Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Last paragraph in Memorials section?

If American society at large payed their tributes by erecting memorials that showed their sympathy with the victims, the community of creative artists showed differing sensibilities. Although in recent decades art has been politicized, with sociopolitical problems inspiring much artistic activity, the art community was distinctly chary in responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to Commentary, only one significant monumental artistic response to 9/11 was made: Eric Fischl's bronze sculpture Tumbling Woman, which was installed in Rockefeller Center one year later. The figure, however, was stripped of any sense of poignancy or dignity, "showing her landing ridiculously on her head, with all the bathos of an unsightly spill in the tub." The statue gave offense, and it was removed promptly. Most other art that followed 9/11 "suffered from the same moral incoherence". Commentary identifies the reigning political bias among artists as the explanation. It suspects that the lack of noteworthy attempts to humanize the victims may be due to "fear that it might dehumanize their killers".[243]

I don't feel this paragraph fits in with the otherwise high quality of the article. This sounds like the beginnings of a political rant as opposed to reporting verifiable facts.

99.20.251.63 (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point. I wonder how we can modify it to fit better. Perhaps it would be better to remove it all together, as it seems to talk a bit too much about one specific monument. --Tarage (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrap it, we should also remove reference about WTC 7 in Attacks paragraph, it is outdated and worthless. InnerParty (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove both, have to wait for a bit though, WTC 7 is mentioned in damage section, it's more than enough. InnerParty (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And since we're working on improvements, I'd suggest we remove reference about Donald Rumsfeld from Military operations following the attacks paragraph, it looks outlandish, I'm not sure why is it there in the first place, President Bush clearly rejected any link between Iraq and 9/11 attacks, it looks like some POV pushing to me. InnerParty (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is blatantly political POV, it should just be removed entirely. 70.192.79.25 (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Athempel (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what kind of POV is supposed to be expressed in the passage. It is based on verifiable facts.

It seems strange to have a memorials section without dealing with the lack of interest for the event among the artistic community. --Jonund (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ template

The FAQ template is ideological and POV.

• It supports the use of the word "terrorist", which is a strong ideological word instead of neutral words such as hijakers, attackers or whatever.
• It declares that the article is not biased. Essentially dismissing any discussion. It's the most anti-Wikipedian claim I have ever read.
• The NPOV policy of Wikipedia demands all articles to give proportional weight to each reasonable version of the story. Instead this article only follows the official theories and gives absolutely no room for crictical approaches. It is not only extremely POV but also anti-Wikipedian.

Hence I'm removing that horrible template.

--Sugaar (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. If there are changes to it you'd like to see please suggest them here, but it's the product of a lot of discussion and has consensus. That's not to say changes can never be made, it's just that they should be talked about first. RxS (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm officially leaving Wikipedia for good. This is the nightmare of any Wikipedian: NPOV thrashed for the shake of intelligence services! --Sugaar (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment not related to the purpose of this page, which is to improve the article on the September 11 attacks.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out! --Tarage (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

^ If you honestly believe that people like Sugaar are capable of improving anything about this article, then you are delusional. I don't know how to put it nicer. --Tarage (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My recent edit to this section was not based on any assumptions about the capabilities or motives of other editors.  Cs32en  21:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pager Intercepts

Over the last two days over 500,000 intercepts of what are purported to be pager messages from 9/11 were published by Wikilinks [1]. Most reliable sources seem to think they are real but no definitive proof exists. As of this point there have been no earth shattering revelations. I think this should be considered for the External links section. It is a classic external link in that it adds detail to material in the article. There is a reliability question Edkollin (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Think you mean wikileaks... This article states that "I spoke to three journalists working on September 11, 2001 whose correspondence appeared in the logs or who were familiar with the messages circulated in their newsrooms that day. All three say the logs appear to be legitimate." - this seems to be the best evidence to show that they are real. Personally I think it does deserve more of than an EL in the article, perhaps one sentence in the "immediate response" section would be the best. Smartse (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If anything, it is more evidence to pile up against those that believe something other than a terrorist attack occurred that September day. I wonder if the CTs are crying tonight. --Tarage (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The plain text messages primarily show how much confusion there was on that day, nothing particularly damaging for the official or any other version of the events. Some messages about explosions, but there were numerous eyewitness reports and testimonies to that effect anyway. Don't know about the encrypted messages, there seems to be some progress being made on them -- I'd suggest to wait for a while anyway, until we see how our beloved reliable sources have covered the issue.  Cs32en  21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We're done here. You will not be allowed to soapbox for the sake of soapboxing. Youtube is not, and never shall be, a reliable source. Two people's statements are not even close to being enough to challenge the mountain of consensus that we have obtained, and your continued attacks of existing reliable sources because of your inane theories is laughable. Your request has been requested and rejected numerous times, and I will not allow this farce to continue. --Tarage (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Allegedly carried out by Al Qaeda

Shouldn't it be stated that the attack was allegedly carried out by Al Qaeda? Nobody has been found guilty in court yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellEngland (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rejected many times. Please check the archives and explain why the reasons in the previous rejections should no longer apply before trying again. (It's not easy to check the archives, so I don't necessarily consider this a bad faith edit.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I looked in Archive # 12, under the heading Evidence of involvement in 9/11. I saw nothing there to justify the removal of the word "allegedly" in the phrase which, according to me, should read "nineteen hijackers allegedly took control of four commercial airliners". To say otherwise is to express a POV which is challenged by numerous people, of which I am. As others have stated, Usama's culpability has never been proven in a court of law. It has also been stated quite clearly that the FBI itself is reluctant to mention 9/11 on Usama's Most Wanted poster. Isn't it common knowledge that "When asked why Osama bin Laden’s wanted poster only mentions his alleged involvement in the East African embassy bombings, but not 9/11, Rex Tomb of the FBI’s public affairs unit says, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”?
  • What I found in Archive # 12 were a lot of silly and frankly racist statements from some individuals who insist that the official version promulgated by the President of the United States must be believed — presumably because such a distinguished gentleman would never dare to utter a lie. Until a real investigation examines what happened on 9/11, no one can say with any certainty if Usama bin Laden was involved in orchestrating the attack or not. Others claim that it was mostly the work of Dick Cheney and that the President was merely a puppet who did as he was told but was mostly kept in the dark. Who knows with any certainty what happened on that day? That is why a new investigation has to be launched. Until then, it seems appropriate to restore the word "allegedly" in its proper place and to reflect that reality on every page of Wikipedia that deals with this event.
  • There is also an obvious bias on Osama bin Laden's page elsewhere on Wikipedia. It claims "After initial denial, in 2004 Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States." and it provides a few sources to support the allegation that Usama confessed in one or more videos. But the authenticity of those videos is vigorously contested by an increasing number of people. Some say the actor posing as Usama bears no physical resemblance to the real Usama. Others mention the presence of some jewelry that shouldn't be there, while still others noticed that in one video he is right-handed and in another he is left-handed. Who are we going to ask to settle the dispute? The FBI? The CIA? Those people had a certain level of credibility until recently — but not any more I'm afraid.
  • I demand therefore that the word "allegedly" be reinstated in this instance and everywhere else it is appropriate to do so. If anyone objects, please say why. Thank you.Oclupak (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oclupak, without making any judgment on your arguments, please don't "demand" anything. Wikipedia is supposed to work by discussion and consensus. Keeping cool and polite on these matters helps in making progress toward accurate and NPOV documentation. Having said that, I agree that "allegedly" is the appropriate term to use in this instance. Wildbear (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's go bullet point by bullet point shall we?

1. We don't say allegedly because virtually all of the reliable sources we have say so. Just like we don't say 'allegedly the world is round' or 'allegedly Elvis is dead', inserting that word would be POV towards CTs. As for Osama, Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is Wikipedia a part of any government, so we can say someone is guilty based on reliable sources, regardless of what a court of law says. Lastly you are going to have to cite that quote. "Common Knowledge" doesn't quite cut it for something that far out.

2. Racist? How? Again, reliable sources are what we listen to, not the president of any nation. Do you understand?

3. Take it up with that article, not this one. Also, just because you say the FBI and CIA don't have creditability doesn't make it true. And even then, I once again have to state that we don't really care WHAT they think, but what reliable sources think.

4. And I request that you come back with reliable sources to back up your 'demands'. Otherwise, you can 'demand' until you are blue in the face, but the changes you want will not happen. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What are reliable sources? On the morning of Aug. 31, 1939, what were "reliable sources" reporting about the Gleiwitz incident? I did not check but I suspect that "reliable sources" all over Germany reported that Polish soldiers had attacked a radio station on German soil. What credence can be given to the mainstream media in a propaganda war? Especially when the entire media apparatus is owned and controlled by a small clique who have a common interest in presenting a single POV? It would be interesting to find out how that Gleiwitz story was first presented in different parts of the globe and how it has evolved since.

The comparison with 9/11 is a valid one in as much as a growing number of people do now believe that both were false flag operations.

It was probably OK for Wikipedia to assert many years ago that Al-Quaida was solely responsible for 9/11. Even I believed it at one point. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since. Unfortunately the MSM has not followed suite. Why? Because the MSM are owned and controlled by entities that have a vested interest in suppressing the truth. How can I source that? Not in any MSM publication I'm afraid...

There is a nice quote from Gandhi that comes to mind: « First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. »

I believe that the laugh period is almost completely behind us now, in spite of vain attempts by staunch supporters of the Official Version to link truthers to "Elvis is still alive" proponents. We are now somewhere between fighting and winning, I would assume. Just like when Nelson Mandela stopped being primarily characterized as a terrorist. It would be interesting to research at what point in time major news organizations shifted from the terrorist label to a more neutral stance. Same thing for Galileo Galilei; at what point in time did it become politically correct to let it be known that some people questioned the notion that the earth was at the centre of the universe. When did it become OK to say that it was "alleged" that the sun, instead of the earth, was at the center?

Even though they risk ruining their carrers, some people have dared to speak out. Charlie Sheen, for example, has published a series of questions he wishes Obama to respond to. I know. I know. He's an actor. So what? His questions deserve answers none the less. No point in sourcing those questions here. I'm pretty sure that anyone who lands on this page is aware of what I am referring to. The important thing to keep in mind is that Charlie Sheen merely asks questions. He does not pretend to know what happened on 9/11. But he expresses his scepticism, which I share and which would reflect itself by inserting the word "allegedly" everywhere it belongs until such time as it can be removed to make way to a new certainty of who actually was responsible, if such a day does occur.

Other people who's opinion should matter do have impressive credentials. I'm referring here to people like Albert Stubblebine who was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984 and Francesco Cossiga who was Prime Minister of Italy (1979-1980), President of the Senate (1983-1985), President of the Republic (1985-1992) and Senator for life since 1992. These prominent people are very old and retired, of course. Otherwise, would they foolishly have put their neck out by expressing their views with the risk of compromising their career?

I read somewhere that Wikipedia is based on consensus. OK, how do we check what the consensus is? Do we take a vote or something? Oclupak (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That page is a guideline, which means that the consensus of editors is that it should be followed. If you don't think this page should be a guideline or that the guideline should be changed then you should try to do that by getting a consensus for that change (do that at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not here). Until the guideline is changed through this process we have to follow it.

We do not base our articles on popular opinion, or on (completely unsubstantiated) allegations that there is some sort of cover-up to suppress one particular theory. Here we have one viewpoint which is almost universally given by reliable sources, and a fringe viewpoint which has a fair number of adherents amongst the general public. Here our policies say that we should not give the fringe view much weight. (If they didn't we'd have to include geocentricism in articles, because polls indicate large numbers of people still believe in it.) Unless you can address these policy-based issues no amount of rhetoric is going to help you. Hut 8.5 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Know what? You're moving dangerously close to soapboxing, and I don't appreciate it. Regardless of how you personally feel about news sources like MSN, Wikipedia has consensus that it is a reliable source. Likewise all of the other sources that state what this article states. Unless you come back with reliable sources, even a vote would be uncalled for, because you are offering absolute nothing to the table other than WP:Truth, which doesn't cut it. We've had votes before, and the current article is a result of them. Last chance, either realize that Wikipedia relies on Reliable Sources and bring some, or step down from your soapbox. --Tarage (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oclupak said "MSM", i.e. "mainstream media", not MSN. Hut 8.5 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I "demand" you get off your soapbox. 87.166.98.234 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, apropos goatstaring Stubblebine: LOL. 87.166.98.234 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Major General Albert Stubblebine

I edited General Stubblebine's wikipedia page to provide a link to the video source where he states that "a Boeing 757 airplane could not have crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". In that video, he goes on to say: "We pride ourselves with a free press. I do not believe the free press is free anymore. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this. Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being... what... certainly the stories that we're told about all about 9/11 were false. I mean you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit'em, they fell down because of explosives went off [inaudible] demolition. Look at building Seven, for God's sake."

The link to the video is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E. I ask you now, isn't he a credible source? He was, after all, responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world, at one point in his career. Shouldn't his one and only testimony be sufficient to attenuate at least a little bit the assertion that 19 islamist hijackers did it?

About the comment concerning goatstaring, I do admit that it seems, at first glance, to be a frivolous proposition. But so would have been, before the Manhattan Project, the mere notion that the splitting of a particle so small that it is invisible to the human eye could lead to an explosion of unprecedented force, capable of destroying an entire city. I haven't seen the Coen brothers' film based on the book The Men Who Stare at Goats yet, but perhaps there is some serious science behind the research General Stubblebine was involved in and which was funded by the U.S. military. I note however that this element seems to have been brought in this discussion for the sole purpose of discrediting the testimony of a legitimate source. Isn't attacking the messenger a crime on Wikipedia?

Francesco Cossiga

I edited my previous post to add a link to Francesco Cossiga's wikipedia page. On it, there is a quote from an interview he gave to the newspaper Corriere della Sera, which is, if I am not mistaken, a very reputable italian newspaper. The interview is dated Nov. 30, 2007. In the English translation provided on the Wikipedia page, he is reported as having said: "[...] all of the democratic circles of America and of Europe, in the front lines being those of the Italian centre-left, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."

As I mentioned earlier, this man was Prime Minister of Italy (1979-1980), President of the Senate (1983-1985), President of the Republic (1985-1992). Isn't that credentials enough? Has Corriere della Sera suddenly fallen into disrepute?

