Talk:September 11 attacks

Template:FAOL An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

---

...believes or facts?

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

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

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

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

first paragraph

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

All other explanations are fringe theories with very little support. Giving any credence to the, especially in the lead paragraph leads to undue weight problems. These explanations are, instead, linked in the articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. You will also find that they, too, are less than partial to such theories. --Haemo 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're right, I didn't see the links to the two articles you provided a link to, although I still think it is worth mentioning in the first paragraph that the Islamic terrorist theory isn't certainly 100% true.--Dominik92 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Very few things are 100% certainly true -- however, in the interests of encyclopedia merit, we explain the one which has a super-majority of support from experts, and leave the speculation and less-popular theories for more indepth analysis. Think of it like this; if someone said to Joe Everyman "what happened on 9/11", he'd say "Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC and the Pentagon". The rest is a footnote; that's what we're trying to get at here. --Haemo 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that remains of the hijackers were found at all three locations?

• Remains of 2 Sept. 11 hijackers identified - at Ground Zero
• Remains Of 9 Sept. 11 Hijackers Held - at the Pentagon and Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville. This includes the remains of two brothers at the Pentagon -- Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.
• About half of New York remains have been identified - more about the DNA identification process, mentions that remains of 3 hijackers have been found at Ground Zero.
• Hallowed Ground - article about Wally Miller, the local coroner in Somerset County, Pennsylvania

There will always be some coincidences with events like these, but the evidence is nearly 100% consistent with the mainstream account. No reason to give any additional undue weight to fringe theories in the main article. --Aude (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, as long as the article provides a link to the controversies and similar it's fine.--Dominik92 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't phrases like "thought to be" or "most evidence sugguests" be used more? Both sides of the argument would be happy.

That would kind of be like "Pearl Harbor was 'thought to be' bombed by the Japanese on..."... Gtadoc 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The theory that the hijackers were not on the planes is not widely held in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The universal view in this minority group is that responsibility for the attacks lies with the US Government. How about (as a third paragraph in the opening): "Although official investigations placed responsibility for the attacks solely with Al-Quaida, there is a minority of people who believe that the US Government are responsible." Corleonebrother 19:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a "conspiracy theories need more weight" suggestion that could actually make sense. Still, I think that would still give too much weight to it. It's handled ably in the conspiracy section and articles. An example I used before is petroleum - A minority of people think that it has an abiogenic origin, and we mention that in the petroleum article - but not in the lead. It would also, I think, give undue weight to the 9/11 Truth Movement, as if they are the only group of people who believe this. --Golbez 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The petroleum article lists abiogenic theory as if it is a possibility, but just not a widely-held belief. Using the petroleum article as an example then, we should split the Responsibility section of this article into two - first the 'official/mainstream theory,' then the 'inside-job theory,' noting that the latter is not the widely-held belief. Corleonebrother 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The sum total of the mention of abiogenic origin is a small section linking to a larger sub-article. The sum total of our mention of conspiracy theories is a small section, linking to a larger sub-article. This is how it should be, or else we fall into problems of undue weight. --Haemo 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the size of the section, just its placement within the article. The 'reaction' section contains the immediate reaction of various groups. I think its unfair to suggest the alternative views are just part of the reactions (after all, they have grown in prevalence over the years). The more natural place would be under 'Responsibility' since that is what the issue is about and currently the Responsibility section presents that it is Al Quaida without question. Corleonebrother 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Conspiracy theories emerged as a reaction to the events. While many of the theories involve who was responsible, they do not all do so. By a similar token, not all significant conspiracy theories deal directly with responsibility; for instance, many deal with negligence or prior knowledge of the attacks, or with specific details of the attacks. It's fair, I think, to say they were a reaction to the attacks, and it really only makes sense for the article to be in that section, given the diverse views expressed in it. --Haemo 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Corleonebrother that the article would improve by splitting the Responsibility section into two parts. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

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

Does the FAQ really help there? do people actually read it? or do they still get the same questions time and again? --Aude (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask them! --Haemo 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I share Aude's concern, but I think that if we write an FAQ then we can dismiss the endless questions by responding, "Read the FAQ." I think that writing an FAQ is an awesome idea. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea. Some organization to the archives, perhaps in the form of a faq as suggested, would make it easier to see what are the reasons for all the conclusions regarding the outcomes of this article. Place some note at the top of the page recommending people read the faq before posing new questions. Kevin77v 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They seem to agree with this idea, in general, and have found it to be useful. I guess the hard part will be finding some definitive discussions in the archives to put in it. Perhaps, if anyone can remember them off, they could link them below? --Haemo 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to pitch in, you can check out my current revision here: User:Haemo/Examples. Feel free to edit it. --Haemo 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Osama bin laden

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

The observation desk opened at 9:30 a.m., so there were no tourists. However, some employees were likely there. --Aude (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for not being on topic, i didn't know where else to ask this question.

