not break the damn law because you'll venture away from the Sun and bring the demise of us all?! Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I really think you need to calm down. This level of anger and sarcasm is not healthy, much less helpful. As I said, I am unsure as to which verson I wish to endorse, and you could go a long way towards your goal by simply explaining it to me, and any other fence sitters, instead of using this kind of rhetoric. --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't agree with Tarage more. — BQZip01 — talk 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Tarage, I'm quite calm, if you take a look at our mutual history here, you'll see what's wrong. With or without pop references and illustrations, no, we're not here to omit anything and/or anyone. Let's just say it as it is, and the very best thing we can do at this time is to state that we're in the middle of the ongoing investigation. I'm not sure how to reiterate such clear fact? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actions speak louder that words, and your actions show someone who is anything but calm. But, if you say you are, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. In reguards to the edit you are proposing, it may seem quite cut and dry to you, but without 'pop refrences and illustrations', it is moot. It is these 'pop refrences and illustrations' that allow us to see the world through your eyes, to the best of our ability. It is these 'pop refrences and illustrations' that form the backbone of Wikipedia itself. We have a kinder name for them, Reliable Sources. Does that help? --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Indent)

I always liked Silver Surfer…

Allbright, let's put it this way, few days ago we've learned that administration(s) engaged in massive propaganda campaign, in days to come we'll learn more. Such is the course of history, the history we're here to recognize and inscribe. I'm mentioning this to show how unreliable reliable source can be and that is a rock solid fact. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

By continuing to ignore what I have to say, you are not helping your cause at all. I give up. If you want to edit like a grown up, instead of using persional attacks and sarcasm, then I'll listen. Until then, you appear to be doing nothing but trolling. Good day. --Tarage (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
In how many ways should one act? We have a reference; reference that speaks about various working hypotheses which are a subject of ongoing investigation. It is as simple as that. I don't understand your need to state it in some different way, or to postulate something out of nothing. Why don't you try and explain why to hex would/should we do such thing? Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Tach, I agree with your insertion, but the way you are going about it is not building consensus and is only irking people. Please cease. — BQZip01 — talk 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, my sincerest apologies, if I may I'd suggest we all restrain from calling each other trolls and similes, with such course it would be much easier to keep mutual civility. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The same applies to sugesting that there is some sort of propaganda war on the part of our fellow editors. --Tarage (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit. If you wish any of to take it seriously, please do what I asked and provide refrences. This is not consensus. --Tarage (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: On second thought, I'll take back my edit. As I am still on the fence on this issue, it is not my place to question it. Also, I don't intend to break the 'one edit per editor' rule. However, I highly recomend that Tachyonbursts come and explain this edit with RS. If not, there is no reason to keep it. --Tarage (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
RS, per request>[153], [154], [155]
Please refer to previous discussion to see how consensus was formed. Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
See? All you had to do was add your paragraph with your sources. Way to go. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Appreciated. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The hijackers - request for citation

The following sentence is not referenced, sourced or cited. Why is that?

Nineteen men boarded the four planes, five each on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 77, four on United Airlines Flight 93.