How many more "credible people" quoted in "reliable sources" must I come up with to alter the opening statement of the page which, in my opinion, misleads people into believing that the official theory is the only one out there? If I came up with a thousand, would it help you to budge? Oclupak (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

These would be conspiracy theorists. Please take this discussion to the appropriate article. 78.48.45.45 (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insider job theory should be given some room, offcial version should be shortened.

This article is extremely POV, including virtually only the official version of events as portrayed by the Bush administration.

It needs clear rebalancing in order to be NPOV.

I'd suggest to:

1. Make the official version shorter (it's extremely long and does not deal with the many doubts that exist in most of each "evidence" items) and detach the rest of contents to a different article.

2. Give some more room to the main alternative theory, which is that 9/11 was an insider job by the security services (references: one, [two http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18]- there must be many others).

As the article is it breches totally the NPOV policy and is a horrible symptom of the decay of Wikipedia into the hands of agendas.

--Sugaar (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a common mistake, saying that the events as recorded in the article come only from the Bush administration. The material comes from a wide range of reliable sources and experts working in their field. As to the balance of the article you can read WP:UNDUE for more info....RxS (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Yeah... this too. Enough soapboxing from all sides. The article isn't changing because there is no shift in the reliable sources behind it. We're moving on now. --Tarage (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Proposed Edits

All,

I just wanted to point out that there is a discrepancy in the total number of causalities from the top figure (second paragraph) "In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died..." and then under Casualties-- "There were a total of 2,995..."-- there is a discrepancy of 2 casualties (this is not accounted for by the inclusion or exclusion of hijackers...), but I couldn't hunt the reason for the actual discrepancy down from what I read. Thanks, 69.4.36.98 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear all,

Yesterday I proposed changes to this article in light of research undertaken for the delivery of a university course that I teach. The edits were reversed and it was suggested I posted my reasoning for the changes to the discussion page. I have no affiliation to any 9/11 truth organisation, have been to no meeting in support or against 9/11. I have corresponded with only two people active in posting on the subject (one against conspiracy theories, one in favour of them). My proposed contribution to the article is the result of independent research after reading many reports and articles, and reviewing six documentaries produced in both the US and UK. You can check my credentials at http://www.shu.ac.uk/sbs/research/organisational-development/sp_rory_ridley_duff.html and Marquis's Who's Who in the World 2009.

Below is text (approximate) I added to the talkpage of editors who reversed my changes, or supported the reversal.

"Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I give to doctoral students (i.e. those studying for a PhD) to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject.

The current Wikipedia article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. It falls outside Wikipedia's own guidelines for neutrality and censors views that have been accepted into parts of the academic community, and networks of people who have conducted extensive research into 9/11 issues. One of my concerns is that 'facts' are accepted on the basis of news reports, while other contributions based on peer-reviewed journal articles (albeit not of the highest quality), and good quality documentaries from the BBC and independent documentary makers, are rejected.........

One criticism of my contribution is that the views expressed in the article are already 'mainstream', and that the proposed additions would be controversial. I refute both these claims as detailed below. By 2006, at least 1/3 of the US population believed the US government played a conscious role in the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/12137). Worldwide, there are countries in which almost one-third of the population believe that either Israel or the US government were as likely, or more likely, than Al Quaida to have perpetrated the attacks (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35417520080910). For Wikipedia to be 'balanced', it must include these views in any article on the September 11th attacks and acknowledge international views and research into this matter.

The proposed changes, therefore, counter obvious bias in the September 11th Attack article and ensure that the opinions of large numbers or people, including many credible engineers, physicists, academics, politicians and eye-witnesses, are represented. The proposed changes did not remove any existing material to ensure that the views already expressed remain (there was no attempt to censor others points of view, only an attempt to provide the necessary balance to the article overall). The counter perspectives are well-documented and supported by evidence (including two court cases). Other claims are based on active debates amongst academics. These debates are likely to be closer to the 'truth' that bulletins from news channels and should be included in the article.

There is no 'bias' or 'controversy' in reporting that there are ongoing court cases, mass movements and academic debates that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding of the subject to omit these facts from the article. It gives the impression that the statements in the article are uncontested. This is clearly untrue so the omission breaches Wikipedia guidelines to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). I added no judgement as to which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply balanced the debate."

To the above, I would like to add the follow. In the university sector we discuss the use of Wikipedia by students often. The main weakness of Wikipedia (as viewed by universities) is that its editors are insufficiently schooled in both philosophy and research skills. As a consequence, many struggle to differentiate between issues of editing and censorship. The result is many Wikipedia articles are based on popular prejudices (or popular opinion) rather than evidence-based research. For this reason, many lecturers ban the use of Wikipedia. I'm not one of these lecturers - I make relevant contributions on matters that I have researched or regular give lectures at post-graduate level. I encourage students to use Wikipedia, but also to check out the quality of the sources on which the articles are based. I support the Wikipedia project but do worry about the level of censorship when matters move outside 'popular prejudice' and enter the realm of academic debate.

Providing contributions are backed by credible evidence, editors should always seek to include them and provide guidance to ensure the overall article is balanced. An awareness of 'credible' show encompass knowledge created using varied scientific traditions. This means checking out the sources behind contributions before removing them (too often they are removed instantly without checking the credibility of the sources). It also means that editors need to ensure that debates and controversies are managed not excluded.

At present, this article is heavily biased towards one politicised view rooted in a narrow section of US/UK opinion. At present, this brings Wikipedia itself into international disrepute. The claims made in the article are not backed by a standard of evidence that would warrant their inclusion as 'fact'. For this reason, the article should reflect the alleged nature of matters where they have not been conclusively proved one way or the other (or where there is no consensus). Key issues of academic debate and contested issues in the legal domain are not currently addressed.

Overall, it is my view the article must be amended to stay within Wikipedia's own editing guidelines.

I will leave it one day before restoring the contributions suggested to the article and sincerely hope that editors will ensure the changes remain.

Best wishes

User:Roryridleyduff Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At least one of the "on-going court cases" was dismissed and withdrawn by the plaintiff; apparently the attorney filed the case without getting the plaintiff's consent. I don't think there are any present court cases, but I could easily be wrong.

Your "1/3" above refers to those who think the US government is not telling the whole truth, not those who think the US government was involved in the attack or a cover-up. Read the polls.

Your comment about "research", international or otherwise, appears (I was going to select a milder word, but none adequately coveys the facts) bogus.

It's possible that some of your proposed additions are notable and adequately sourced, but much of your rant above is not accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not checking the source I've given. Other polls put the numbers thinking people are not telling the whole truth at 80%. In the quoted article, those believing the US government was in some way complicit was 36% (the question is clear - read the report). I am, therefore, not 'ranting' as you put it - I'm trying to provide properly sources and balanced reports of this matter.

The court cases, incidentally, are ongoing - I checked with a source directly involved in reporting the cases before posting this information.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above edit) This article is written according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't like these policies and guidelines you can try to get them changed, but you can't do that here, and if you are going to edit you will have to abide by them. The view of September 11 given in this article is supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, and as such (per WP:UNDUE, please read that link, it is actually part of the NPOV policy) it is the perspective given by the article. The number of Americans (or any other nationality) who accept an idea is irrelevant. As such it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to give conspiracy theories anything other than minimal coverage in this article.

In your edit you added the following claims:

• The "Journal of 9/11 studies" is a reliable academic publication. In fact it is a forum for conspiracy theorists to publish their ideas where they are reviewed by other conspiracy theorists. It has no reputation for accuracy or credible review processes, and so it fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• A reference to two court cases. Contrary to what you said above the court cases in question are not "ongoing", they were both dismissed. [2] The lawsuits alleged that no planes struck the Twin Towers, and that the collapses were in fact caused by "directed energy weapons", an idea that is considered fringe even in the 9/11 Truth movement.
• Claims that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and that the coroner found no bodies. This is simply wrong.[3] --Hut 8.5 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think issuing ultimatums is the best way to get your message across. And, just as a note, there is no academic debate about the attacks. The attacks and damage are pretty well understood and almost universally accepted by those who have studied the issue and by those who have the expert knowledge to speak authoritively about it. There is no controversy among mainstream and reliable sources worldwide. There is no evidence based research by experts working in their fields that support any of the theories. There's a lot of unverified and false claims, bad science and outright lies but nothing that would pass muster in a real scientific environment. RxS (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Response ----

At the time of the above posting I had read one article rejected by the 9/11 journal and one accepted. The accepted article seemed solid, the other did not. Following your comments, I have read other articles published there. While I appreciate that the standard of peer-review (and academic theorisation) is less than I would expect in academic journals to which I've contributed, it still appears to be better than journalistic sources that are not subject to any peer-review.

I do not know the current state of the legal case by Dr Morgan Reynolds other than that the initial case was dismissed. As for the legal case by Dr Judy Wood, I checked with the person who issues her press releases in the UK (who works in the Open Univeristy) whether the case would go forward. The response was that an appeal is being considered now. The legal ruling (available at www.drjudywood.com) gives Judy Wood permission to resubmit the case after revisions that would ensure it complies with Fraud Act. The ground for dismissing the case (officially, at least) are that the claim is not set out in the way the Fraud Act requires - the cases have not yet even got to the point of considering any evidence. While the court expressed a lack of sympathy regarding resubmission, it made clear that a decision on resubmission would be for the District Court. The case, therefore, remains open for the time being.

"As such it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to give conspiracy theories anything other than minimal coverage in this article."

The official Wikipedia NPOV policy requires that 'significant minority point of view' are included in articles. The edits ensure that these 'significant minority' views are added to the article.

On this point, you are making a basic epistemological error. The 'official story' is itself a conspiracy theory (it is a theory - unverified - that a group of people conspired to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon). Even the most basic evidence is contradictory (such as the alleged hijackers names not being on flight manifest, and the fires burned for over a month at temperatures that could not possible be due to jet fuel). It is not 'neutral' to suppress contradictions that are available through published thermal scans of the area, eye-witnesses, scientific reports (including government reports).

You are making basic epistemological errors by assuming that 'official' (i.e. government) sources are reliable while academic and professional sources are not. In all 'proper' research, it is necessary to remain sceptical of official (managerial) sources: they are not considered reliable much of the time because of the effects of power within organisational cultures and political systems. A reliable source is one that make evidence-based claims after using a reliable methodology for its investigative process. It can also be based on the application of logic or established theory to known 'facts' using a 'correspondence' theory of truth. Much of the controversy derives from a failure of known facts to correspond with known scientific theory. To be balanced, the article must acknowledge the scale of scientific evidence that the official story is contradictory (not 'false' but contradictory - does not accord to known scientific theory and available evidence).

On the issue of evidencing the scale of the 'significant minority' point of view, see http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469. By 2006, it was reported in the New York Times (following a major poll on many issues that I obtained in full) that 81% of the US public question the official story on some level (either withholding or lying). 28% of people (almost 1/3 of the population) believing the government is proactively lying. Only 16% now believe the government is telling the truth.

The Wikipedia guideline require that the views of these significant minorities are included in the article. By omitting them, you are contravening the Wikipedia guidelines. It remains my view - as a neutral academic who is not involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, that the article must be revised to remain within the NPOV guidelines.

The problems in the current article is ones of epistemology (standards and criteria of truth and knowledge), and breach of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you studied Business, not Science or Engineering, I’ll take your evaluations of publications' reliability with a grain of salt. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, original research is not permitted. Peter Grey (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My god this one is wordy. I guess the old saying is true, when you have nothing important to say, say as much as you can and hope people don't notice. This is the same frivolous and pointless dribble we're used to. Nothing new, nothing different, therefor nothing will change. Moving along... --Tarage (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "significant minority view", it's a "tiny minority view", for the reasons noted by RxS above. Academic sources (i.e. proper peer-reviewed journals) are reliable and nobody here has claimed otherwise. The mainstream view is not presented just because it is the view given by the U.S. government. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--- Rebuttal of false information given above ---

I have a PhD in a business related area (organisation cultures / governance practices). These are easily as relevant to the discussion of 9/11 any knowledge of the physical sciences. Nevertheless, I should point out that I previously qualified as a Microsoft Certified Professional (in the field of software engineering) and won a Department of Industry SMART Award in 2002 (for database design). I have therefore, specialist knowledge in more than one area of science. You should not assume to understand a person on the basis of their current occupation and qualifications as this reveal your propensity to be prejudiced.

On the issue at hand, a 'tiny minority view' is not the finding of the New York Times study. By 2006, the 'official' view in this article to have less fullsome support than the 'unofficial' view you seek to censor (16% believe officials are "telling the truth" v 28% believing officials are "mostly lying"). This is a substantial change from 2002, and this article needs updating to reflect shifts in opinion.

I make the comments on this article mainly on the basis of expertise leading a course on research philosophy. This is a course that teaches PhD researchers how to establish valid criteria for claiming scientific 'truth' in their writing. This article does not provide the kind of quality peer-reviewed sources needed to claim the government's conspiracy theory as 'fact'. Nor is there any reflection on the link between various philosophical/political interests and the different theories that have emerged regarding the September 11 Attacks. This can only be added once there is acknowledgment of other credible theories about the events of September 11. The article remains too narrowly defined and heavily biased toward one political/ideological perspective. I presume this is for political reasons, and not reasons of education or enlightenment on the subject at hand. If you were seeking to enlighten, you would review all credible theories.