Off topic rant removed

diff

re: 9/11 was executed prophetically

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

NPOV guideline violation / and proposal to move forward

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

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

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

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

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

Comment How many structural engineers I can name is not relevant; it suffices to name any prominent adherents to make the minority view worth describing in the article. Your opinion is that we should treat the minority views in sub-articles only, AND refer to those articles as less as possible. I disagree with both.
I am not really into the subject, but I can point you to a physics professor, Steven Jones, previously not controversial; and the leading demolitions expert in the Netherlands, when interviewed on TV, immediately assumed controlled demolition from the sight of the WTC7-collapse. I do not know about the sound. But again, I'm not debating whether these people are right or wrong, I am just debating the allocation of space. And we should definitely mention these views proportionally in the article, or else we need to throw-away or overhaul our guidelines on NPOV. — Xiutwel (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do mention those views in this article, in an appropriate amount of detail per WP:SUMMARY and link to the subarticle. There are numerous articles about various aspects of the attacks, but we can only have small sections about some of these aspects in the main article (e.g. only two sentences about the 9/11 Commission, short section on rescue and recovery, etc). Given that those conspiracy theory views are by and large rejected by reliable sources (with good fact checking), there is no reason to give them undue weight here. The section we have suffices and is consistent with how we handle subarticles. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Aude. There are plenty of other articles which document conspiracy theories and other notions regarding this event.MONGO 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Most of the dissenting "viewpoints" are demonstrably incorrect. Peter Grey 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, uh, who wants to help out on the FAQ, so we can just say "See the FAQ" ;) --Haemo 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, I feel a FAQ would be more useful when there is consensus. Consensus is defined as: editors may still disagree, but all abide by a compromise which best serves everybody's needs. There is, to my knowledge, no such compromise. In stead there is a majority viewpoint, defended succesfully by means of edit warring, not by debate^{(Editors who have debated well, excluded ofcourse)}. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll have to coin the phrase "there is no debating with the insane." The only ones who edit war are you and the minority. The majority are quite satisfied with this article. --Tarage 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of evidence of Osama/hijackers doing 9/11

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

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

He denied it, before he accepted it. Kind of like John Kerry's voting record. As for "according to the CIA" you're making a logical fallacy. Just because I did not go to the store today does not mean I am incapable of it. --Golbez 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "according to the CIA" is a logical fallacy: Appeal to authority, but so is "according to mainstream accounts", "according to the official report" etc. How about "it makes no sense to state what happened on 9/11 because we don't even know what aircraft hit the WTC or the Pentagon". There is no reliable source that is capable of stating authoritatively what happened on 9/11. Pretty funny that 'the believable version' is that a fireball hot enough to melt steel and pulverise concrete didn't even singe the passport that one of the hijackers was conveniently carrying (on an interstate flight within the US), and it landed, completely intact on top of a pile of rubble. "I call shenanigans!" User:Pedant 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And I call yet another conspiricy pusher who needs to read the archives to understand we have been over this over and over and over and over and over again, and that unless Pedant can read through the entirity of the logs, and STILL come up with something new, this debate is dead. --Tarage 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The towers collapsed due to core failing, sign of controlled demolition with the use of Thermate (Thermite with extras to improve effect) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA. --otester 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Concidering that the core was hit BY the planes, that hypothisis is very unbelievable. That and posting something from youtube to back up your point is laughable. --Tarage 13:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what your saying is that only a small, minuscule part of the core has to failure for the building to fall at free-fall speed and everything turns into dust, now that's "laughable". --otester 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Way to oversimplify. A LARGE chunk of the central collum, where the elevators and stairs were, was taken out by both jets. This not only weakened the building substantially, but prevented everyone above the impact point from escaping. The buildings didn't free-fall, they stood for quite a while concidering the intense heat of the fire and the critical structural failures, before pancaking down. And if you seriously believe that the only debree was dust, you are more insane that I would have pegged. Next time you want to question the official(and true) explination, don't oversimplify to the point where I can so easly pick appart your argument till it is nothing but 'dust', as you put it. --Tarage 08:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that here in the Netherlands we have Americans (I hope they are not fleeing their own country yet) who bear witness that they were in the towers, heard and saw explosions well before the collapse. It must be very frustrating for them to see even wikipedia distorting the facts. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Explosions? Perhaps from the fire burning inside the building? The planes hitting the building? Flamible things do tend to explode. Random explosions do little to advance the idea that this was a planned demolition. Nice try though. As for distorting the facts, I know quite a few 9/11 victim families who are more than a little upset knowing that people like you continue to try to defame this tragic event. Think about them once in a while please, instead of just your heavy left leaning ideals. --Tarage 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Venezuelans keep fleeing theirs and coming to the U.S. and you might see a lot more of them soon if you haven't already, especially those with experience in tulip farming, windmill repair and dike construction. The U.S. sucks so bad that it has the highest rate of illegal immigrants of any country. Go figure.--Beguiled 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Venezuelans of Dutch origine? — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And this has what to do with this article? --Tarage 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All that is clear to me is that there are lacks of evidences on both sides..Mochool

(deindent) At this point, I would just like to remind everyone that this is not a general forum for discussion. Please focus your comments on the article. --Haemo 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

"The buildings didn't free-fall, they stood for quite a while concidering the intense heat of the fire and the critical structural failures" - The Fires were not hot enough to even weaken the structure, let alone make the building collapse. Steel stands up to 1517°C before it starts to melt (also take note there was that foam stuff that also protects the structure), jet fuel fires burn about 825°C although this cannot be sustained for very long (and temperature will decrease as jet fuel is burnt up), a large volume of the jet fuel burned outside the building (remember the fireball?) so not much jet fuel left to keep the fires at 825°C for long. The fires in the trade centers (most visibly noticed on the South Tower) after the first impact and fireball burned far less than 800°C due to oxygen-stavation, as shown by the dark smoke. Even if the steel still somehow managed to weaken and sag slightly, there is still no reason for the towers to suddenly fall at free-fall speed and end up as dust and heavily sandwiched steel. --otester 02:42, 8th August 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment is not only idiotic, it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of any basic physics or engineering principles. To begin with, the jet fuel was not the only substance burning inside the trade center. Secondly, the impact itself from the jets more than likely caused severe structural damage to the core of the buildings. Everyone saw the explosion come out the other side of the building after the jet hit. That means it probably took out a large part of the interior. It would not have taken much additional heat to further weaken already damaged steel to the point of collapse. Third, the collapse was almost at free-fall speed because it collapsed one floor at a time the whole way down. With all the weight on top collapsing the building one floor at a time, it's going to fall pretty damn fast. In addition, the comment above about the passport proves nothing. Everyone knows stories about tornados that wipe out a whole town and leave one building standing and all kinds of other odd happenings. It is perfectly possible for a passport to survive the explosion unscathed. This is exactly why the conspiracy theories get so little creedence both here and in the mainstream media. All your ideas are so wacky and kooky that anyone with any little bit of scientific reasoning has no choice but to laugh at them. Think for one second about how difficult it would have been for demolition explosives to be placed, and how long it would take, and mysteriously no one saw them. You people are just as bad as the wackos who say we never went to the moon. And as if your ignorance wasn't enough, you are also trampling on the graves of the innocent people and the rescue workers who died that day. Primium mobile 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I would just like to remind everyone that this is not a forum for discussion of the article's topic, and to always stay cool. --Haemo 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete this link again please. http://911blogger.com/node/10025 --otester 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Baseless dismissal of conspiracy