Can anyone provide a citation for that sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyonbursts (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is provided at the end of the next sentence (footnote 95). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that and I'm not even sure if that would be a reliable source per se. That said, I was referring to the first sentence and a citation, source, reference which will place those Arabs aboard those planes. Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortionatly, you don't get to decide of a source is reliable or not. We have guidelines for that. Unless you can, perhaps, point out how that source fails those guidelines? --Tarage (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say you should place the tag back where it was until we find the reference. Would you be so kind? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, this sentence is indeed sourced from a reliable source. Every sentence doesn't need a footnote and it is perfectly acceptable in every guide I've ever seen (MLA, WP:MoS, etc) to cite something at the end of a paragraph or group of sentences if the reference applies to all the previous sentences. Your request is, therefore, moot and your continued contentious discussion with a clear agenda is wearing thin. Unless you have something constructive to add or discuss, please cease. — BQZip01 — talk 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My one and only 'agenda' is to bring NPOV to this deeply biased article. Most of the editors are well capable of understanding the point of the dispute behind our discussions. I'm not sure if there is a need to explain the obvious, but each and every accusation you are making on my account can be turned, swayed and pointed straight back in your direction! I'd suggest you seize with conduct that you find inappropriate from my side, but which appears to be acceptable when it comes from the group of well know editors (with clear agenda!). Please, try to address the issue at stake, and do not force me to speak of omissions and cover-up and circus, because it will do us no good. Each action causes re-action, if you push me I'll pull you, and if you expect to see me turning the other cheek each time one of the POV inserters decides to throw libel and slender in my direction than you're expecting way too much. Hope this clears the horizon for a bit.
Now, I'm well aware of the issue behind my request, I'm not going into details or background which most of us find disturbing. We are dealing with sensitive article; we cannot allow our selves to have any doubts here. So, I'll stick to my request, the current reference has nothing to do with Arabs aboard those airplanes, further more, works of fiction should not be referenced here at all. This should be the simplest of request, there should be plenty of citations for the sentence, find one and place it where it is appropriate. As some of the editors here like to state, the burden of providing the evidence is on you. Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you can use the Wikipedian guidelines for Reliable Sources to cite why a source is a work of fiction, please do not make claims such as this. Backing up an argument with evidence is one thing, blindly making accusations is another. One is welcome here, the other is not. I appreciate what you did with the WTC 7 issue when you cited sources. Please do so here, so we don't have yet another needless argument. --Tarage (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Tarage I don't see how Mcdermott's book places those Arabs aboard those planes, did he provide a reference (such as passenger list, or flight manifest) which would show that those alleged perpetrators boarded flights? He did not. Therefore his work, regardless what we think of it, cannot stand as citation for that first sentence. We'll simply need to find one, is that a problem? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
What's up Ice Cold? Have you found a citation? This is a second time you're reverting without valid explanation, how many strikes before you're out? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a bunch of sources identifying the hijackers etc. [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163] RxS (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but at the moment, we're not really interested in identity of the hijackers; we're interested to see them aboard those planes. Can it be that we don't have a single reference which will place those Arabs on those flights? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I follow, identifying them as the hijackers of the planes by definition puts them on the planes. We're not here to investigate as primary sources. RxS (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent)

We'll deal with the possible identities a bit later, we can do it now if you insist, but I'd prefer if we would take it one step at the time. I'm fine either way, what will it be? Would you prefer if we would start to question the identity of the hijackers now or a bit later? Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So much for that headache. Let's get back to constructive editing. GA anyone? -- VegitaU (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably not the best choice of words. Either way, it is probably for the best, as I feel we were approaching a circular argument, one that I'm sure has already taken place in the archives. In reguards to GA, I can't do much, but if there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Arbitration seems to have slowly aleviated some of the issues we have had preventing us from achieving GA. --Tarage (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then, if no one objects, I'll nominate it within 24 hours. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG. I can't believe it

This 9/11 article on Wikipedia is just wrong, in the begenning of this whole article about 9/11 you should say, "According to the official theory." This is just wrong to say (" ... were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.)How do we know that ? just because FBI told us doesn't mean it's true.(They think that's what happened but they don't know for sure; that is what theory is.).This is wrong, because nobody knows what( or should I say who) caused 9/11. The official theory is just another "theory" it doesn't necessary mean that this what EXACTLY happened on September 11,2001, see what I mean ?

Please see Wikipedia:Undue weight. What is presented in this article is the opinion of the vast majority of reliable sources. Hut 8.5 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Also please read the archives. I am almost positive every argument you make here has already been argued to death in past debates. --Tarage (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to delete (or immediately archive) these discussions when they pop up? Or do we have to answer each one? -- VegitaU (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... I don't know. Usually I leave both options for admins and just try to point people in the right direction... which almost always is the archives. --Tarage (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just do it. There's a big bold note at the top saying to look in the archives. If people don't bother, then too bad for them. Promptly archiving redundant discussions is part of the evolution solution to issues like this; however, if a subject replaces it, then in the interests of keeping things cool, don't remove it again. --Haemo (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Noted. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Books