For the sake of clarify, I state again - to observe the NPOV policy of Wikipedia the article must include all credible and substantial minority theories and explanations regarding the 9/11 Attacks.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The amount of weight to give to views is not calculated based on opinion polls of the general population. There is no academic controversy about the theories you discuss, for the reasons given by RxS above. Hut 8.5 11:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11 folklore is not the subject matter of this article. Peter Grey (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, public opinion is only a measure of what is a majority or minority opinion - this is an issue in Wikipedia guidelines if we can to include 'substantial minority' points of view. If we turn to academic opinion, then the presence and size of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth network must be taken into account alongside the size and scale of the Engineers for 9/11 Truth network. I'm not aware of any academic network in support of the 'official' story, but I would be delighted to learn of one because I've search for one to provide balancing opinions on my courses. There are occasional academic articles refered to in various documentaries. What I do consistently detect, however, is an unstated coalition of government and media interests (within NIST, FEMA, the court system, Fox News, New Corporation sources) who are struggling to maintain control over the 'truth' of events surrounding September 11. People allied to these interests are in a constant battle with academics and professional groups who question their right to control determination of 'truth' regarding these events. This 'battle' (if that is the right word) extent to every sphere, including Wikipedia. As an academic, I naturally want to eliminate censorship of views so they can be debated properly in a sober and systematic way. Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

Hmmm. No, I don't think an organization calling themselves "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" needs to be taken into account as an scholarly source without further verification. Perhaps some of them are scholars, perhaps not. There is still at most one scholarly paper in a real peer-reviewed journal (that is, not one where the "peers" are also Truthers, or one where the editorial policy denies the validity of peer review) which questions the NIST findings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to again state that on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if you 'have a PhD in a business related area (organisation cultures / governance practices)' or you are some random monkey pounding his fists into a keyboard. Please cease to fill your statements with needless fluff. Not only does it make what you are trying to say incredibly hard to derive, but it it makes you come across as a fool, especially when you can't even be bothered to sign your posts or spell words like 'organisation' and 'refered' correctly. I'll be as brief as I possibly can: You're arguments are recycled, you have yet to provide a single reliable source outside of polls, and you still refuse to go read these talk page archives to see that not only have other people presented the same flawed POV argument before, but that it has been soundly rejected over and over again, as it will this time. The mountain of reliable sources against you is so staggering that I would not even dare to attempt to climb it. So please, stop wasting your time, my time, and every other editor who visits these article's time. We will not insert your POV, we will not dance around the issue, and we will not tolerate any more mindless dribble. Do you understand? Or am we in store for another round of fluff filled nonsense? --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "Organisation" is correctly spelled according to British English. "Refered" may not be, but then neither is your "You're", Tarage. From this I hope you will gather that it is always better to concentrate on the content of an editor's contributions, rather than the form or making comments that risk showing one's own ignorance. And since your arguments are sound, why not adopt a more collegial tone, to go along with them? --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have seen far too many editors come in here and completely disregard all of the work put in to maintaining and balancing this article, and push their own POV. Call me ignorant, call me rude, but I have had enough of editors who do not even show good faith by ignoring the archives, ignoring the notices, ignoring the consensus, and even ignoring the Wikipedia standards and practices. I refuse to tolerate such blatant disregard of everything we hold dear. If someone has an issue with me, they are welcome to call me a 'meanie' on my talk page. Roryridleyduff is nothing more than a blowhard. He talks a lot, he says a lot, but in the end, his words mean nothing. He isn't a new editor, he isn't confused, he simply isn't willing to show the rest of us the proper respect, so I will not show him said respect either. That is my stance. --Tarage (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarage, you're just being rude. Why? Why such a vitriolic response? Why such an aggressive tone? For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar....me thinks the editor's strong words betray his academic abilities and perhaps rouse his emotive opinions on the matter. Time will tell Tarage, as your editing shows a lack of acceptable balance. Do you really think that when buildings fall don by their own accord, and architects, mathematicians and other academics keep signing up for the 'truthers' side, that you continue to portray a balance. There must be some new usage of the word balance that im not aware of. Your stubborn rebuttals will only fuel the belief there is something to hide....I wish you luck in stopping the tide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.96.180 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Therefore opinion polls are irrelevant. The reason for this should be obvious - there are plenty of polls out there in which large numbers of Americans express support for discredited notions such as geocentricism or astrology. More than 40% of Americans believe in creationism, but this idea is not given serious consideration in science articles here because it has no scientific support. If Wikipedia gave weight to all these ideas it would rapidly become a laughing stock. Proposing a conspiracy of reliable sources to deny recognition to certain opinions is not going to help you either. Hut 8.5 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well stated, Roryridleyduff. As you can see, Wikipedia has a strictly close-minded view on this subject. I'll take credit for the pathetic mention of "conspiracy theories" on the article, as it was my constant pushing that forced them to at least place a mention of the conflicts of opinion as a kiss-off to those interested in the truth. I was told by at least two different mods on this site, literally, that “Wikipedia is not interested in the truth.” It is interested only in following the mainstream perspective. So by its own admission, Wikipedia is a propaganda site and not an informational site. Neurolanis (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Go cry more. --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I said here before that I strongly agree, Dr Rory Ridley-Duff (but Tarage removed my comment as he so *loves* to do.) I think that it is about time that Wikipedia permits evidence and mainstream sources that contradict with its propagandistic slants on reality. Neurolanis (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only propaganda I see here is spread by you and your ilk. InnerParty (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the main article should be edited to include the following information: John Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was the Senior Counsel for the 911 Commission, and was responsible for drafting the original 9/11 Commission report. In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, Farmer states, “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.” Rickoff (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that our section on 9/11 Commission fails to reflect some of the well known and well accepted facts, while those are somewhat summarized in Criticism of the 9/11 Commission, we have failed to provide link to that destination. In my opinion our section here is not as informative as it could be. After giving it some thought, I fail to see why we would object to the inclusion of the information about 'difficulties' of the investigation that constitute 'common knowledge, and which are recognised by the commission members and mainstream media. InnerParty (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to Criticism of the 9/11 Commission on the page, but it is subtle and easily overlooked. The September 11 attacks page received an average of 12,296 views per day during October 2009.(ref) The Criticism of the 9/11 Commission page received an average of 32 views per day during the same time period.(ref) Thus, the vast majority of readers of the September 11 attacks page (99.7%) are probably not seeing any critical review of the 9/11 Commission on Wikipedia. Given that this material is notable and reliably sourced, I think it is legitimate to argue that the September 11 attacks article is imbalanced in its presentation of the issues - the typical reader is not seeing the full spectrum of issues in a balanced manner. Wildbear (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday, Or What about the "On this day..." weekday topic of 9/11 Please call it Tuesday September 11, 2001. A newbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.148.250 (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to invoke WP:SNOWBALL: US Mainstream Media and Wikipedia overwhelming "Official Theory" consensus is unlikely to change

US Mainstream media is to close to the major political parties. Their is too much completion and therefore there are no budgets for Watergate style investigative reporting. Reporters are forced to rely mainly Republican and Democratic sourcing. Republicans do not want a possible conspiracy exposed for obvious reasons. Democrats do not want it for two reasons. Despite being liberal at heart they have been a scared and uber cautious party for many years. Therefore they will not do anything remotely risky. There are too many reasons for this to list here but a good start is that they think the country is to the right of them and the 24//7 attack dog political atmosphere. The other reason is their common belief that Bush and the Republicans are to stupid to even speak correctly never mind pull off a conspiracy. As for the media as numerous studies have shown that reporters are a largely liberal group so they share the "to stupid" belief. Their coverage of the 9/11 truth movement reflects this. You see a look of people who have been called to go to work just before their participation in an orgy. When the relevant issues are discussed in many cases it has the look of a quick read just before airtime. But most efforts are put into truthers mental state.

Since Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth of course this article will reflect the "official theory" consensus. The reliable source policy remains a good but flawed policy in bringing out the truth. While MSM standards have declined markedly it is still a hell of a lot more reliable on the whole then webpages. There are some great webpages but how does one figure it out without OR?. So wikipedia policy stays with a the sinking ship known as MSM. From the sarcasm that occasionally creeps in these talk pages it becomes clear that the majority of editors especially long time committed ones do not believe in the theories they write about. Not sure why. Maybe most committed Wikipedia editors do come from the academic world where things like citing reliable/expert sources is their life's work. In any case newbie "truther" editors do not stand a chance winning talk page discussions against veterans who know the policies.

America is a forward looking country, 8 years have passed Bush is not president etc. There is conspiracy theory fatigue which has caused almost daily lumping together of all "loony" conspiracy theories and theorists. There is always the "first impression" rule. Three or four years ago conspiracy theorists were limited to individuals on their webpages and professors whom not only knew nothing about physics but came from very unscientific disciplines such as philosophy. While reliable sources still by far agree with the the official theory, this has changed noticeably. How much this has changed is very arguable but the near unanimous reliable sourcing claims made here just are incorrect but they are also the consensus here.

For at least four years there have been attempts to change basic direction of the article to a more "truther" point of view and for four years they have failed. The basic points raised by both sides have not changed. We need to invoke the WP:SNOWBALL clause and just put our efforts into improving the article. 69.114.104.152 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of this is off-topic conjecture, get off the soapbox. 78.48.45.45 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not a forum RxS (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The Fifth Estate CBC documentary

The Canadian CBC aired a documentary last week as part of their program The Fifth Estate. The episode is called "The Unofficial story". It mentions both the Official and the Unofficial versions in an unusually fair and balanced light —if anything, it has a definite favorable bias towards the Official story as evidenced by the smirky smile when host Bob McKeown mentions the conspiracy theorists.

All the same it is one of the rare occasions when both sides of the story are presented with a certain degree of professionalism and it constitutes one of the best documentaries to have aired on mainstream TV on the subject of 9/11. Would it be OK to post a reference to the Fifth Estate's website which is at:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009/11/the_unofficial_story.html

It is possible to view the entire documntary online, but apparently for Canadian viewers only. American and all other foreign viewers are blocked from the streaming video, I am told. But it is available on YouTube.

Unfortunately, it is cut up in 5 ten-minute segments:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYlbpS-vVI

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4xhrJyKGQ8

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=femgO-ZYDm0

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjxrGUujXVc

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcaORNbh4A

The link to the Fifth Estate website, which also contains other elements besides the video documentary, could be added to the Exterior links section at the bottom of the page. Oclupak (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'd suggest you take discussion this over to the appropriate article 87.166.106.43 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the discussion page for if not to discuss the September 11 attacks? That CBC documentary deals specifically with a single subject: The 9/11 attacks. It does not lean one way or the other. Well OK, it is a bit biased in favour of the Official story. But basically, this documentary belongs here more than anywhere else it seems to me. I am baffled by the kind of logic that seems to prevail here. Oclupak (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for discussing the September 11 attacks. It's for talking about improving the article on the attacks. See [4] RxS (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete the WP:SNOWBALL Proposal Section and this section soon after

That proposal was made by me for the 9/11 Conspiracies Theories Article and was dragged here by another editor without my knowledge. It was never intended for this article. There is no need for this proposal in this article. This article has been written based on the strong editor consensus that the article should reflect the "mainstream account" for years. Edkollin (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not at all NPOV

I am baffled by the editors' attitude all through the discussion section. Not only do you remain clearly oblivious to any but your own account of the facts, but the general tone is bullish and alarmingly disrespectful. I would suggest any reading of this article to remain seriously skeptical about the contents being presented, since only one side of an on-going and important debate has weight in the events being described. The editors should bear in mind that they never bother to answer issues being raised with arguments, just dismiss them in a fully self-satisfied way: to any neutral reader, these editors come across as hooligans, sorry to say. You can erase my comment as I am sure you will, but that does not make you any better wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkyardmusic (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:NPOV; we give opinions weight according to their real-world weights. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe, and should be treated as such in this article, although they do have their own articles and are mentioned here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can´t agree with that. There are full controversies that put very reasonable question marks on a lot of aspects of the whole issue. I am not saying whether you should believe them or not, but giving the scope of the official story which as some argued is in itself a "conspiracy theory" with total disregard to the controversies arised by this view is in itself wanting in impartiality: just providing a link to "9/11 conspiracy theories" is not enough. You should account for the controversies, give an account of them when they are credible -and many are- and quit acting as an un-oficial loudspeakers to a one sided account of the story. it is your duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.1.140 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that all alternative explanations of the damage and deaths are nonsense. There is no reason to think explosives were used as well as aircraft. Even the 911 A&E petition (architects and engineers) looks less and less credible when you examine it.

There are some problems, the article should be treating the "conspiracy theories" better, no matter how ridiculous. More mention of Building 7 would be valuable, for sure I'm not the first person to do a search and only find it under "Notes". There's a really big hole treating bin Laden as alive when, by RS, bin Laden is most likely dead.

And it is not the fault of the writers of this article that none of the conspiracy theorists have studied who might have wanted Americans to think OBL supported John Kerry. Who could have faked a video to influence an election? If you wanted to do something useful you'd do something useful. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only do you remain clearly oblivious to any but your own account of the facts This is completely false, but I think the statement is based in a misunderstanding A hint of that is in the phrasing "account of the facts". Facts are facts irrespective of "accounts". The problem is figuring out what the facts are, and for that the editors here do not rely on their own accounts at all, but they rely exclusively on other peoples accounts of the facts. But facts do not become facts just because you say them. Facts can generally be verified. It's not a matter of accounts, but of evidence. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts?

Fact is, there are numerous unanswered questions about 9/11 attacks.

Fact is, this articles omits verifiable and reliable information and that is not merely a failure in following our policies, it is omission by definition, to serve as an example, editors here marginalize or omit information about 'Able Danger', deliberately failing to provide 'advance knowledge' section insisting that it is better suited in 'shape shifting reptilians article', editors here marginalize or omit information about peculiarities behind unprecedented fall of WTC 7, failing to notice growing controversy surrounding the collapse. If mainstream outlets recognize the weight and notability of such groups as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it is not acceptable for the editors here to ignore or omit such information. This article deceives while it fails to note deception, or give due weight to '9/11 trials', especially so when it comes to the fact that all of the alleged suspects are 'tainted by torture', as 'defined' by the MSM sources. It completely fails to represent or it simply misrepresents the work, findings and controversy surrounding 9/11 Commission.., one could go on and on, yet what needs to be said and what needs to be dealt with if we are to overcome the 'status quo' imposed here are some disturbing underlying issues. To name a few:

A group of editors here indulges into sticking libellous labels on contributors who are seeking NPOV for the article, it appears that this group of editors has a really hard time discerning between unanswered questions, disturbing facts and conspiracy theories.

It is notorious fact that at least one of the editors whom hijacked this article works for US Department of Homeland Security; 'conflict of interests', by admission, if not by definition.