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

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

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

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

That's because we have an entire page devoted to them. --Haemo 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And this paragrpah dismisses all of them without substantial sources. A gx7 07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the conspiricy theories are all without substantial sources. --Tarage 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demolition. This article is as one-sided as the Warren Report. User:Pedant 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Cottingley Fairies really looked like fairies to Arthur Conan Doyle; another man with no experience evaluating evidence such as that. --Haemo 04:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Name one person who has (prior to 9-11-2001) experience in investigating the collapse of a burning steel-framed high-rise building? NYC Firefighters said they heard explosions and secondary explosions, and that it looked like a controlled demolition. User:Pedant 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Controlled demolition hypothesis; you'll see that qualified experts disagree. --Haemo 05:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct on one point. We should just drop the word 'mainstream'. It's unnecessary. --Tbeatty 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And essentially meaningless. It only serves to introduce a negative connotation to anything contradicting 'mainstream' accounts or reports or what-have-you. User:Pedant 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

HOWEVER, replacing it with something like A gx7 did, 'most' is NOT a helpful improvement. I'm for leaving it as it is, but if you want to make it even more damning to your 'cause', be my guest. --Tarage 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

In the mainstream there is not controversy about what happened. This does not mean anything since mainstream can be wrong but is the way it is.--Igor21 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be arguing who's right, just provide a ^NPOV fair, proportional and unbiased account of different viewpoints. So the article should mention the main "conspiracy" claims. The conspiracy viewpoint is notable, and deserves fair treatment. Even if you disagree. As it is now, the article is canvassing the government viewpoint - which may or may not be true - and is ignoring the view of prominent critics like former ministers Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow. So, let's rewrite the article. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is based on facts, not fantasies by a bunch of fruitloops.--Beguiled 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Beguiled, you seem irritated? What would upset you the most? (a) the possibility of 911 being an inside job?, or (b) people thinking that 911 was an inside job when in reality the government was completely innocent?, or (c) wikipedia mentioning in this article on September 11, that people like Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow do in fact exist? Thanks — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

d) That in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory fact, some people still hold on to their facile belief that it wasn't a plane, or it was controlled demolition, or what not. Don't turn this into "inside job"; this is purely about the facts that the towers collapsed because planes crashed into them. You haven't been trying to assign motive; you've been trying to refute this fundamental fact. --Golbez 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

e) That editors come to Wikipedia solely to push a POV that derives completely from a politically motivated agenda with a cynical disregard for the truth. That's what irritates me...RxS 18:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ad d) and e):
Thank you for sharing this. From your answers, Golbez and RxS, I sense you are irritated when politics is being mixed with scientific facts? I strongly agree that facts should not be cherry-picked or distorted to serve an agenda. (Before you read on, would you confirm to me whether we share the same ground here? #1)
Second, in stead of facts, I would prefer to talk about "observables". The final question being, we can all agree: "did the government in any way mean any harm?"
In my opinion, people holding different views on the answer to this question are still acknowledging the same observables. It's the interpretation of the observables which differs. How could different people being interpreting the same observables so differently? (Can you agree with me so far? #2 — It's important for me to know, I want to understand your angle in this.)
Well, firstly I must assume that researchers coming from either view have made quite a few mistakes interpreting some observables. Secondly, from different views there are bound to be a few people who willingly distort truth, but let's assume that most of the people involved are acting on good faith. I then assume that whenever it is pointed out that there is an inconsistency in story "A", advocates of story "B" will take that as further proof for their story. And vice versa. If and when I assume good faith, there can be no doubt that the same observables obviously can be interpreted by reasonably intelligent people in two completely different ways. Since, I believe, only one answer can ultimately be correct, this leaves me two possibilities: either there exist too few observables yet to answer the question of complicity, or there do exist enough observables but at least one of these views is failing to take into account all the observables in the proper manner. (In fact, these together form 3 possibilities: inconclusive, not guilty, guilty.) From what you have written, you are advocating the "not guilty" option. (Do you agree with my reasoning so far? #3)
You stated you are absolutely convinced that fundamental facts indicate that the collapses were sponaneous; from this you conclude there is no indication of government complicity. Now I want to know how you feel when you read about other views, because I want to work in harmony on wikipedia; is it insulting for you to read others claiming there could be any government complicity? My question again: I assume you are also upset whenever such statements are uttered outside of wikipedia, or is the "problem" confined to such statements on wikipedia? #4
Conversely, I felt hurt when I read your writing "politically motivated agenda", because I'm convinced that 99,99% of editors are working in honesty and good faith, as I am, and I need us to trust eachothers "good faith" intentions in order to work harmoniously on wikipedia. I trust you are acting on good faith (well, 99,999999% that is, and my girlfriend trusts you 100%).
I am looking forward to your response! — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally I don't respond to conspiracy theorists here because there's no point, but you're so gosh darn polite about it. 1) My problem is not that politics are mixed with scientific facts; it's that people have a poor understanding of scientific facts. For example, folks like you mention that witnesses "heard explosions", and immediately assume that means a bomb. No; an explosion is simply a forceful expulsion of air, and something sounding like it could also be caused by a large slab falling onto the ground, or bits of tower trickling down the inside of a destroyed elevator shaft. "heard an explosion" is in no way itself evidence of explosives. Yet that would be the only way to repeatedly bring up the "heard an explosion" thing - to try to convince others of the possibility that explosives were used. But there is no evidence whatsoever of this.