Why is this section needed at all. It seems like it would cause more problems than help readers. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. That section seems like a problem waiting to happen. I sugested it's removal back when we were arguing if a book should be added or not. The problem is any book added is most likely going to have POV one way or the other. Really, the only book that probably has any right to be there is the NIST Report, since it is refrenced so many times, and doesn't feel like it pushes anything more than official findings. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. It does not have a well-defined purpose, and there isn't an "authoritative" reading list on the subject yet. Currently, it's a silly grab-bag of books that have something to do with 9/11 by someone notable or maybe notable. Not useful to readers, not encyclopedic. --Haemo (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's there because some editors wanted Chomsky's book to be linked from this page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been removed with a note. --Haemo (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly and FBI statements

I read through the previous discussion of "allegedly" and there are some problems with it. First,"Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Certainly this is evidence of doubt.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Why is this not mentioned?

As for his confession, from Wikipedia, "In some cases, people have falsely confessed to having committed notorious crimes simply for the attention that they receive from such a confession." on the False confession page.

Jimmywfl (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywfl (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what "Team Liberty" is or where they get their info, but the FBI itself states evidence linking bin Laden and 9/11 is clear and irrefutable. And you can't dismiss mutiple video confessions as "false" without some serious citations. I consider this matter closed. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The FBI's page on bin Laden http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
does not mention the WTC attack at all. "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
As for the confessions, bin Laden did not walk into a police station, get fingerprinted, and then confess. To assume that a video tape from dubious sources is the absolute truth is quite an asumption. I did not say it was false; I said there is no evidence to prove that it is not false. Repeatedly confessing does not make something true. Bin Laden's movement has benefited greatly from the presumption that he did it - so confessing to it had a definite profit for him, whether he did or did not.

Jimmywfl (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article

I think we are close. Here are some issues:

  • "The attacks" section still bothers me, with the "investigations" paragraph. I suggest reading the section aloud and see how it sounds, to see if the paragraph is out of place to you? If I understand correctly, this section is meant to be a quick summary of the day's events. Per summary style, we then link to a more detailed timeline page. Later in the article, we do talk about the collapse investigations. I would put those details in that section and not the timeline/day of attacks section. Of course, if everyone disagrees with me, then okay.
  • The "economic effects" section is subpar, with parts of it completely unreferenced.
  • The prose in the "international reactions" section is choppy. "The attacks had major global political ramifications." doesn't seem well written to me. For the line, "and froze the bank accounts[150] of businesses", the reference can go at the end of the sentence, rather than in the middle. Overall, the section sounds like a bunch of disparate thoughts all added by different people and it doesn't flow together as good prose.

There are other issues, but I think if these things are addressed, that would address the most glaring things. --Aude (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that the investigations do not need to be covered in the Attacks section. My preferred form of words says that WTC7 was hit by debris, fires were reported, and it collapsed later in the day. Some editors (and various conspiracy theorists) have argued that the cause of collapse is unknown and might be controlled demolition - after all, the investigation is still ongoing, so nobody knows for sure. This is an area where two opposing viewpoints are apparently each unwilling to let the other side imply anything about the collapse - that it is perfectly simple, or that it is mysterious, or a cover-up. Hence, too many words are present, rather than too few. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues Summary

I'm going to summarize for clarity then.

Attacks and Investigations

  • Lengthy accounts. Sections need to be summarized appropriately on this article with proper links directing the reader to subarticles. It would be a shame to lose any of this information we've worked hard on. Please be careful in moving large sections so that references aren't cut off on either end. A missing <ref> tag is a good way to ruin an article.
All right, I've removed the individual flights. I found that to be the most awkward area of the section. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody please cross-check my work. I've run through the "Attacks" and "Attackers and motive" sections and I need someone to go through and make sure it makes sense. I've cut a lot out that was either unreferenced, dead linked, redundant, or already mentioned on subarticles. Please review my edits. Thanks, and we're doing a great job. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As for WTC7, everything depends on the choice of words. "WTC 7 collapsed later in the day. Ongoing investigations by NIST hypothesize that fires caused by falling debris compromised the building's integrity and caused its collapse." Something along those lines.