It is a sad, sad fact that this is the umptieth time the neutrality of this article has come to question, and we have seen for umptieth time that we're not dealing with contributors willing to seek consensus, we're dealing with contributors who are trying very hard to spread propaganda, who are doing their very best while trying to establish 2+2=5 as a fact. We have more than 50 pages of searchable history here, it is throughout this history that the failure to establish NPOV was questioned, yet editors involved wouldn't even let the warning tag stand. They'd rather have this article locked for eternity, to serve as a mockery, a spit in the face of whole humanity. So there you have it, some harsh opinions for sure, along with some easily verifiable, well documented facts, carry on. Praxidikai (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To take just one of those points, the "mainstream outlets" article you refer to above seems to be part of a series on conspiracy theories. Even if it were a news article, as opposed to commentary, it just notes the opinion of 9/11 A&E, and not necessarily favorably. Some of the other points possibly could be considered for inclusion, but mentioning the mistakes about the pre-announcement of the collapse of WTC 7 as a serious indication of controlled demolition is <censored> <censored> absurd. See, for example, BBC denies 9/11 conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point on the claimed USDHS employee editing the article is a bombshell. Thousands of individuals have edited (or attempted to edit) this article. Among all of these editors, this particular person has a larger count of edits to this article than all but two. Effectively, a self-claimed employee of USDHS has been dominating the editing and content of a controversial article which has significant relevance within the topic of United States security issues. This should qualify as a very serious conflict of interest, and it does raise a significant cause for concern about the neutrality of the article. Wildbear (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is this lengthy, ongoing call to recognize our failure to meet NPOV. Would you kindly share your opinion? Do you think that article meets NPOV? That is, if there is a will to move on, editors involved should reach consensus and place appropriate warning at the top of the article. If no such effort is to be made, there is little or no need for further discussion. We can discuss possibilities once we recognize there is a (strong) need for improvement. Praxidikai (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a continuing statement, usually by at most two editors at a time, that the article fails NPOV. WP:CONSENSUS is that it doesn't, and that it's disruption to add the tag. Although consensus can change, you at least need to provide an argument which hasn't been rejected when last discussed, in order to consider adding the tag. It's a lot of work to go through the 50 archives to find which arguments haven't been rejected, but it seems necessary to avoid edit wars.

'Consensus' reached by identifiable group of editors that support each others beliefs is not consensus, see WP:GAME.

Regardless, with hope and inclination of being refreshing and with extraordinary amount of good faith, I'll point out that that the narrative of the article is POV itself.

Example:

When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, which led to the crumbling of the east penthouse at 5:20 p.m. and to the complete collapse of the building at 5:21 p.m.[25] – we say.

This is simply not a true statement, it is a fallacy; we cannot have such construct, swaying readers into belief we're dealing with well established and undisputed fact. We have whole, substantially sized and well referenced articles that question and dispute such narrative, yet what do we have here? You know, the stunning fact that WTC 7 failed to enter Commission report deserves to be mentioned... To be honest, I'm not sure what some of the editors see, but it is safe to say, what's written in 'our article' is a postulate inaugurated into fact. Instead of controversy and debate surrounding the issue we have – well, we don't have a word about it... and you were asking? Praxidikai (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In the end it's all about if you are a believer or not. Believers are believers and skeptics are skeptics and never will the two understand each other. Ain't nothing we can do about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can, we can stick to the facts. Praxidikai (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we are doing. Read that article I linked to again. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The one about cognitive disorder? Just scroll up, read about the editors who are: 'sticking libelous labels on contributors who are seeking NPOV for the article'. You'll also notice something about reptiles… and few more remarks about the usual conduct here. Now, do tell, is it clairvoyance of a sort? Praxidikai (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, instead of reading about 'cognitive disorders', I'd rather see your opinion on why our article fails to mention any controversy surrounding the collapse of WTC 7? It deserves a section of its own, yet we have - nothing. Why is it so? Praxidikai (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We are sticking to the facts, in spite of OpenFuture's implication of cognitive disorders. There is still enough confusion (mostly spread by the Truthers) that a rational person might not come to the obvious conclusion, that Microsoft is responsible for the attack by encouraging Flight Simulator users to practice crashing into WTC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, now that we've had exemplary game of wits, can we try and stick to the subject too? How about that POV tag and our shameful one-sided and close-minded narrative? Any thoughts? Praxidikai (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the POV issue is already established and clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The "controversy" isn't mentioned, because the article sticks to the facts. And you may also note that the article on "True-Believer Syndrome" clearly states that it is not an established psychological term or generally recognized as a cognitive disorder, so they idea that I claim you have a cognitive disorder is overly paranoid. However, there is absolutely no doubt that there are loads of people which will continue to believe things not only without base, but even after having been thoroughly proven wrong. Who you chose to believe does that is irrelevant. The point is that some people involved in this discussion will not care about facts and not be convinced about facts. Therefore discussing the facts is pointless. You may chose to believe that I'm the one who doesn't care about facts if you want. Doesn't matter. You can't convince me, I can't convince you. And that's it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the POV issue is already established and clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, facts are true by definition. Of course, you can choose not to believe into... let's say Newton's laws of motion, but such beliefs hold no weight whatsoever, a bit like that link you're constantly pointing too. You can also refuse to use such tools as logic, but please, don't impose such irrationality on the rest of our kind. Consensus is being questioned Jamie, again, could you care to explain why we have mockery instead of NPOV with regards to WTC 7? Praxidikai (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my point: People choose to disregard facts, logic and laws of nature. How are we going to convince people like that? Can't be done. Discussing it further is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

People can choose whatever they want; we on the other hand have no such luxury. We record the history, if you will; it is plain to see that this particular record is heavily flawed and one-sided, there is really no excuse.., Praxidikai (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've seen all there was to see here, sad to say, it's same ol', same ol'… I'm signing out, with best wishes to all, as ever. Praxidikai (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have archived this days ago. We all should have. No more soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Osama bin Laden is quite possibly dead

There is a considerable section on Osama's videos since 911 - but no apparent mention that huge numbers of people believe him dead - most likely in Dec 2001, 3 or 3.5 months after 911. This would totally invalidate the section on videos, and needs adding. Something like this, or at least a cut down version of it:
Vague reports of the death of bin Laden started circulating in Dec 2001 eg the Pakistan Observer quoted an unnamed Taliban official claiming that he had died of natural causes and was buried in an unmarked grave in Tora Bora on December 15. The Egyptian newspaper AlWafd - Daily reported a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban stated that Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13: A videotape was released on December 27 showing a gaunt, unwell Bin Laden, prompting an unnamed White House aide to comment that it could have been made shortly before his death. On CNN, Dr Sanjay Gupta commented that Bin Laden's left arm never moved during the video, suggesting a recent stroke and possibly a symptom of kidney failure. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, Bin Laden required two dialysis machines, which also suggests kidney failure. "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a... kidney patient," Musharraf said. If Bin Laden suffered kidney failure, he would require a sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists, Gupta said. FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson and President Karzai of Afghanistan also expressed the opinion that Bin Laden probably died at this time. In late 2005 the CIA disbanded "Alec Station", the unit dedicated to Bin Laden.
On 23 September 2006, the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, DGSE) stating that Osama bin Laden had died in Pakistan on 23 August 2006, after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs. According to the newspaper, Saudi security services first heard of bin Laden's alleged death on 4 September 2006. though French President Jacques Chirac declared that bin Laden's death had not been confirmed. American authorities also cannot confirm reports of bin Laden's death, In an essay published in The American Spectator in March 2009, international relations professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University argued that Osama bin Laden had been dead for many years. In April 2009 Pakistan's intelligence agencies were said to believe Osama bin Laden may be dead. and on the 8th anniversary of 911 the UK's Daily Mail said that the theory that Bin Laden died in 2001 "is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts" and notes that the mounting evidence that supports the claim makes the theory "worthy of examination".
1.^ a b David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, pp. 3–5.
2.^ "Report: Bin Laden Already Dead", Fox, 2001-12-26.
3.^ a b Reid, Sue (September 11, 2009). "Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?". Daily Mail. Retrieved October 25, 2009.
4.^ a b "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis", CNN, 2002-01-21.
5.^ a b "Musharraf: bin Laden likely dead", CNN, 2002-01-19.
6.^ "Bin Laden 'probably' dead", BBC, 2002-07-18.
7.^ "Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead", CNN, 2002-10-07.
8.^ "C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden.". New York Times. 2006-07-04. Retrieved 2007-08-21. "The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said."
9.^ "Officials, friends can't confirm Bin Laden death report". CNN. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
10.^ "23T075358Z_01_L23801953_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BINLADEN-FRANCE.xml French paper says bin Laden died in Pakistan". Reuters. 2006-09-23.
11.^ Sammari, Laïd (2006-09-23). "Oussama Ben Laden serait mort" (in French). L'Est Républicain. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
12.^ "Chirac says no evidence bin Laden has died". MSNBC.com/AP. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
13.^ "Information sur la mort de ben Laden: Washington ne confirme pas" (in French). Le Monde/Agence France-Presse. 2006-09-23.
14.^ Anna Willard and David Morgan (2006-09-23). "France, US, unable to confirm report bin Laden dead". Reuters.
15.^ "Osama bin Elvis". Retrieved 2009-03-15.
16.^ "Pakistan's President says Osama bin Laden could be dead", Telegraph, 2009-04-27.
Clearly, this is not simply a rumour, it's a lot more than a conspiracy theory, and is much more than marginally notable. If true, the whole video section would need re-assessing. In fact, it looks most like something most people recognise but many people are afraid to say. Wikipedia is not censored, some mention of this needs inclusion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that bin laden most likely is dead. But if he is dead or not is irrelevant for this article. The Videos are mentioned because how they indicate bin Ladens involvement. His likely death doesn't change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on Osama bin Laden refers to the "October Surprise" Video of 2004, partly because it's the only real admission from Osama that he carried out 911. There are serious doubts about this tape - it's particularly worrying if it's an invention from whole cloth, with some sources convinced that Osama could not have been involved. Not mentioning the possibility of his death leaves doubts and is bound to lead some readers to imagine there is some form of concealment going on. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The doubts about the video is not that strong, and the authenticity of the 2004 video does not make or break that section. The earlier videos also hints at bin Ladens involvements, although he there doesn't claim that he ordered them. I don't see how this invalidates the section or warrants a long discussion about his possible death, which continues to be mostly irrelevant to this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with OpenFuture. The doubts about the videos are much stronger than what is being claimed. For instance, both Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and Francesco Cossiga, the former Prime Minister and President of Italy, have publicly stated that Ben Laden was dead. It is even mentioned, on Wikipedia's own page on Cossiga, that in an interview with the reputable newspaper Corriere della Sera, he claimed that the Bin Laden tapes were produced in some of Silvio Berlusconi's TV studios in Milan. In fact, the only video that everyone agrees was made by Bin Laden himself is the one of September 16, where Osama stresses that he was not involved in the attacks of 9/11. Therefore, I strongly support Malcolm MacDonald's efforts to bring some objectivity to this article. Oclupak (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Up until you claimed the video was made at a Berlusconi studio I took you seriously. Let's keep out of cuckoo-land in this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not claim that the videos were made in Berlusconi's studios. Francesco Cossiga does. I take this opportunity to correct a mistake I made: the September 16 declaration by Bin Laden was not a video but a statement which was broadcast by Al Jazeera. Oclupak (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You take that claim seriously. That maes it hard to take your viewpoint seriously. Discussions need to stay in the real world. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Francesco Cossiga was Prime Minister of Italy (1979-1980), President of the Senate (1983-1985), President of the Republic (1985-1992) and has been Senator for life since 1992. If you do not take him seriously, please let me know what are your criteria for reliability "in the real world". Oclupak (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mostly not who says something, but what they say that is relevant. And referring to Zionist world conspiracies is not reliable. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to deal with facts. You cannot dismiss facts for the sole reason that they are contrary to your point of vue. The point of view of an article should be neutral. As it stands, the article is one gigantic soapbox for the official version, which is, in itself, a conspiracy theory. As you are aware, the official dogma is challenged by a increasingly large percentage of the world population, if not the majority. You are clearly out of line with your systematic obstruction to any edit that would bring some equilibrium to the subjet. MalcolmMcDonald obviously did some extensive research before proposing his revision of the Videos section and he deserves to be treated with respect. Oclupak (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no fact in what you have written so far, merely speculation. You appear to have a history of pushing fringe POV, though. 78.49.80.209 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Oclupak, you are completely correct. Wikipedia should be fact-based, and NPOV. And that is exactly why you should ignore crazy paranoid fantasies with absolutely no factual basis. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians should not insult each other. Your characterization of opposing views as "crazy paranoid fantasies" is undignified and contrary to basic rules of Wikipedia as well as basic rules of human behaviour. The question here is whether the Bin Laden videos are authentic or not. Obviously, if Bin Laden has been dead since December 2001, all ensuing audio and video recordings attributed to him are necessarily fakes. That is what MalcolmMcDonald has painstakingly documented and I feel he should be given an opportunity to enlighten us with his reserach which is based on what seems to be reliable sources. Oclupak (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Iif you feel that the requirements of factual basis and NPOV standpoints are somehow insulting to you, then I suggest you probably have come to the wrong Wiki. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I worry there is a political element creeping in here. Many "important" people and entire nations believe bin Laden to be dead. Any mention of him must include that fact.

Many other people are on a man-hunt for Osama (not the CIA, who wound up their team in 2005) - giving them reason to want to censor articles and conceal the fact they're on a wild goose chase. Wikipedia is not censored and (provided we comply with WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS etc) then, by WP:NPOV we must include the fact that some people believe him dead. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about the political element, but I can guarantee you that there is no political element to this from my side.