2) Their interpretation of the observables is incorrect, there's no reason to give equal bearing to them.

3) There are researchers who believe the controlled demolition theory. There are also researchers who believe oil has an abiogenic origin. But we don't give those folks equal ground on any petroleum article except the one about their theory, because the overwhelming consensus in their own community is that they are wrong. The conspiracy theories have exactly as much weight on this article as they deserve.

4) I never said the collapses were spontaneous. They were caused by massive damage to the supporting walls and central core by a large winged missile carrying a large incendiary load. I never said I conclude because of this that there was no government complicity. I don't care if there was government complicity or not, when discussing the actual events of the day. That's why I resist your attempt to change the subject.

5) I'm not upset when statements such as this are uttered outside of Wikipedia because I can ably refute them. It's the difference between a forum-style communication with random people like this, and face-to-face communication with people that I generally know and respect, but have gone astray. This mode of communication is far more frustrating and ultimately fruitless, considering that we always have another theorist du jour ready to pick up where the last one left off. That's why I've generally stopped trying here. --Golbez 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources are saying, which include sources with good fact-checking such as peer-reviewed scientific journals especially [1] [2], as well as news media such as the New York Times which happen to agree with what NIST says [3]. All these sources overwhelmingly agree about what happened. Above you mention two foreign ministers. Meacher, a Labour Party MP in the UK, is one of 198 listed in Category:Labour_MPs_(UK). 1 MP out of 198. No need ot give any more weight to conspiracy theories. The status quo more than satisfies WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aude, now you're leaping ahead to your conclusions, are you perhaps in a hurry and wanting to end this debate soon? I'm anxious to know your answers as well to the four questions that xiutwel is raising (numbered #1 to #4). How would it be for you to answer these questions? My answers are:
ad #1 I agree that facts should not be mingled with feelings/judgements/opninons/believes/evaluations etc.
ad #2 Studying the subject 9/11, I was suprised to learn so many different interpretations are made also by reliable persons[4];
ad #3 I agree this discussion is about 'guilty' or 'not guilty' or 'inconclusive'. Personally I think that so called 'agreed upon reliable sources' are to my opinion not always reliable/trustworthy, because people get paid to do their jobs and are fired when they do not do their job according to the will of their supervisors. Sadly I've seen many examples of people in so-called places of authority that have been fired once they openly had a different opinion than mainstream^{Arpad Pusztai; Steve Wilson and Jane Akre}. And on the other side I've seen vast amounts of work done well by people entirely voluntary (i.e. not paid. Why should they do the effort? They must be genuinely concerned.^{Dylan Avery}) So this effect could bias the reliable sources and this puts things in perspective.
ad #4 It does upset me that governments advocate more and stronger social control over people based on the so-called fact that terrorists were responsible for the attacks. Instead of us people trusting eachother more we are directed by our governments to trust each other less. I see no reason to diminish my trust in my neighbours. Vanja2 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aude, I would like it if you would respond to Vanja2's queries; would you be willing? My response to you is: 1 out of 198 is not much, but he is not any MP, he was minister for the environment for years. Surely a person in such a position would not risk being ridiculed lightly? I continue my quest for consensus at #Spread of "inside job" suspicions? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to use the Socratic Method here:

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

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

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

Conspiracy link should not be at top

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

Thanks; someone had hidden that little piece of vandalism in a template, so it didn't show up on my watchlist. --Golbez 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Golbez, for the quick fix to A gx7's weaselwords. I was attempting to fix them myself when you beat me to it. =) --Tarage 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words? The word "mainstream" is a weasel word; it's very vague and subjective. By adding the phrase "most of" to mainstream, I was merely removing generalisation from the sentence. Those in the "mainstream" who do consider the tragedy a conspiracy may be a minority but they should be acknowledged. A gx7 13:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a broken record. They ARE acknowledged in their own page. Please stop trying to give undue weight to such theories. --Tarage 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Elementary my dear Watson

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

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

Actual editing - "Memorials" section

Image A

Image B

America's Heroes Memorial

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

Excellent work. Possibly, the section could stand to be shorter with details in the subarticle. But, the subarticle is a mess now and is in serious need of work. Things to note in the section and/or subarticle (1) there's a temporary Flight 93 memorial [Added] (2) last September, the Tribute WTC 9/11 Visitor Center opened. [5] The center includes exhibits, and they organize guided tours (3) The WTC Memorial Foundation organized the "9/11 and the American Landscape: Photographs by Jonathan Hyman" exhibition in 7 World Trade Center last September/October. [6] (4) I don't have a source for it right now, but a lot of progress has been made in construction of the outdoor memorial at the Pentagon. I don't think it's officially scheduled to be complete until next year, but think it will be finished sooner. It's not easy to get a photo of the memorial construction, but maybe. I have uploaded a couple more photos for the subarticle, but I'm fine with using the America's Heroes Memorial photo here. --Aude (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Flight 93 temporary memorial
• 
  Tribute WTC 9/11 Visitor Center