Economic aftermath

  • I'm not sure about being subpar. A lot of information seems factual, rather than opinionated, but needs references.
    • Reasons why I think the section was a problem include the "rebuilding" information, which seemed out of place. As such, I have moved it. I am also not sure the section is a "comprehensive". It mentions somethings with maybe a tad too much detail, while it omits other points (e.g. effects on the insurance industry). I'm working on the subarticle to make sure it covers all important points, then can come back to this section here with references and try to make it a more balanced summary. --Aude (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is in serious need of citations and reworking. We might, in fact, cut major portions that we can't cite out of it. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

International reactions

  • May want to get rid of the first sentence and add the link to the top with a {{see}} template. Otherwise, it didn't look particularly choppy to me. Either way, if anyone believes they can improve it, do it. Above all, remember the references. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I removed two of the "smoke plume" images, as I don't think we needed three in the article. The images removed include: Image:New York September 11 NEXRAD.png and Image:SmokePlumePentagon911.png. This makes room if we want to add something else, instead. --Aude (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked a few, replacing the overwhelming amount of structural damage photos we had with more memorable ones. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We also need to move some images around, and remove some others. Yes, it's nice that we have lots of free images — but we don't really need all of them in the article. One per section is probably good, and it should fit the content. (For example, the one in "Motives" seems out of place). --Haemo (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Another one is the 9/11 Commission report cover. Useful? Informative? I'm not really sure. --Haemo (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed it up. You're right, it wasn't very interesting. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

I think the lead needs work too in order to summarize the entire article, not just the attacks and casualties. Also, I think there's too much detail there. For example, I can't really find any mention of the specific flights in the body (after I deleted them, I know), but they are in the lead. I don't want a bulleted list with super-detailed information like we had, but a more generalized, quick run through of what happened. "Flights 11 and 175 crashed..., Flight 75 crashed..., and Flight 93 crashed..." Shouldn't be longer than a few sentences and we can get rid of those specifics in the lead - just say "two flight...into WTC, one into Pentagon, the fourth at Shanksville after a revolt."

Let me know what you think or change this as you see fit. It's only my opinion after all. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is starting to shape up nicely. I think if you put the flights into the text "Two aircraft, Flight 11 out of... and Flight 175 out of... " it would cover it. Right now it just says "two aircraft, both 767s" which seems to be too little info and then later flight 93 is mentioned in the text. --PTR (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I reworked the lead and first section, but I think it still needs tweaking to really get up to standards. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The final sentence of the lead, "Progress has seen a lack of agreement as well as criticism over the planned Freedom Tower," seems a bit awkward to me. Is there a better way to phrase this sentence? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How about "Progress on the planned Freedom Tower has been slowed due to lack of agreement as well as criticism." --Tarage (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Check the current wording. I think it's pretty good. --Haemo (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed that the hijackers had some pilot training as not lead material but I still think the lead seems choppy and "hijackers" is repeated too many times. I suggest the following:
On that morning, terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City and a third airliner into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania after passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane.[5] WTC1 and WTC2 were directly impacted and collapsed soon afterward; other nearby buildings were extensively damaged.[4]
--PTR (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Length

I know you've covered this before, but I want to still make sure what your opinions are on the article length. I've been trimming the unnecessary details the last few days. I was hoping I could get it under 100K, but I didn't quite make it. How does everyone feel about the article length? -- VegitaU (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some ridiculous amount of the length is the references. If you trim them all out, the size is only 83kb, which is well within size guidelines, especially for such an important topic. --Haemo (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. We do have a lot of those. I'm going to archive this in a few hours if no one has anything else to say. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Give it at least 24 hours. One issue with this being an international project is that not everyone works at the same time. --Haemo (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
and it's the weekend :) Aude2 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. I just didn't want to start cluttering the talk page with small things. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