No, every mention of Bin Laden does not have to include a statement that many people (including me) believes that he is dead. It only needs to be mentioned when it's relevant. It is not relevant for this article. Bin Laden has his own article, and that's the place to bring up theories about his eventual death. Many of the videos have their own articles as well, and that's the place to discuss their authenticity. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Every mention of what bin Laden did after December 2001 must note (with link?) that some serious sources believe him to have died in that month. Otherwise, we're deliberately misleading people, leading them to think that bin Laden really did support John Kerry, for instance. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

May I sugest that you take this up with the bin Laden article itself? --Tarage (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Osama bin Laden article correctly reports, in quite some detail, that many people and nations think he's dead. The section is entitled "Conflicting reports of his death vs: his survival since 9/11" and (correctly, in my view) puts reports of his death above the reports of his survival. That's where I got the information I first posted in here, above. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we're fine. As OpenFuture pointed out, not every mention of Osama bin Laden needs to contain information about the speculation of his death. It's linked to in this article, and people who are interested can investigate further in his article. Anything further than that would be undue weight. --Tarage (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear (if the writings above are complete, and I have no reason to think otherwise) that all Middle Eastern leaders and nations who've commented consider Osama bin Laden to be dead, along with many Asians, Africans and some Europeans. The leader of France seems to be the only person prepared to say he's alive. Parts of the USG claims to be still looking for him but can't confirm or deny the possibility of his being dead and parts tasked with finding him abandoned the effort years ago. Under such circumstances a confession of 2004 treated as definitive risks being very misleading. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, take it up with the appropriate article. Not here. --Tarage (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to say that the confession of the alleged perpetrator is contested, and go further. There is a deal of RS to say OLB was dead 3 years earlier, and no RS (?) that says he's still alive (some sources say they're still going after him, but not that he's still alive). The reading public doesn't need more Rumsfeld saying "We know where the WMD are" when he didn't. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely that bin Laden is still alive and that most of the videos and tapes produced since 9/11 were fakes, or hoaxes. I therefore reiterate my support for MalcolmMcDonald's proposal to modify the article accordingly. Oclupak (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article takes up the videos as part of the section dealing with Bin Ladens involvement. The videos are linked, and discussions on their authenticity exists on these pages. Discussion on Bin Ladens eventual death is done in his article. The currently article does *not* claim that Bin Laden is a "perpetrator" or that he "confessed" to anything. Therefore, MalcolmMcDonalds wish to have the article not appear as Bin Laden has confessed to be the perpetrator was granted even before he asked for a change. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) A general note concerning the User Oclupak, I'd like to point out that he has a history of unconstructive edits and criticism in topics concerning 9/11 (or conspiracy theories, for that matter). But what I really find disturbing are his accusations towards other editors as "thugs", "gatekeepers" and "moronic" as he does here ([[5]]) and here. He has (repeatedly) been advised on his tone, to no avail. 95.157.3.4 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And who, may I ask, are you, 95.157.3.4? As far as I can tell your existence on Wikipedia does not go further than an hour or two ago and it seems you have spent your entire time on Wikipedia doing absolutely nothing but to respond to my posts. I find that a little bit bizarre. My aim is to bring some accuracy to this article. What is yours? Oclupak (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Animated gif

The archive of this talk page has some discussion about this topic already. The animated gif is really annoying and detracts from reading the article. It doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the topic. A good quality still image would be better. It should be changed. Bendav (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Any suggestions for replacements that we know can be used? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the animated gif image of Flight 175 should be removed, mostly because it is, on the whole, rather uninteresting and also aesthetically unpleasing —at least, to me. I do not agree however that we should refrain from using any animated image on the grounds that it is merely distracting. In some instances, an animated image may advantageously be used in a way that no still image can. Such an image is the amazing sequence of the collapse of wtc7.

As I do not know how to deal with the copyright issue, I have not uploaded the animation to Wkimedia Commons yet, if indeed that is where it belongs. I would assume that the provisions of Fair Use would apply but being unfamiliar with these issues, I would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would help me with this matter. In the meantime, I will redirect to the page where I found a reasonably good version of the animation. It is about halfway down the page at this address: [6].

I feel that adding this animation to the article would ensure that many visitors to the page will get acquainted with the spectacular phenomenon of that demolition that most people, still today, are apparently unaware ever occurred. Seeing the eerie collapse might just stir their curiosity into finding out more about what happened on 9/11. And spreading knowledge is what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Oclupak (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What about picking the animation apart and posting some of the more important stills in a film strip sort of manner? I think that's how they were before they were animated. Maybe I'm senile. --Tarage (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Stratesec

I've found this orphan, it asks if it can be introduced to related articles. What do you folks think, is it applicable? Praxidikai (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that its contract with the WTC terminated in 1998 and the attack on the WTC happened in 2001, I'd say no - mention of Stratesec would provide nothing relevant to an article on the 9/11 attacks. Rklawton (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

a campaign by the name of "War on Terrorism"

See the WP:ALLEGED section of WP:WTA concerning the use of words that introduce bias and the use of "scare quotes". There's nothing wrong with the old language, which merely used the phrase "War on Terrorism", defined in its article as "the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the military, political, legal and ideological conflict ..." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the word that I'm using and I should be avoiding? Can you point it to me? :--JokerXtreme (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You replaced the phrase "War on Terrorism" with the expression "a campaign by the name of 'War on Terrorism'". I think the whole expression is contrary to WP:ALLEGED and should be restored to "War on Terrorism". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That policy is meant for words that should be avoided, non of which I used. In any case, I assume that you mean that by using that phrase, I insert the insinuation that it was not actually a war against terrorism, which is not the case. "War on terrorism" is the name of the campaign, that was launched by the Bush administration in response to the 9/11 attacks. To assume that it was or was not an actual war on terrorism and write the article by that assumption, is what in fact consists a POV. What exactly is your objection here? --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree can't see anything in the addition that violate WTA. BigDunc 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the phrase, with its use of scare quotes, conveyed exactly the meaning you describe: the Bush administration launched something it falsely labeled a War on Terrorism. (And if you can see what the potential problem is, that's a good sign there's a problem.) You might as well have written "an alleged War on Terrorism". BigDunc fixed part of the problem by removing the scare quotes, but I think the language is still POV. But if other editors don't agree, I'm not going to beat a dead horse. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I used the scare quotes to specify the name with clarity. Like saying, a movie named "Men in Black". It seems a bit fuzzy without the scare quotes, but anyway I'll make a compromise as well. I can see the potential problem, because I'm used in "walking in other people's shoes" :)

(Noticed the scare quotes? :P) --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that quotation marks not scare quotes. Being a foreign English speaker, I just realized the difference. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's awkward and meaningless. Not to mention a clear attempt at POV pushing. I'll remove it until you can show consensus for the change. Right now there isn't any. RxS (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it POV??? BigDunc 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By putting a qualifier on what is obviously a real and commonly understood fact. They very clearly wars. RxS (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RxS, you must explain what exactly consists a POV in that phrase. If you fail to do that, your edit is going to be reverted. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I don't understand your reply, could you expand or explain better, this term is no longer used by the Obama administration. BigDunc 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By putting a qualifier in front of a fact (what it was called at the time), you put doubt into whether it's a fact or not. I think it' pretty clear. The Obama administration wasn't in power at the time the sentence refers to. Get consensus for the change, it's the way Wikipedia works. RxS (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a fact? Find reliable sources that support what you are saying. So far the consensus in leaning towards the new phrase. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for calling it a war on terror? You're kidding right, there's thousands of them.[7]. You're not even close yet. RxS (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling it a war on terror, as well. That's what it was named and that is not disputed. You need sources that actually state that it was indeed what Bush declared it to be. Can you find any?--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me what? You've completely lost me. Why does this name need quotes when the reliable sources don't? --Tarage (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarage, the phrase we are talking about is 'a campaign by the name of "War on Terrorism"'. Nothing to do with the current version. The quotes are there to make the name distinguishable. But whatever if others think they are not needed, I won't insist. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RxS,the burden of proof is on you know, so unless you find reliable sources that support that what Bush declared about the campaign is true, then the edit will be reverted. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, you want to make a change, you have to justify it and show consensus for it. You haven't done either. That's the way it works, for any (contested) change, anywhere on Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple question what is POV about calling it a campaign? BigDunc 19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I requested mediation. Not sure if I did that right:

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-07/September_11_attacks

--JokerXtreme (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for vote in in favor of original wording

• Support- RxS is right in each of his points. My guess is that JokerXtreme's lack of familiarity with English is preventing him from understanding the subtle yet significant difference. JokerXtreme's wording supports the point of view that there is doubt regarding common acceptance of this term. There isn't. Rklawton (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- Rklawton, first of all, there is a third party in this debate. Now, to the point: The reason that makes this phrasing a necessity, is to disambiguate the name of the campaign from the notion that the campaign is what it actually is declared to be (i.e. an actual war on terrorism). Hence, the way it was phrased before consisted a POV and the version I'm suggesting eliminates it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Without references to suggest that it isn't what it says it is, you're just expressing your own point of view - and that's highly inappropriate here. Rklawton (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Reliable sources say War on terrorism.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"War on terrorism" is used as a name. Reliable sources are needed to support the claim that it is what it is supposed to be. The phrase I'm using assumes NPOV, while simple "war on terrorism" denotes acceptance of Bush's administration POV. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But, since you want it. [8] There is your source. Quoting Rklawton, "there is doubt regarding common acceptance of this term". Therefore, the previous phrasing assumes POV and must be changed. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The section in question is dealing with the Bush administration. Your source discusses Obama's policy. It doesn't support your point at all.Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

Malik have these in mind: Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion

What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

--JokerXtreme (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the matter. Now we're checking to see where the consensus leads us. And that is how we do things here. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you do things here, but the policies are quite specific. We are building consensus, not voting the most popular opinion. --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Joker, what I have in mind is that I already explained myself in the preceding section and I don't see the need to repeat myself. If you look, you'll see that I initiated this discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Then I'm just stating the obvious about decision making procedures in WP. --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - But War on Terrorism is a name, no ? It doesn't need any qualification. It's like Operation Cast Lead is Israel's name for a military campaign that has various other descriptors by other sources. Operation Enduring Freedom is the name of a set of things that form part of a set of things identified by some using the name War on Terrorism. Whether it is or it isn't an actual war of terrorism or whether OEF will produce actual enduring freedom or whether OCL involved actually making small toys out of lead for example isn't relevant is it ? It doesn't have any bearing on the usage of the names. They're just the common names used by RS that can be used as names without qualification....or am I missing something ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your reasoning. Rklawton (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Quotes are unnecessary, and I think it should be "the War on Terrorism not "a War on Terrorism", but these are minor points compared to sticking in a completely superfluous "campaign" in there. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with using "the" rather than "a". Rklawton (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a democracy and this vote means nothing, we are here to build an encyclopedia through consensus, now I have asked twice with no reply and I will ask again, What is POV about calling the WOT a campaign? BigDunc 10:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything POV about calling it a campaign, assuming of course that there are RS that say it is a "campaign". It's just that I don't see any point. What's wrong with "the War on Terrorism" (note that it's capitalized). Saying campaign is like saying "the war World War I" (which certainly wasn't literally a world war, not that it matters). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Joker's original wording implies incorrectly that it's sometimes called something other than the War on Terrorism. If he can find a WP:RS which calls it the War on Terrorism campaign, it might be added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm tired of this and willing to let that go. I don't know if BigDunc, wants to continue the debate. I'm in favor of "the War on Terrorism" phrasing. Makes more sense than the original, if it is indeed used as a name. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason to change it. --Tarage (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The proposed addition is both POV-pushing and awkward such that it reads like it was written by a five-year-old. Quit wasting everyone's time with this moronic drivel. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you back up your moronic drivel, Ice Cold Beer, and tell me what is POV about the sentence not one editor has explained it yet or will I be ignored again. BigDunc 09:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained, but you're choosing not to acknowledge it..[9][10] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious with those diffs? No where does either explain how calling it a campaign is POV, perhaps for the sake of clarity you could spell it out for me. BigDunc 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

They are weasel words. The wording you're trying to add conveys the idea that the WoT should be called something else. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that since "war on terrorism" is used as a name, it is typical to place it inside quotation marks, as seen here: [11],[12],[13]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough now, there is a clear consensus for the original wording. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add sentence into "Motivation" section

The section "Motiviation" is fairly decent, but doesnt seem to include one key factor: the US's support of Israel. There are quite a few reliable secondary sources that describe that motivation. I propose to add a sentence such as:

Several analysts cite the United States' support of Israel as one of the motivations for the attacks.

Any comments or suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not in the right spot, and undo emphasis on the Israel matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Taboo's, thoughtcrimes and inquisition

Not sure about fellow contributors, but I've been watching the latest in series of 'thoughtcrimes', along with headlines about self-destruction with interest, if not amusement.

I'd like to open debate about new section which would note such notable 'witch hunts' we're experiencing in aftermath of 9/11. Since the terminology already deployed might bring some confusion, I'd ask good faithed editors to think in such alternatives as 'academic and political freedoms', or something along those lines.

To illustrate:

Van Jones - publicly endorsed thoughtcrime, retracted his claims, but tainted for life (or until the new investigation) - had to resign.

Marion Cotillard - publicly committed thoughtcrime, shocked and awed by the strength of inquisition which showed some leniency after reprogramming and expurgation of the subject.

Rosie O'Donnell - publicly committed thoughtcrime, gone in seven seconds.

Jean-Marie Bigard - publicly committed thoughtcrime, apologised after expurgation, reprogramming failed.

Kevin Barrett - more than 60 state inquisitors attacked Barrett simultaneously (reference provided is not suitable for wikka wakka), it was notorious case, one of many.

Coleen Rowley - 'crucified for doing unthinkable' thoughtcrime.

Sibel Edmonds - A Patriot Silenced, Unjustly Fired but Fighting Back to Help Keep America Safe

or

French professor sacked over 9/11 conspiracy theory

...and so on.

So, what do you folks say, are references provided (or not) enough to warrant new section with such working title as 'culture of critical dissent' Praxidikai (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we make a new section to chronicle the people who have been slandered for speaking out against the main theory of 9/11, then I disagree. There is enough fluff as is, and it would be better to take these up in the articles about the people. --Tarage (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think an article along the lines of "List of 9/11 conspiracy theorists" would be OK - along with support sections in the related biographical articles. I agree that it's the sort of fluff we can leave out of this article. This article links to a conspiracy theory article, and we can link to the list of nut cases there. Rklawton (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We could also mention French actor and director Mathieu Kassovitz among those who have been banished from French TV following his remarks concerning 9/11. Even though he is himself of jewish origin, he as been branded as an anti-semite and is now persona non grata on most if not all talk shows. As long as editors are allowed to describe those they disagree with as nut cases, I doubt the "owners" of the September 11 attacks page will ever allow the list proposed by Praxidikai to be included in the main article, where it clearly belongs. Oclupak (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

American physicist Steven E. Jones could also be added to the list, as he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is also often ridiculed for his beliefs concerning the presence of Jesus Christ in the Americas whereas no one seems to question fellow Mormon Mitt Romney's similar beliefs.