To give the respect to the victims, survivors and to the significance, that is increasing with the past of time, we need to add a gallery to this article, in which it can be "portrayed", the different memorials, all of them are very important and deserve to be mentioned and their picture shown in this page. John Manuel-02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Any gallery would be on the September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services subpage, not this one. The image you keep re-adding is not exactly appropriate for this page -- it's of a minor, non-permanent memorial which is not mentioned in the article. This page already has too many pictures, and three in that small space is too many. I know you like the image, because you took it, and it's a nice picture, but this isn't the right place for it. --Haemo 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not only that is nice, it is substantial because shows where once the tower were. Those flags and every single item belongs to that catastrophe. Probably, you sought this from TV, I was there, right in Manhattan and I experienced and lost friends who had children which I played with in the park. The photo, means the whole a lot for many people. I observe that you has put another photo, it is OK. The section is about "Memorials" and this photo reminds the reader exactly of the location of the towers. We are in disagreement at this point. It is OK too. Your POV is respected, it doesn't mean that we should follow it. I suggest to cool it off for a while and then comeback to this point. If the article has "too much" photos then as in the WP:MOS (Which it doesn't explicitly states how much is too much) a gallery is recommended. Another photo that can be included is this:

Let us respect the significance of this horrendous episode in our history by continue working together in spite of our disagreements.

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

The point is that we don't need more photos of memorials. There is an entire article about 9/11 memorials. You like your photo -- that is nice. It's a very good photograph. However, it is of a minor, temporary memorial which is not discussed in the article, and so it should not be here. Moreover, yours reasons for keeping this image are silly -- "it has many objects from the attacks", "it's in the Jersey Park", and "it shows where the towers were". Well, that's super, but the other images already do that -- "Tribute in Light", a major memorial which has its own article, is shot from the Jersery shore and shows were the towers were. I added a picture which is specifically discussed in the article, and has its own subpage. Yours is not discussed, and is too minor to even have its own page. There's no reason to keep this minor memorial here. We are not adding a gallery for 9/11 memorials on the page about the 9/11 attacks. We are also not adding huge pictures of plaques about 9/11 that are not discussed either. These are not appropriate for this page, and should be moved to a sub-page. --Haemo 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, thank you for explaining your reasons, it is fine to disagree; however, now I have a little problem, with your qualification of my reasons with adjectives, like "silly". If you felt happy, alright. Go ahead. Do you think that knowing and experiencing the pain of the disappearance of one of my friends who left his two children and wife alone forever, it is also "silly"? Now, about your temporal statement. No matter who long will pass this will remain in my soul, I have never cope nor I will be able to. The fact is that from New Jersey, you can see directly whereas other times were the towers. It has more to do with the location than with the memorial. That is why the mayor understood the meaning of the memorial. It was, is and will be simply the view. You and nobody will change that. The view is explicit, see again the photo of the plaque and you will perhaps understand why that view will be forever in our memories. At least of those who experienced at first hand the horrible event. The towers were there from any other vantage point you can see it so clearly and so directly, my fellow wikipedian. You probably will need to excuse me, because incidentally, for me this is not silly at all. It is a strong remembrance not only of that event but the responsibilities ahead and the almost complete change of the world order. Now, you seem a little obsessed with this, as I suggested to you let the time flow; there are other issues to improve in Wikipedia I am sure you know. Thank you again for your response but I disagree with you, with my cognitive and emotional will. Have an enjoyable editing time. -01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem a little bit too emotionally invested in this to edit an encyclopedia article about this -- perhaps you should try contributing to some of the memorial Wikis that exist online. I can't say anything about your personal pain, your memories, or what you feel about the events. However, from an encyclopedic perspective, they're not exactly relevant here. Wikipedia is not a memorial; your reasons for keeping this image might be very important to you, but from an encyclopedic perspective they are not appropriate or productive. --Haemo 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is according to Haemo's views, correct? I ask you for waiting but you couldn't do this. Why can't you? because you are emotionally invested truly in this too. Thats is why you recurrently come here, the other case is because you have other motives rather than contribute to this encyclopedia, I challenge you as you have done above, to go to other wikis or other pages and leave this up to other users. I bet you cannot because you are too involved on this subject for some reason. I tell you what you could do, go edit some art articles. It will give you a fresh start. However if you want to state here then do not judge anybody's motivations. Are you an overseer? Judge? Well in here you are an editor? Let go to your peer-review. You will learn eventually to do this in here. I promise. John Manuel-13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I took out a photo of a memorial which is minor, and not talked about at all, and replaced it with a photo of an important memorial, which has its own subpage, and is discussed in the article. The reasons for the replacement should be clear. --Haemo 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PD (Real reason: because the photo of your friend Aude is the best one because is the photo of your friend and that is all, Haemo) John Manuel-"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, now we are communicating. I hope I didn't sound incivil just because, the diffs show the actions that have been done in regard to the photos and the reasons behind. I didn't care too much, but what really called my attention is when I sought the section and I understood its need to be improved. Suddenly, i put innocently a picture and you are seeing the positive results. For Aude and with respect this is WP:POINT, WP:Consensus and also Consensus, important to see is the WP:COI and evenly WP:NPA if what you really want is to follow the WP:CV therefore, it is good idea to visit and study WP:WOTTA or WP:ARGH!, well if you want to be really nice. Therefore, I have nothing more to do in here over this issue, but to respect your views. Now, about John's statements, unfortunately, I have to clarify the following, giving that I do understand his explanation of his purpose. This country is great because ideas, yes some of them probably weren't so great for some people at the beginning, but innovation is our trademark, not because we want to steal ideas this from others, but because as a nation we have been blessed by individuals who were bold enough to have ideas of their own and acted upon them in the first place and with good will [most of the times], and not all are success histories or enjoyed popularity. The only terrible ideas that I happened to know about in my life is those events that I have experienced in person or through the press. Like the plot whose aftermath is described on this article, which was wisely coined, "beyond all imagination". That is a terrible idea, it is beyond our morals, we cannot even imagine to do such a thing. Now, I know what you meant, John, you didn't like the idea and it is OK. Besides, I know how bold is Mongo so, in this case I need to respect both his long-term commitment to the project and his dedication and significant input in his comments and actions. Lets continue looking for ways to exchange all kind of ideas, and making sure that anything goes too easy out "there" because of "group thinking" feelings, but because is the more pragmatic way and for such needs to be implemented for obtaining excellence. Our time is demanding this from all us, the demand appears to be very granular in nature and should be observed at all the times. There is little room for mistakes now. Simpler yes, simplistic is is not the way. Well, that is my take from this interaction, I am sure we would have other opportunities not to quantify or qualify subjectively, but to ponder heavily on the issues at hand. Remember, Galileo syndrome, well, Giordano Bruno's case was far worse. The danger is in our "tribal perceptions" and how we use this "to belong", to survive and to obtain the power of feeling alright. I remain an individual respecting social contracts, my security rest perhaps in my "terrible ideas". Well fellows, until the next issue in which we will be again pondering what is best for the readers of Wikipedia, which in turn should be good for Wikipedia itself. John Manuel-00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how you believed that claiming the "real reason" that I added the photo -- which is widely supported -- was because Aude is my "friend" is in any way civil. I don't know Aude. I've never talked to Aude before. From what I've seen, I think he's a good editor, but your assertion is totally groundless and shows a serious lack of good faith.