References

How hard would it be to make the Cited Refrences into a scrollable box? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia code, so I don't know how to do it myself, but it seems like since we have so many, we could make that secion appear smaller. --Tarage (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We did have it at one point ([164]), but Haemo says it's not MOS-compliant, so it probably won't fly. (I don't really know personally). -- VegitaU (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We're not supposed to do that for accessibility reasons. We can do it, and it's been suggested a bunch but it's a no go if we want this to be GA since MOS Citing Sources is one of the core requirements. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If we can't get to GA then I'm against changing it. Honestly, we need to condense those references. The 9/11 Commission and NIST Report citations are spread out all over the place. We need to reel all those into their corresponding document and just cite from there instead of from "Chapter 5 - 9/11 Comm.", "Chapter 3- 9/11 Comm.", etc... -- VegitaU (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There's actually a requirement to reference like that. I can think of two solutions: (1) we could adopt Harvard-style references instead, which makes that a little cleaner and (2) there's the template {{rp}} which can be used to add those references instead in-line. I think that might be better, but some GA reviewers don't like it which makes me say blah. --Haemo (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Not sure if I really made myself clear. I meant: here's one factoid from Chap 3 of the 9/11 Commission Report.[32] Here's one factoid from Chap 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report.[33] Instead of having "two" different reference points we can: Factoid 1.[34] Blah-blah... Factoid 2.[34] This way, both facts are referenced by one reference point instead of two (which are really the same source).

  1. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  3. ^ Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology[5] and updates[6]
  4. ^ [7]Frum, David, "David Frum's Diary" on the National Review Online Web site, October 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. post "Blogging Woodward (4)", accessed same day

Edit: Either way, a lot of references need to get cleaned up. Some look real flimsy. Might want to look at WP:CIT. That's my holy grail of reference templates.

-- VegitaU (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is that you need to have a chapter ref when possible. That's why I suggested the rp template instead. --Haemo (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine. Whatever improves the quality of the article. I've read through the entire thing and restructured it over the last few days. I've tried to keep the core information and, above all, put references in front of everything. It's looking good to me. What does everyone else think? -- VegitaU (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)



Cheers!

You guys are doing some great work! Tom Harrison Talk 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you here. The working environment on this article has indeed improved a lot. It's great to be discussing actual improvements to the article. --Aude (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I also wanted to thank you guys for the great work. The last 3 or 4 months (or more) of battle on these pages really took the enthusiasm out of editing here for me, it's good to see people pushing forward with such good work. RxS (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ready to nominate for GA

I haven't a chance to look in detail at the latest edits from over the weekend, but from a quick skim through the article, it looks good. I think it's ready to be nominated at WP:GA. The reviewer may provide more suggestions or ask for certain fixes, but I don't see any major flaw that stands in the way. Good work everyone! --Aude (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ready for nom I'm happy with what's been done. I think it's ready to go. Though I have a sneaking fear someone will suddenly edit-war right before we try. (9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB FUR TEH JUSTIZ!!11) -- VegitaU (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and bad faith edits are disregarded in the good article criteria. Go ahead and nom. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I normally do when I submit nominations is to take time and review some other articles listed on the page. I realize there is often a backlog on the nominations page, so it helps to pitch in. I may not have the time, but might do one. --Aude (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. By this evening then; if no one has any objections. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

DidIt's done. There's a major-freakin backlog so it'll probably take a month or so. Stay sharp—it's possible they will put the status on hold () with a list of things to improve. Please fix these things as soon as you see them! Also, we have more power after the arbcom decision. Please give people who violate this decision with the template below (it's an example, so change it to suit the situation):

Warning You have recently edited September 11, 2001 attacks in a manner that transgresses the arbitration decision reached. Please do not add disruptive information or comments related to the promotion of conspiracy theories to the September 11, 2001 attacks article or its talk page. These issues have all been raised in the past and reviewed by administrators. Continuation of this behavior will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions that include being banned from editing this article or being blocked entirely for a short period of time. Please refrain from repeating these actions again. Thank you.

Anyway, be patient, stay sharp, and hopefully our hard work will pay off! Thanks everyone, you've done a great job! -- VegitaU (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use an actual example when you post things like that VegitaU. I was confused enough by it to make a comment on an editor's page that was false. --Tarage (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I mentioned it was an example. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ARCHIVE NUMERO 42

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 42

ARCHIVE NUMERO 43

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 43

ARCHIVE NUMERO 44

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 44

ARCHIVE NUMERO 45

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 45

ARCHIVE NUMERO 46

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 46

ARCHIVE NUMERO 47

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 47

ARCHIVE NUMERO 48

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 48

ARCHIVE NUMERO 49

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 49

ARCHIVE NUMERO 50

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 50