Another prominent American subject to ridicule is Major General Albert Stubblebine, who was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. Since he has clearly stated in a | video that he does not believe that an airplane was involved in the Pentagon attack, his bio on Wikipedia is plagued with allegations concerning his research in the field of parapsychology. These allegations, while probably true, are clearly overemphasized in order to have him labeled as another clear "nut case". Oclupak (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how being in blatant denial of reality suddenly is a "thoughtcrime". :) I don't see how a list of 9/11 conspiracy theorists have anything to do with this article. They could of course be mentioned on the conspiracy page. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The relation of so-called truthers to this article is marginal, so this would better be taken up over at the CT article. 78.55.174.54 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as in actuality, 'the relation of so-called truthers to this article is' cardinal, marginalised majority, oxymoron of a sort... I'd kindly ask fellow editors to refrain from defamation, thank you for your choice of words Tarage, sincerely so. Praxidikai (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll find that most editors here are weary of the constant battle to keep this article NPOV. The best way to approach an edit is not to claim that the current status quo is horribly wrong and that editors who support it are [insert bad names here]. If you approach us in a civil, non accusatory fashion, we will respond in kind. However, none of this will guarantee the edit you want to be accepted. It's just better to approach situations like this with a light touch. I'm guilty myself of going off on editors who I believe are only trying to advance propaganda, so don't quick to judge the others as well. Just remember, no matter what you think of someone, we are all still just humans. --Tarage (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"A marginalized majority"? You don't seriouly think that internet polls are in any way representative, do you? If you want to improve this article, you have to work on your argument, because this is just ridiculous. And this is not meant as "defamation", but as a pointer. 78.55.174.54 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"'Perhaps the reluctance of journalists to fight openly for laws that better reflect the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment was partly responsible in the years following 9/11 for all of the information that ended up behind closed doors, he said." Perhaps same goes for editors here?

To clarify, proposal wasn't made with chronicle in mind, proposal seeks recognition of notable 'climate that surrounds critical dissent' from main theory and its effects on personal/academic/political/press freedoms. Narrative of such paragraph can be in line with summaries we've provided in 'Long-term effects' section. Praxidikai (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between flakes and critical dissent. Rklawton (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Take those flakes, add a few nuts and several ounces of milk, and you've got a nice bowl of cereal. Otherwise kinda useless though.....Doc Tropics 04:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we are all part of an evil Illuminati conspiracy. Seeing how we control not only Wikipedia, but the world in general, and even peoples minds (barring of course, the small set of Truther Wikipedia editors, that somehow are immune to our mind rays) any effort of making this article reflect the conspiracy theories falls under WP:SNOWBALL.--OpenFuture (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a 'Truther Wikipedia editor'? Is it a general category? Did you know that we strive to comment on content not on contributors? Perhaps we should build new policy about indiscriminate generalising based on personal attacks, because you really take it to a whole new level. How about those five pillars? At least some consideration and respect, you know, the very basics of civility? Or is this to be considered as acceptable and 'normal behaviour' by Wikipedia standards? Do tell, is it so hard to show some good faith and heed upon appeal for restraint from defamation? Is Coleen Rowley conspiracy theorist? How about Kean and Hamilton, are you implying that 9/11 Commission was co-chaired by 'conspiracy nuts'? How about me? Should I feel harassed or ignore your trolling? Pray tell, is there a need to illustrate how... inappropriate, irresponsible and pointless your reply is? Certainly not, it would be best if you take a deep breath and act as if you are aware of Final decision. Thanks. Praxidikai (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely fail to see how an admittance that you are completely correct can be construed as a personal attack. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point on the climate after 911 would probably be synthesis and OR (and bad one at that) and thus not acceptable to wikipedia. And even it it weren't, it would be better placed at the article on conspiracy theories, because that's the place where these people and their theories are being discussed. In my opinion, a constructive way of including these instances would be discussion in the individual articles, meaning detailed discussions of the individual cases. In this way controversies and their protagonists would be visible and the articles would give a fuller picture than the reference to a rather opaque "climate". 78.55.174.54 (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're in contempt :), that is to say, you're prejudicing results before we've started procedures… but i do appreciate your shift from… To share a thought, neutrality of this article was questioned and disputed so many times that, well, it is boring to watch. This effort, this proposal was sparked for a reason, and the reason is, we don't deserve this divisive, if not ridiculous status quo. As much as one can read from your well minded reply, you're suggesting the very same thing that was proposed over and over again. Why so? As someone said the other day… 'the jury is still out', there is nothing wrong with questioning things, people who question don't deserve libel and they certainly don't succumb to misdemeanor envisioned by irresponsible, if not bought and paid for 'contributors' of Wikipedia. There is this effort, motus, if you will, its aim is reconciliation...

Without dispute, we need 'advance knowledge' section, yet it was rejected on barren grounds of conspiracy over and over again. Undisputedly, we need a paragraph about 'cover up', yet.., what does your suggestion.., what does it say about the independence of Wikipedia and our inability to say it as it is? We really don't need to venture into realm of conspiracy to note publicly known facts, do we? Dear IP, do tell, are we the victims of 'taboo' ourselves? Why so? Praxidikai (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you say here. People who question do not deserve libel, and do not deserve to be called Inquisitors and accused of censorship and totalitarian practices. And the divisive status quo is ridiculous, and the accusations of non-neutrality has long since become boring, especially since it is over and over and over again concluded that the article is neutral.

The solution to all of this is exactly what you have suggested before: That we keep strictly to the facts, and strictly NPOV. But in that case we must really focus on fundamentals of the perception of reality to get everybody on the boat. NPOV and Wikipedia in general presupposes there is such a thing as truth, and that we together can reason to arrive at what that is. A counterforce is to view everything as political and open to interpretation. This however flies in the face of the tradition from the age of enlightenment, from which the whole idea of encyclopaedias come.

Since we both agree that the article should be factual and NPOV, and that includes that the article should not contain irrelevant parts put there with a political motive, then I do not see what there is to further discuss on this matter. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that Marion Cotillard shared her opinion with some sort of agenda? She shared an opinion; the reaction to her opinion is shameful, to say the least. If you give it a thought, thoguhtcrime comes to thoughts, eh? Praxidikai (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Never having heard anything about her comments or the reaction, my impression is: a) 9/11 is an emotional topic, and overreactions occur. To frame this into "thoughtcrime" would appear far-fetched. b) the actress does not really appear to suffer from it, having played a prominent role in last years Public_Enemies_(2009_film). This is why I'd prefer sections in the individual biographies and not here. If you take a closer look, you will find the individual cases too varying to allow for such broad terms. And it's just not notable enough for this article. 78.55.23.2 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Praxidikai: I notice that you yet again fail to stay factual, NPOV and on topic. This is not a discussion forum or a soapbox. Discuss the article, nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we bury the hatchet, please? I've replied to your thoughts on 'political agenda', which was, in my opinion, unnecessary and misplaced remark from your part. The original suggestion was to build (synthesise) the paragraph about effects of 9/11 on freedoms, it was sparked by impulse based on current event, terminology was deployed in spite WP:POINT, yet we've agreed on many points. A good thing for sure. Some strong thoughts were shared against such effort, well faithed advices too.., a good thing, for sure. We can wrap this one up. Praxidikai (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You never presented reliable sources indicating that 9/11 has had an impact on people's ability to speak freely. Instead, you've cited several examples where people behaved like asses and who were treated accordingly - but there's nothing unique to 9/11 about that. All inferences have been conjecture and synthesis entirely on your part and wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I advised you against promoting conspiracy theories on your talk page when you began editing Wikipedia, and I'm reminding you of it again now. If you continue promoting your own point of view in this or other articles, you will very likely face community sanctions. These sanctions range from bans against editing certain topics to bans against editing Wikipedia as a whole. We'll help you improve your editing skills, but if you show no inclination to edit constructively, then we'll reach a point where we have no more time to waste on you. Rklawton (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If people are free to speak and question 9/11 attacks why do you feel the need to threat them with community ban? Are you unable to accept difference of opinions? Those who don't think along your lines are assess? Either way, I'm honestly fed up of your accusations, and I'm politely asking you to stop. You have very strong opinion, and you seem mucho emotional, are you sure you're fit to contribute to this article? Praxidikai (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've mistaken Wikipedia for a public platform for free speech. It isn't. It's a platform for writing an unbiased, reliably sourced, free encyclopedia. Your attempts to add bias to our articles run contrary to our mission (see links I posted on your talk page last week) and demonstrate that you have no intent to edit this encyclopedia according to this mission. It is for that reason you may find yourself blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between speaking freely, and POV pushing. There is a difference between questioning and disrupting. There is a difference between fact and imagination. If you disrupt, try to push a POV into articles or try to get imaginative conjecture into an article, you will sooner or later get blocked. Speaking freely is completely possible, but again: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Here we discuss the articles, not wild theories. Please try to respect that. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no hatchet to bury. You are completely correct in all you say about Wikipedia, and that it should be factual and NPOV. You are also correct in that we should not discuss the editors, but the article. The only problem is that you consistently refuse to live as you learn. But I have no grudge against you, I do not host any animosity, there is no hatchet. If you want to become a valuable editor by constructive discussion about how to improve the article, this would be most welcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that I'm the one who's causing all the commotion and distraction? Eh, are we done here? How about that focus? Will you chip in on 'advance knowledge debate'? Praxidikai (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, quite sure. Editors like you pop up from time to time - wanting to reshape Wikipedia's guiding philosophies to meet their personal needs. I tried warning you about it early on, but you didn't take heed. You'll either change your approach, or you'll leave frustrated. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be topic banned by any merit, since you're not, I'm leaving this topic. Praxidikai (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance. 78.55.23.2 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Omission

Fundamentally speaking, would neutral article attract questions about neutrality? You cannot impose something and claim consensus and/or neutrality. Let me ask, where is Able danger? What happened to the closely related topic that resulted with substantial article? Why is there one way link only? Please provide reasonable explanation for such omission, and we'll move on to other 'unanswered questions', just to remind you that we have whole lot to talk about. Praxidikai (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cranks frequently criticize the neutrality of an article when the article fails to promote their bizarre point of view. 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, when you explain exactly what in your POV is an omission and why, we can discuss it. Come with NPOV and factual proposals of enhancements of the article, and they will be discussed. Calling everyone that doesn't agree with you an "inquisition" is not NPOV and factual. "You cannot impose something and claim consensus and/or neutrality." - Are you sure? The heading of this discussion seems to imply that we not only can do that, but that we in fact are doing it. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've provoked a smile, thank you. Are you hurt by the 'inquisition'? Have you taken it personally? Is it much worse than calling everyone who doesn't agree with you crank or conspiracy nut? Rhetorical questions though, because these are two sides of the same coin, and there is really no need for you to react or take it personally. Hopefully, we've absorbed this particular lesson, do have no doubt, my gratitude to Tarage and others who have shown effort to act by decorum is genuine. As for my personal POV, I'll share opinion, I'm reading this article and it looks tidy, tidiness surrounded by controversy? To reiterate, if there are numerous unanswered questions, article should reflect that, if there is a huge controversy surrounding those ever burning questions, article should reflect that, if 9/11 Commission was 'set up to fail' or if it failed to notice the fall of whole darn building, article should definitely reflect that, if there are 'allegations of advance knowledge', article should reflect that… see, whole lot of omitted issues. If we redirect all these to other articles we're missing something. Can you guess what it is?

To rephrase, why this article doesn't have a link or say about Able Danger? Focus. Thanks. Praxidikai (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To not rephrase, but to repeat: Sure, when you explain exactly what in your POV is an omission and why, we can discuss it. Yes, if there are unanswered questions that are relevant for this article the article should mention them. You are correct. As usual I note that we completely agree on the goals, process and necessary attitude in editing Wikipedia. What I miss are an effort from you to actually do this. In this case you specifically lack any sort of arguments for why there should be a link to Able Danger.

Obviously I'm not hurt, but proud to be a member of the ruling elite, but that's irrelevant. It's an ad hominem, no matter if I'm hurt or not. Now please do as you teach, and stop discussing me and my Illuminati companions, and stay factual, NPOV and discuss the article. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me why I think that 9/11 related material should be linked to 9/11 article? Praxidikai (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Third and last time: When you explain exactly what in your view is an omission and why, we can discuss it. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, silly as it is, you're asking me why I think that controversial, notable, verifiable and reliably sourced 9/11 topic deserves to be linked to parent article. In my opinion, 'POV', if you must, the fact that information about Able danger is omitted from article constitutes omission. Clear enough? Praxidikai (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I note you for the third time refuse to give any sort of explanation of why you think there should be a link to Able Danger and how it would fit into the article. That proves my point: You have no factual NPOV reason behind it. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Praxidikai jumps topics and never bothers to fully argue for one of them. From a section on what he percieves as thought crime and the climate surrounding it to the missing link to the foreknowledge debate to able danger. While the latter two are at least more concrete points, he never really argues his case. Instead he posts diatribes and wastes everyone's time. To invert one of his arguments from earlier on: if his point was so very clear, indisputable and obvious, why do people still ask him to go into detail? If he actually wants to have a constructive impact on this article, he should seriously rethink the way in which he argues here. 78.55.23.2 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly have a point, the problem is that every time we manage to focus on single issue, something utterly unrelated comes along and clouds the way. Any thoughts on topic at hand? Praxidikai (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Able Danger does not really belong here, a link to the advance knowledge debate might. But an appropriate place would have to be found. 78.55.23.2 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That was constructive, thanks. Indeed, such synthesis as we have there would be far better solution than one suggested, it seems as if it would fit well in 'Aftermath' section. Praxidikai (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Able Danger article makes it quite clear that it's been fodder for conspiracy theorists with regard to 9/11. We really don't have the space to list all the things that have nothing to do with 9/11 in the 9/11 article. My question to Praxidikai - why do you persistently propose adding material to this article that is blatantly POV and pushes conspiracy theories? Why bother pushing POV material in an encyclopedia that specifically bans POV pushing? Rklawton (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the contributors here have extremely strong POV, this subject tends to draw extremes, if you add divisive terminology to it, it becomes very hard to find common ground. To stay focused, IP made a constructive suggestion, do you object to proposal that we include advance knowledge debate into this article? It seems that you're concerned it would bring forth 'conspiracy theories'. Please take a look at 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, examine how it manages to point out distinction between conspiracies and valid questions. Is there dispute there? Apparently not, not a single tag on it. It would be lovely if you would be willing to make an effort to recognise such distinction, that way you wouldn't be so eager to call fellow contributors conspiracy pushers. Praxidikai (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your specific recommendation was to include Able Danger in *this* article - and that was blatant conspiracy theory pushing per the article itself. Rklawton (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading what I wrote. I said that a *link* to the advance knowledge debate article *might* be possible and that an appropriate place would have to be found *if* editors agreed on that. Furthermore, whilst you feel obliged to tell everyone to focus, it is *you* who comes up with one topic after another until someone gives you something you feel possible to work with and drop everything else. That just not the way things should work here. As it stands right now, you are clearly pushing POV. Stop it. 78.55.23.2 (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing archive link

The template is missing a link to /Title & comma archive, of Sep - Oct 2004. I don't know how to add this to the template. Maurreen (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated and incorrect information regarding World Trade Center 7

{{editsemiprotected}} Done --OpenFuture (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose changing the sentence "When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, which led to the crumbling of the east penthouse at 5:20 p.m. and to the complete collapse of the building at 5:21 p.m." as it is factually incorrect.