This perhaps belong to the section above, exactly "friend" in quotes, you did interact in this section and in the FAQ's section that you initiated in this page. Period. John Manuel-18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you are trying to improve this page, but, as everyone has mentioned, your image is not appropriate for this page. I understand this is an emotional issue for you, and so your excesses in this instance can be forgiven. However, you need to understand this simple fact -- the picture you have added is of a minor memorial which is not discussed in the article. The picture which has been widely supported on this talk page is of a major memorial which is specifically discussed in this article. That is why the Flight 93 image is included, and not yours -- not because I'm emotional about this (I'm Canadian, and so was thousands of miles away), and not because Aude is my friend or some other fiction. It's simply a matter of having pictures that reflect the content on the page, and not just because it's an image you took, which has some emotional meaning to you. --Haemo 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, the person who states and give time to his or her hands to write that he or she has not been somehow affected by 9/11, I have aaaaaa little probleeem with. Those who come to this page to contribute are emotionally affected, it doesn't mean that we are not able of reasoning or act objectively, far from truth. I suggest you to read Albert Ellis and his Rational-Emotional-Cognitive therapy or REBT for understanding this much better than you do at the present time. So you could stop about that argument altogether. Nobody in here has brought nationalities or believes or age or maturity, only you by mentioning that you are Canadian. With all my due respect, I care less if you are from any other country, my point is that you have acted without empathy or concern towards other people's pain or editions/contributions/efforts/POVS and imposing your arguments. You started by reverting or deleting the photo without outreaching or searching for any consensus within an article that by its natures had had editor and tense interactions. You did this by stating first that the photo was too big. I changed the size asking you politely to come here and talk to reach consensus, you did your post and all the same you reverted the article arguing about minor and mayors memorials and placed Aude's photo in the same location that I put the photo in question; incidentally, right after Aude replied positively to your first post in this section. I added that controverted photo without moving Aude's photo, and then you went to say too many photos and took out the photo and place Aude's photo exactly in the place that I did. It just doesn't fit well. Does it? Look I can take the time and put the summaries of the diffs whereby which you labeled you actions. In one diff covertly you even not mentioned the removal of the Photo. So you are not "thousands of miles away", you are "zillions of miles away" off the subject: We do things in consensus, you didn't at first and I forced you somehow to do it. you now are coming and talk. I have acted with good intentions and good will. I have mentioned the evidence from my time analysis based upon an intervention-interaction scrutinies that have reveled close interactions. Over this subject not only you but Aude and others have commented and collaborated and the section looks better as result. In addition, Aude did something that you didn't she offered an honest way out, a resolution. So if I invested my time to explain you this clearly, I have bad faith? You also write about the meaning of the photo for me and something about that I took the photo. Aude took his/her photo too, I am sure that s/he did it because for Aude that memorial means something especial. Stop using that Ad hominem arguments, just it is saying something of your understanding in here about human relations and development. For me the issue has reached its climax and resolution, i.e., a consensus have been reached, other users have contributed to it and has exposed their ideas most of which are reasonable. Lastly, your semantic usage of "widely", or "all people". You see five users are hardly a wide audience, or participation. Certainly five users can not represent the majority, and again even the majority cannot and sometimes does not represent or understand the greatest good. You know something, I glad that the photo is not in here, I don't know about Aude, but I felt as if I were getting into a WP:COI, also I don't think so as the time passes, there are more and more reasons, to remember this awful event with perspective. I achieved what I wanted, that you participated first in the debate, in the conversation. I hope you have learned this from this interaction, and so I have fulfilled my real intention. Respect for every Edition and for all contributors, that have meant well and good intentions, will and faith. Now, I won't comeback here for this photo-issue ever, and to this article for editing anything for a period of 30 days at least. In reference, to our conversation about this topic, for me has ended. I don't want to read it anymore. In the future, I am sure we perhaps will join again in some another difference or edition, without needing to assert Ad hominem arguments. Have a nice editing time. Shalom. John Manuel-18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you feel about me, I think we can just drop. I'm sorry you feel that an editing dispute is a personal attack, or in any way insensitive; however, at this point it's a fait accompli -- the section has been re-written, and even two pictures would be too many. I feel that the issue can be dropped safely, because I really, really do not want to get into massive text wars over an issue that has no relevance to the article anymore. --Haemo 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More editing -- the "Motive" section