The latest government report issued by NIST has concluded that heavy damage was not sustained due to debris, but the collapse was in fact caused by fires that were ignited by debris from WTC 2.

The words 'primarily caused by fire' and the section on what caused the initiation both support the idea that structural damage did not contribute to the collapse (other than igniting fires)

The new study can be found here, and specifically in regard to damage from debris found in section 4.3.1 on page 46: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

I'd propose something more along the lines of "When the north tower collapsed, debris ignited fires in nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building. Fires burned for hours weakening the structural integrity of the building, which led to the crumbling of the east penthouse... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.189.240 (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You propose that we misinterpret the source? Why not... Praxidikai (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've cited where it supports my claim, but i'm open to the possibility I missed something. Can you be more specific about where the latest NIST paper claim structral damage from the debris contributed to the collapse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.189.240 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation? "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." Seems rather clearcut to me.--OpenFuture (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Botched Investigation / Conspiracy Theory Section Suggestion

The fact of the matter is folks, the investigation was botched. I don't care what your opinion is, but to take findings that are challenged as fact is not what we do here in wikiworld. The problem with this article is the editors popularizing of contested findings in a botched investigation. And then routinely dismissing contest over the facts. This is abuse for sure. There are a few ways we can handle this situation. First of all, this is not a "case closed" terror attack and nor should it be treated as such here. The simplest way to treat it is to specify who said what and what finding did they state. Remember that facts are in part verifiable; not just "consensus." There are many methods employed to arrive at fact, and then when the dust settles there will be consensus. It wasn't easy to prove the world was round, but we arrived at the fact eventually. What the editors are doing in here has all been done before and will continue to the end of time because people fear what they don't understand and they get angry when they find out Santa Clause is not real. Basic human nature. That is why we strive so hard to keep this all to the facts. Belief is something that can be manipulated, used to serve a purpose, forge an agenda and ultimately will be challenged because belief is not fact. I don't really care about what people believe. Nor do I care about their opinions. What I care about here is fact. As for the discrediting campaign, that is a classic tactic to silence questions and send findings into obscurity, only later to be found and proven correct. Effort should be made to preserve the questioners and their findings.

Finally, I would also suggest renaming the section titled "Conspiracy Theories." There really is no question or contest that people conspired. The section would be better served if it were titled "Challenges to Findings," or "Ongoing Investigation," or even "NIST Report Fails." The section also lacks in a wealth of facts and is very biased, as is the entire article. This article is a good example of an editor with beliefs and an agenda and an open disregard for facts. I find the bias here shameful. Not just in this section, but throughout. Furthermore, propaganda should always be challenged, exposed and questioned. There will be no home for propaganda in the wikiworld. There are plenty of outlets for it on the internet, on television, on the radio and in print. If an item of any kind comes to light as an item of propaganda it should be immediately removed. From this and every article. Venus III (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have articles on the 9/11 commission and on conspiracy theories. This article is about the attacks. Rklawton (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories already have their own article(s) linked to from this one. And I think this article does a pretty good job of balance. Conspiracy theories deserve only a small section here, like Creationism/ID might in Evolution. And no offense, but your accusation of holding an agenda comes off as just a bit disingenuous. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 15:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

None taken. Please remove the word "truthers" from the article. These people are more appropriately referred to as questioners or investigators.

There are a handful of frauds on wiki who have an agenda. I've already identified one.

Please change the title of the section in question to "Nist Report Challenged." Rather than provide commentary which is inappropriate; the section should refer to specific data that is challenged and specific challengers. I agree the section remain small. With fact not commentary. Venus III (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Truthers" does seem inappropriate for this article, but your proposed alternatives are incorrect. Perhaps something could be done.

This article about the mainstream view of the event, with appropriate notes on minority views (such as conspiracy theories) and the mainstream view of those (the commentary you wish removed, I believe).

The "facts" you want added are almost all not supported by evidence.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Some people question the official version of the bombings, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in further investigation. Most of the alternative theories see the bombings as a casus belli through a false flag to bring about increased militarization and police power. Participants in the 9/11 Truth movement have been called "truthers." Should read and I propose "Thousands of professionals and citizens have come together with questions regarding various aspects of the investigation. Groups such as Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth along with Firefighters for 9/11 truth; are searching for answers. www.ae911truth.org and www.firefightersfor911truth.org."

• Reject - gives conspiracy theories more weight than they rate. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Reject -WP:UNDUE. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories have suggested that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was demolished with explosives.[197][unreliable source?] Should read and I propose: "Scientists, firefighters, scholars and citizens alike are concerned by the failure of investigators to follow simple rules, such as the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=921&cookie_test=1."

• Reject - gives conspiracy theories more weight than they rate. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Reject - WP:UNDUE, WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers, who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Towers.[198][199][200]" I propose to add: "Architects and engineers are calling for a grand jury investigation into Sunders and Gross failure to follow regulation with regard to testing for accelerants, among other things. NIST denies the existence of molten metal even though we have video and photographic evidence suggesting otherwise." http://www.nj.com/weird/

• Reject - gives conspiracy theories more weight than they rate. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Reject - WP:UNDUE, WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration in adding these proposed changes. I think it will improve the article greatly. I can provide more reference material as well if needed. Sincerely, Venus III (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take your conspiracy theories to the appropriate page, as they do not belong here. –turian^{обсудить} 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AP News Article: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2010/02/raritan_twp_man_involvled_in_g.html Venus III (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Venus III (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Already done - no need for the changes you recommend which place UNDO weight on conspiracy fodder. Rklawton (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

This is a primary source. Its inclusion in any section would require a violation of WP:SYNTH. The researchers themselves draw no conclusions other than observing the discovery of a particular chemical compound. Rklawton (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that he 'open source journal' that the article from is litte more than a paid vanity press. 68.199.34.222 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't necessarily concur with that statement, but that particular article seems to have bypassed even the minimal editorial review which the journal normally has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This publisher reached a special level of infamy when it published a "peer reviewed" article that had been randomly generated by a computer program. In the case of the article in question, the journal's editor quit when she learned it had been published. If I had to guess, I'd say that the "researches" were playing a joke on conspiracy theorists and published a fancy way of saying they found paint dust a la the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax Rklawton (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who wants to add the journal article has now cited a YouTube video as a "secondary source" ("there are many, not even counting the truther sites"). I don't know about other editors, but I'm convinced. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to guess. The authors have put forward what is known as a testable hypothesis. It has two possible states: either there is nanoscale thermitic material in the WTC dust, or there is not. We have at least one primary source saying that there is, and zero primary sources saying that there is not. We have multiple secondary sources reporting on the allegation, which gives it notability (ref)(ref){ref)(ref){ref)(ref){ref). Because the hypothesis is testable, falsifiable, notable, and has not been falsified in nearly a year of time available since the publication of the report, it is reasonable for Wikipedia to consider it worthy and appropriate for inclusion. Wildbear (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This leaves us with the fact that the source isn't reliable, and no reliable secondary sources state that the primary source is reliable. Rklawton (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

First, do you have a reliable source which states that the primary source is unreliable, or are you basing your position on allegations from unreliable sources? Second, quoting WP:RS: "Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources. (emphasis mine) It only took me a few minutes to to find seven secondary references to establish notability, and I could probably find more by spending more time. The topic is notable enough that it can stand on its own from secondary sources; and as directed by WP:RS, we should not be tracing secondary sources back to the primary source (doing so could open up a big can of worms, if you want to go that way.) Wildbear (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone may have put forward a hypothesis but mainstream science, academia or media doesn't take it seriously enough to test/debate. And thus it remains fringe, and not notable. There's no mainstream debate about it at all. And the fact that there are a handful of sources talking about it doesn't change that. It's ridiculous to claim that because no one has bothered to refute it makes it somehow valid. RxS (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's neither valid nor invalid; it is an open hypothesis. I termed it, "worthy and appropriate for inclusion", based on its widespread controversy and coverage in mainstream sources. Had it been discredited, as (for example) the "pancake collapse" hypothesis has been discredited, the matter would be a non-issue. The article devotes three lines to the "Tumbling Woman" sculpture. Is it valid to assert that the controversy surrounding the sculpture is more widely debated and notable than the thermitic material issue? If not, is the article giving undue weight to a less relevant issue? Wildbear (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to single out that paper compared to all the other stuff concerning conspiracy theories and thermite. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll also notice that there have been many working towards removing those three lines, as they too don't really belong here. --Tarage (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK paragraph

See also: Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 51 § Last paragraph in Memorials section?

I tagged the following paragraph as a WP:COATRACK:

If American society at large payed their tributes by erecting memorials that showed their sympathy with the victims, the community of creative artists showed differing sensibilities. Although in recent decades art has been politicized, with sociopolitical problems inspiring much artistic activity, the art community was distinctly chary in responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to Commentary, only one significant monumental artistic response to 9/11 was made: Eric Fischl's bronze sculpture Tumbling Woman, which was installed in Rockefeller Center one year later. The figure, however, was stripped of any sense of poignancy or dignity, "showing her landing ridiculously on her head, with all the bathos of an unsightly spill in the tub." The statue gave offense, and it was removed promptly. Most other art that followed 9/11 "suffered from the same moral incoherence". Commentary identifies the reigning political bias among artists as the explanation. It suspects that the lack of noteworthy attempts to humanize the victims may be due to "fear that it might dehumanize their killers".The Art of Obama Worship

The paragraph is about the politicization of American art, not memorials to the 9/11 attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the paragraph is pertinent to the article. Writing about memorials ro the 9/11 attack but not mentioning the lack of interest among the community of creative artists does not give a full and fair picture.

By the way, the point is not that American art is politicized, but some of the effects of a particular, prevalent bias. --Jonund (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph, as other editors noted in the past, belongs in an editorial, not an encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see why that would be so. The paragraph does not advocate a position, and it deals wit a legitimate subject. --Jonund (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? That paragraph advocates the following positions:

• the community of creative artists showed differing sensibilities from the general public
• in recent decades art has been politicized
• the art community was distinctly chary in responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks
• only one significant monumental artistic response to 9/11 was made
• The figure, however, was stripped of any sense of poignancy or dignity
• Most other art that followed 9/11 "suffered from the same moral incoherence"

I agree that paragraph has nothing to do in this article and breaks NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't advocate anything. It refers to an RS.

Most of the claims mentioned are fact-oriented and hard to deny. The strong reactions by the public against the monument indicate that Commentary was on to something in their aesthetical judgment. In any event, Commentary is a prominent voice. If you can find other good sources that deal with the subject, however, I see forward to heeding them, too. --Jonund (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Malik's latest revert, I want to say that it's important to note that Fischl's way of representing the tragedy is not unique, but is part of a pattern among prominent artists. That adds to the significance of his monument.

The question why no other significant works of art were created is vital, since it says something about what attitude an influential segment of society takes to the event. That question can be dealt with by quoting notable opinions. --Jonund (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks are a large topic, and more than 95% of all information that is acceptable on Wikipedia on the basis of its notability and reliability is included in the respective sub-articles, not in the main article. The opinion of Michael J. Lewis, published in Commentary, which became "the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s", is not relevant enough for warranting inclusion in the main article. (If secondary sources referring to Lewis' article are found, we may of course need to reconsider this assessment.) As User:Jonund has incorrectly implied existing consensus on the talk page in his most recent edit to the page, I'll undo that edit, so that editors can continue to build consensus here.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely don't see why that section belongs in this article, beyond it's obvious purpose of pushing a point of view. Does it have any defenders besides one editor? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't implied anything. I referred to the talk page, since the edit summary was too short.

ClovisPt talks about an emerging consensus. In fact, I have rebutted the opposing arguments and nobody continued the discussion. Counting editors is not how we determine consensus, which emerges through discussion. Simply stating an opinion (and a refuted one, at that), as ClovisPt does in his latest post, is not helpful. Moreover, he or she not only claims that the sentence Cs32en reverted is outside of consensus, but that there is an emerging consensus against the entire paragraph. On the contrary, the revision history shows that most editors accept the paragraph.

Much has been written about 9/11, so it's true that most of it isn't used in the main article. The reason is that it isn't needed. In the section about monuments, on the other hand, there is no abundancy of sources. Commentary seems to be the most notable source. --Jonund (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So, let's sort out who stands where:

• Oppose - paragraph does not belong in the article.
  • The article is about the attacks, so monuments are a minor point, and one non-notable person's commentary isn't helpful.
  • Looks a lot like coat rack to me.
  • Claims of support for this paragraph are not supported. Rklawton (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - paragraph does not belong in the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The paragraph as no reason to be in the article. –Turian (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The paragraph is low in notability relative to other issues which are not included in the article. Wildbear (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - A non-notable person's opinion about a single sculpture doesn't belong here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This paragraph does not belong in the article, for the many reasons stated above. ClovisPt (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The editors above fail to engage the arguments in favor of the paragraph and are uninformed about the source.
  • Monuments are indeed a minor point of the article, but if we have a section on monuments we should deal with the surprising lack of interest for the event by prominent artists. If monuments is too unimportant an aspect, the whole section should go. Providing poor content in the section doesn't make sense.
  • The coatrack accusation is totally unwarranted. No bias is expressed in the paragraph, as explained.
  • Nobody with a minimum of knowledge can claim that Commentary is non-notable.
  • Support for the paragraph has been expressed by Wjemather and Bachcell on the history page. Others have indicated their hesitating acceptance by letting the paragraph stay with alterations, rather than removing it. It seems that ClovisPt and Rklawton have inflamed other editors. If they aimed at consensus, that would be welcome. --Jonund (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Even in an article about monuments and memorials, this material would be somewhat questionable. Here, it should just disappear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per most, or maybe all of the arguments given above.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

'Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories'

Ok, what is this 'Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories'?