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

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

I can't look at this in-depth right now and will be on Wikipedia in limited amounts of time in the next 2-3 weeks, but some things that stand out:

• The first sentence "According to U.S. government sources,..." is not good wording, since governments of other countries, journalists, and other experts agree with the statement. You might be interested in reading what the U.K. government has to say - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3682.asp. And the government of Germany, with the Hamburg trials there, has done a lot of investigation into the attacks, as has Spain. I have seen material written in German, but don't have time to search for again it now. And then there are non-government sources such as Al Jazeera, specifically Yosri Fouda who interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh in 2002. [7]
• Also, I think the paragraph "The motives of al-Qaeda have also been extensively analyzed..." is unnecessary.
• As for other experts, I haven't read Jason Burke's book. I can get a copy and look at it. The reference to Michael Scott Doran is to a book, which is a compilation of articles in Foreign Affairs. The one by Doran is here, but only a preview. I'll try to get a copy of this, in order to verify this. Foreign Affairs is generally a quality source.
• Some of the details may be better suited for the subarticle - Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. Like the memorial subarticle, this page needs attention.

--Aude (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This could definitely still do with a trim. I've re-written the first line to simply just be definite -- we don't really need to qualify it, since other views are extremely fringe. I disagree with your feels about the "extensively analyzed" paragraph -- it introduces the topic of the analysis of motives, beyond what are, essentially, statements by the primary actors and introduces the "popular" view. Definitely needs to improve -- this article has really slipped since it was a featured article. --Haemo 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

However, the version I wrote already says the following:

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

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

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

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

Statements by others

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, we specifically explain that the explanations of Al Qaeda were supported by the 9/11 report. Why does it matter if an FBI agent says the same thing? I mean, right now, the article says basically "al-Qaeda claims that its motives are X, Y and Z, as supported by the 9/11 Commission report". You want to add in a new section that makes it say "al-Qaeda claims that its motives are X, Y and Z, as supported by the 9/11 Commission report. Also, an FBI agent who testified before the guys who made the 9/11 Commission report also says their motives are X, Y and Z." What's the point? As I said, redundant -- the material which was poorly sourced referred to another part of the edit. --Haemo 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tel555 has been blocked for WP:3RR. This article is on my watch list, so I blocked. The 4th revert was after the warning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question the neutrality of this article.

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

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

Questioned previously and overwhelmingly rejected. I suppose you can bring it up again, if you want to. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The operative word in WP:NPOV is "signifigant". Please read about undue weight to understand why there is only a small mention on this page, and then an entire article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Haemo 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

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

CNN video - Old, old story. Also the #1 hit when doing a Google search on "pentagon plane camera". Does your question have something to do with improving the article? --StuffOfInterest 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some screenshots of the video - User:Aude/Pentagon, with links to videos and other information. --Aude (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it will improve the article currently poised in favor of US Govt.'s story? some 3000 were killed in US and some hundreds of thousands in afghanistan just lost their lives because US thought it was their fault, I wonder how a question be an "old story" if not answered, i am searching on net to find more clips and pictures of that crash, from other cameras showing an aircraft flying in and not a cruise missile flying low, your posted links of CNN are not working :P, thanks for your concern.Mkashifafzal 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know how come it took several years and even lawsuits to get those blurry images released? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The five Israelis

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

There appears to be no reliable information that explains how that is an important part of anything. The whole "celebrating" claim is based on one person trying to decipher the expressions of someone's face from a distance[8]. Conspiracy theorists predictably develop elaborate fantasies from flimsy rumors, but we don't need to fall victim to those. Weregerbil 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another question

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

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

About first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I am able to extract from your note above is that since the RELIABLE SOURCE is only US Government, so the article shall say what US Government says. All world media has been floating stories delivered in press releases by US Govt. spokesmen, if they reprint those stories, do the stories become mainstream beliefs?

As you mentioned several questions are not answered, I believe this incident has been the higly obscured incident ever happened in modern worlds history, to cover such an incident in an encyclopedia, just a few years after the incident when the details of the same are not clear, should be in a manner of using not definitive terms please.

I wonder where would US citizen stand if even a single conspiracy theory begins to be considered mainstream belief, they have supported their government to murder 700,000 humans in retaliation. It is something that will never be let to happen, thanks to CIA.

Refering your example, if we were living in 1948 or even in 1958, I would be of the opinion to put the event of Hitlers suicide in indefinitive terms, and LET TIME REVEAL THE TRUTH Mkashifafzal 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow... if you honestly think that the US is that powerful in it's ability to 'hide the truth', then nothing I say to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise because you could always simply say I was a government plant. So, I'll save the effort for someone who isn't completly batshit insane. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for revealing the truth about your ethics Mkashifafzal 09:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything for you crazy. --Tarage 10:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So do I have the consensus to modify the first paragraph as suggested above?Mkashifafzal 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't. Why would I say "you are crazy" and then say "go ahead and add your crazy theories". Either you read into that way too much(Like you probably do with everything else 9/11 related), or you are as crazy as I claim. Either way, no. --Tarage 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference no 2 added, is UN's press release, this reference contradicts with the immediate the blunt quote afterwards which says "Islamic Terrorists", there is no referal to any such term in UN Press release, so either a reference should be added, (though not necessary) or the suggestion on top should be opted, and i want someone else to do that edit.203.81.196.100 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Related archives

• The use of "allegedly"
• Asymmetrical POV
• Conspiracy & POV
• Disputes
• More disputes
• NPOV?
• Reducing 9/11 Disputes: A Possible Way Forward