'The underlying factors likely have more to do with psychology. Indeed, it is often said that conspiracy theories are born out of a sense of powerlessness. In the wake of Sept. 11 and the emergence of the nihilistic threat of Islamic terrorism, feelings of impotence and vulnerability were all too natural. All Americans were affected by such fears. But instead of facing the daunting truth, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists chose the path of denial.'

Sense of powerlessness? Nihilistic threat?! Daunting truth?!! Path of denial?!!! : O

These are some striking, striking facts, and, as a bonus, it also speaks about 'familiar demons' and 'never mind' too, bravo. We're degrading this project quite rapidly here, eh? Praxidikai (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is opinion, much like this article here, you can see that it is opinion because it says it is opinion. Not acceptable, off it goes. Praxidikai (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only is this article an opinion piece, it is written by Cinnamon Stillwell, who is not an independent observer, but an active participant in the controversy. In particular, she is the "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum" [14].  Cs32en Talk to me  13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there something in the article that is factually incorrect? Do the groups she noted exist? Are we citing her opinion or her research? The answers to these three questions all indicate that the sources is acceptable as used. It's a great piece to use because it neatly outlines all the major theories and provides links to further information. Now, if you can find a better reference or references, by all means, upgrade what we have. If not, you're just diminishing the article by removing this source. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is a summary of the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories. It does not need to include sources anyway, and we therefore do not need to find another source. This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists by linking to their texts.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not like you are going to find any peer-reviewed articles about the conspiracy theories, all you are going to find is columnistswriting what you call "opinion pieces". I agree that there is no scientific proof for the statements in the quote you gave, but that part is also not the basis for anything in the Wikipedia article. And your definition of being an "active participant" in the "controversy" is apparently that you don't believe in the conspiracy theory, which excludes all reliable sources per definition. There is nothing wrong with using that source as a reference for the text in question, which was "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories have suggested that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was demolished with explosives." and not the text you quoted above. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And you talking conspiracies again? Funny thing is, 'almost everything you can agree with'. So there you have it, a better, more notable reference about people who question 9/11 attacks. 'Spare me the ravers'. Praxidikai (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Again"? The topic is the above part about conspiracy theories, yes. Is something unclear here? And yes, I agree with what Fisk writes in that article, with one difference: He is a war correspondent, and doesn't know much about science. I know enough to know that all the question he has, are since long answered. It's sad that he is troubled by lack of knowledge, but how that would be relevant for anything discussed here is beyond me.

Do you think that is a better notable source? Should we change the above quote to a reference that calls conspiracy theorists "ravers", and whose example of a conspiracy theorist are a crazy irishman who screams and kicks chairs? How do you suggest we change the article? "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories are raving agressive lunatics who kicks chairs"?!? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't call upon scientific background and insult intelligence at the same time, it’s a bit eerie. Yes, again, you're calling people who question 9/11 attacks conspiracy theorists. Should we have a section about people who question 9/11? Where is the distinction? And what's this about you know the answers? Here, lets exercise. Praxidikai (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not insult anybodies intelligence. Your accusations are again personal. Discuss the article, not the editors. And no, I did not call people who question 9/11 attacks conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure what your last question is. What is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the objection "In particular, she is the 'the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum'." If the objection is that the author is connected to a conservative think-tank, are we to infer that liberals believe conspiracy theories and that conservatives do not? If so, that's news to me. I thought opposition to conspiracy theories was pretty much bi-partisan - and in that case both liberals and conservatives would be able to address the subject neutrally and without violating UNDO. If, however, you really mean to suggest that liberals and conspiracy theory whack-jobs are one-in-the-same, I'd like to see a reliable source for possible inclusion in the article. If you are not, then you should have no objection to this particular columnist regardless of her irrelevant political affiliation. Rklawton (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"It's not like you are going to find any peer-reviewed articles about the conspiracy theories." Peer-review is certainly not the issue here. There are numerous news articles from various well-known journals that have been published on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Many of these sources can be readily found in the sub-article. Cinnamon Stillwell is not just connected to a "conservative think-tank". She claims to be a representative of a neo-conservative group that engages in publicly attacking and smearing liberal and progressive people, with one focus being attacking everyone the group assumes to be anti-Israel, including proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda. Certainly that is not objectionable as such. Yet such sources would (a) need inline attribution (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion) and (b) are not appropriate when better sources are available. In this case, as the section is a summary of the sub-article, no sources need to be given here at all.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Journalistic independence". I note that to my surprise you partly confirm Rklawtons interpretation of your position. As a liberal I find your implications that conspiracy theories somehow are automatically liberal directly offensive. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

clarification - it wasn't my intention to interpret another editor's position so much as it was to point out a logical flaw in his reasoning. I would be quite surprised to learn that the editor actually believes liberals = conspiracy theorists. In my experience conspiracy theorists come out of the nuttier ends of both sides of the political spectrum. Thus, attempts to document conspiracy theories can easily be politically neutral regardless of the author's orientation. Rklawton (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that all proponents of alternative analyses of the September 11 attacks are liberals. And of course, attempts to document conspiracy theories can be politically neutral. However, Stillwell's opinion piece is not politically neutral, and, in particular, it is not based on journalistic independence. Journalistic independence means that you aim at convincing readers to read your texts because they believe that you are reporting accurately on events. You are buiding your reputation on the accuracy of your reporting, as news organization, such as, for example, press agencies, do. Another motivation to write texts is to disseminate arguments to push a political agenda, and there is certainly (and legitimately) demand for this type of texts, too. Because both aims are, to a significant degree, mutually exclusive, serious news outlets separate the opinion section from the news section. At Wikipedia, we aim for accuracy, so we base our content on news sources, not on opinion pieces.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If "conspiracism" (or whatever you'd call it) exist in all political variants, then Stillwells political affiliation is irrelevant. She can't push her political agenda concerning the conspiracies unless conspiracies in general are liberal, as when criticising conspiracy theories she is criticising conservatives as much as liberals. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Praxidikai

Praxidikai is attempting to disrupt the article again by removing a valid source which outlines the various "truther" theories - with sources. Since I've been editing this article, even though it's to undo vandalism and the work of conspiracy theories, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to simply indef block this special purpose account. However, if there is a consensus, I'll bring the matter up to AN/I for resolution. I feel that Praxidikai's activities are oriented toward disruption rather than contribution, and that the editor is an obvious special purpose account with editing knowledge indicative of prior editing experience under a different name. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is opinion, for that reason editors of sfg choose to place it within opinions. If someone would try to put opinion of Robert Fisk you'd probably implode if front of that monitor of yours. You should have been topic banned months ago, since you're not, I'm out of here. Praxidikai (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again: good riddance.78.55.195.16 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. I'm reading The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East right now, and I agree with almost everything, and nothing has imploded anywhere within earshot. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to bring it up and see what others say. SPA's and persistent disruption is what is expected at this article, so I'm not sure that's in itself reason to block him. He will after all most likely just create a new account and continue under another name, which is not an improvement. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't be suprised if it is Mr. Tachyonbursts again. He does have a regular schedule of such accounts. However, this shouldn't be talked about here. Try the admin board. --Tarage (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the question at hand, isn't it? Is this case worthwhile bringing up at AN/I? Rklawton (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahmidinejad says 9/11 an inside job

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to not include information within this article. If you would like to include it in the conspiracy theories article, please bring it up on the talk page for that article. Any further push here will be reported as a violation of arbitration. –Turian (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

---

According to CNN [15], the Iranian president has said that 9/11 was a staged attack by the United States. In order to give pre-text to several middle eastern wars. This is a rather notable development and should be included somewheres on this site. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He says a lot of silly things. I think quoting him here in this context would violate WP:UNDO. But maybe in the conspiracy article? Rklawton (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's conspiracy, and just because he says it doesn't mean it is a stronger argument. If anything, it weakens the argument. –Turian (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more notable as he is the first leader of a nation to suggest 9/11 was a conspiracy. I don't particularly care for all this mumbo jumbo myself but regardless I think that his statements, regardless of all the crap he says is notable on one of these 9/11 articles? Perhaps someone with more familiarity with the 9/11 topic could add it somewheres? --Kuzwa (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked over in The Holocaust article to see what they did with him. He's denied the Holocaust, too. There's no mention of Ahmidinejad in that article, either. I think we can safely follow their lead. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What they do have though is a page called Holocaust denial where there is a whole section devoted to him. Should we create a page called 9/11 revisionism and put his remarks in there? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There already is the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. That should be well enough. 78.55.195.16 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracies schmucksracies, how about we simply reference it and say it as reliable sources? Without defamation, is that possibly possible? Can we do that here? What exactly are we doing here? AFP, AP, Reuters... Praxidikai (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How is he relevant to the subject? He has no special knowledge of the event and has no technical or academic insights. RxS (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He talks about. Praxidikai (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should have a section or even a paragraph about conspiracy theories in this article. Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia. We already have an entire article devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's no point in mentioning them here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, we should ditch it and start the section about people who question 9/11 attacks. Praxidikai (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't belong. Few, if any, serious articles or documentaries about 9/11 mentions conspiracy theories. I recommend the entire section be deleted from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That argument – "no special knowledge" – is a red herring, of course. With regard to opinions, WP:Verifiability does not mean that the opinion must be that of an expert or anyone with "special knowledge". It means that the opinion must be notable. As multiple news agencies have reported on the opinion, the opinion clearly is notable. So it can be included in Wikipedia. The issue here is whether the opinion should be included in this article, or in any of the subarticles of this article, and this is a legitimate debate. Whether Ahmadinejad has any knowledge about the September 11 attacks is irrelevant for this discussion.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've seen arguments (regarding other articles) that the field of expertise of the author should be taken into account. This was in an heavily disputed articles and don't know if this argument was legit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that Cs32en suddenly has no problems in adding things to the article based on opinion. That should conclude the discussion about Stillwells opinion piece, above. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, please note that no independent source has reported on Cinnamon Stillwell's opinion. We can add information about opinions based on reliable independent sources, of course. Your argument's are not very well thought through, OpenFuture.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, and it is part of the conspiracy theories, and it's already mentioned in the relevant article. Can you explain what you think is problematic with this? If you don't this comment is just a waste of your time. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is not reliable source? The problematic thing is that sources don't use terms conspiracy or conspiracy theorists (largely pejorative terms as defined by wikipedia), the sources are noting opinion of controversial political figure in professional manner, while we have no standards whatsoever. Praxidikai (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

All it warrants is a mention in the conspiracy theories. A known enemy of the United States blaming the United States is hardly a great case for "truth". It will most definitely not go into this article. –Turian (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why but a lot of famous, infamous and prominent politicians question 9/11, I see we have a whole article on Seeking 9/11 Truth at Japan's Parliament, not to mention Francesco Cossiga or Michael Meacher or Fisk... or those patriots or fireman or whomever you will... Where do they belong, in your opinion? Praxidikai (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If they all said the Earth was flat, would you believe them? It is considered fringe for a reason. Keep them in the fringe articles. –Turian (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a red herring at all, we get to make editorial decisions like that. Unless you think anytime someone says something about 9/11 and someone prints it we can add it here. I mean, he has absolutely no connect to the event, so attempts to add his statement here seems like POV pushing, that's not what you guys are doing here is it? RxS (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's an editorial decision, that's what I have said. However, the editorial decision must be based on an assessment of the notability of the information in the context of the article's topic, not on speculation about the level of knowledge Ahmadinejad may have on 9/11.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Editorial decision, notability, context, etc. That's why I checked on the Holocaust article. He's got similar kook theories about that, too. Their editorial decision was to omit his statements and challenges, and I'm sure they gave it due consideration. Combine this with my own doubts about the merits of including his statements here, and I'm very much in favor of leaving it out of this article. However, I'm very much in favor of adding his name to the list of "prominent" people who also believe in one or more fringe theories (if it isn't there already) in whatever article contains a detailed accounting of such things. Rklawton (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And as someone with zero connection to the article's subject, there's little context to bring notability to his comments. RxS (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We are reporting the reaction of the government of Iraq (at the time), which also has no substantial connection to the event of 9/11 itself. The relevant question is whether there is a connection to the event including its context, consequences, public reception etc., and much of the article's content is based on that rationale. What we need to discuss is notability in the context of the article's topic, not some kind of "connection". On the substance of the question at hand: I believe that we should include Ahmadinejad's statements if they are taken up by other notable people, e.g. if Western politicians attack Ahmadinejad for his statement. At the moment, the statements are maybe not notable enough to be included. Based on that threshold for notability, there is, however, a lot of stuff in the article that doesn't need to be there.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The government of Iraq (at the time) was tightly connected to the mainstream narrative of the attacks. Turns out it was mistaken and idiotic, but there's a firm context there. There's no Iranian context to the attacks at all. RxS (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't object to the inclusion of the reaction of Iraq's government in the article. Iraq's government had no substantive connection, and no expert knowledge about 9/11, so neither is necessary for inclusion in the article, obviously. Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and for this reason we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point. As I said above, notability in the context of the article's topic is the relevant issue.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain how it's relevant for the article that a undemocratic and unpopular leader in a country the experiences revolts spreads lies about the US government in an effort to increase his support? What exactly does this have to do with this article? Or are you claiming Ahmidinejad *has* inside knowledge, and that he is an authoritative source on the topic, and that he in fact isn't saying it to gain support, but because he is an honest and good person feels that the world needs to know the truth? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Say, 'Saren', why have you closed this discussion so abruptly? Enforcement of POV by a notorious group of editors is not a consensus. You've ignored our norms and practices and misused your privileges. Praxidikai (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop you POV pushing before I report you for your violation of arbitration. Multiple editors have told you to stop. Now stop. –Turian (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree - enough already. Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors riding the monorail… There is a distinction between 9/11 conspiracy theories and people who question 9/11 attacks. Patriots question, engineers and architects question, Texas electorate questions, world wide public questions… and you call all of them conspiracy theorists? While you speak about POV pushing? The conspiracy theory is dead. You were saying? Praxidikai (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant tangent. Nobody has claimed there isn't a difference. Nothing you have said is touched upon by that difference. If you have issues with the article, state them, factually, and suggest improvements. Everything else must by now be seen as intentional disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)