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

I appreciate your work on this, Haemo. It is a good starting point for a consensus FAQ for 911. (Though, at this moment, I am not happy with the 911 article) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know if we need an FAQ on the main page... maybe at the top of the talk page... as for consensus, you'll find that most of us are already AT consensus. It is only people like Mkashifafzal who think the US government is the most evil entity in existance and Bush is clearly Satan who have serious gripes with this article. Most sane people, including yourself, accept that it probably isn't a conspiricy, and just want to debate about choise wording. I hope atleast. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This article will remain disputed for decades may be, there is no need for it to be specific, let wikipedia to be unbiased, by keeping articles of this nature deviate from normal wikipedia styles of using definitive terms. Mkashifafzal 10:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid, yet people (like Tarage) do settle on this statement that "Lack of comprehensiveness does not mean it's false." but forget that upon lack of evidence we can not convict the accused. A big mistake has been committed by Bush administration, immediately after the attacks they launched an International Justice program, even a bigger mistake is to try to defend that mistake.Mkashifafzal 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid." You either need to cite this, or step asside. The fact is, it is NOT a widespread belief. Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way. Mkashifafzal, you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened. --Tarage 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For citation of above quote, read all of this talk page, all I understand is that there are two opinions, even though I do not mean to mention any theory on the main article, yet the first paragraph (this is where i started) should be written by giving weight to the Dispute and the difference of opinnion, the way that is to be indeffinate in saying blah blah. That Adolf Hitler example quoted above is an appropriate one, regardless of what happened to him, here in 21st centure it is ok to say he died, but imagin living in 1950 and say that he died, dont you expect more people to oppose you, will they all be crazy? why at that point is it not approproate to show uncertainity at a platform like an encyclopedia to give weight to the difference of opinionsMkashifafzal 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Spread of "inside job" suspicions?

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

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

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

b) consensus guidelines and policies are:

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

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

• August 30, 2004 Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act;
• 5/24/2006 US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42%

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

Please do not limit the "Inside job" suspecion to only "Foreknowledge of attacks and failing to respond" the job done should be discussed in detail, even to the limit of inside involvement in the original plot.Mkashifafzal 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we HAVE. Read the damned logs! --Tarage 10:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

These polls really aren't a good way to get a consensus of the general wikipedian oppinion but... fine. I'll play.

A.1 This is true, but the general consesus is the same.

A.2 I think so, yes.

A.3 Partially... some, like the BBC, have aired conspiricy theory things have they not?

A.4 I agree with the first part, but I can't verify the second, so I don't know.

A.5 I dissagree with this. Many public polititions come out saying very crazy things. One could even say BinLaden himself is a form of politition.

B.1 I think they have this.

B.2 & B.3 Public oppinion polls can be quite flawed. For example, the way you phrase a question can change the answer people give. I'd have to know exactially what questions were asked, as well as the motive of the poll.

Anyway... I hope this helps. I'm still against this FAQ, but I will yeild if most people want it. --Tarage 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tarage, does the info provided by Corleonebrother (below) answer your need for more information about the polls? If scepsis about the mainstream view varies between 8 and 50 percent, would that persuade you to alter the mix of mainstream and conspiracy weighting? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by answer. It seems to support my claim that the polls may not be totally legit, one way or the other. It only supports my question, not provide an answer. --Tarage 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't know what this has to do with 9/11 attacks, but I would point out that a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. Just for the record. --Haemo 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree to formulate more precisely, that: a majority of Americans does not believe that life on earth was created out of soup, but instead believe life was created by a God. If I then look at Origin_of_life#Yockey I find there is serious and respectful treatment of the critique of the life-created-via-evolution paradigm. To answer your implicit question: I think the 911 article should give fair, belanced and adequate treatment of criticism of the mainstream account of events even if a majority of wikipedians judges such criticism to be faulty. I claim it would be OR to disregard criticism in this article if and only if a large enough portion of either experts, general population or wikipedians would endorse such criticism. Haemo, how do you feel when you read my reasoning? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What you want to add is incorporated in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. As an encyclopedia, opinions have little merit for inclusion in an article that is based on known facts of an event...therefore, the 9/11 conspiracy theory article exists to address the very things that you wish to incorporate in this article, at is should based on undue weight for non factual evidence.--MONGO 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you seem anxious to avoid inserting unfounded opinions into the article, as you want to guarantee the quality of wikipedia, right? Q:How would you feel about including the factual events such as described in 9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_President.27s_behavior, WITHOUT the conspiracy conclusions/opinions, into the present article ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that that passage is better off in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It has little to do with the attacks themselves and uses selective quotes ot form a basis of facts. In other words, it is a violation of WP:SYNTH.--MONGO 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's set aside the current wording of the paragraph, then. Hypothetically, we could include:

1. The president was notified before entering the classroom.
2. The president was notified of the second plane while IN the classroom, and then remained there for a while, actionless.
3. The president later stated he SAW the first attack live and attributed it to an accident, at that time.
4. The first attack was not available live.

If we were to include these four facts, I would say (a) they are interesting to readers and are relevant to the attacks; I do not see this as (b) selective fact picking or (c) synthesis, do you feel differently?
We could, hypothetically, insert such a paragraph at the #Immediate_national_response section. My hunch is, you would object. Perhaps you are afraid this would put undue blame on the White House, or something like that? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think there is a need to list those things. For one, you have to examine the context of where he was. Had he left mid way through reading the story, it would have created a lot of un-needed confusion/fear in those children. That and I actually think it was better to sit and wait till he had all the facts, rather than make a rash decision. Then again, those are my persional oppinions. --Tarage 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And the President later said he made a mistake when he said "saw". So what? This adds nothing to the actual narrative of the attacks; we're writing about the attacks not the minituae of what the President did, said, and made mistakes saying. The only reason this fact is of any interest to anyone is because conspiracy theorists ascribe some malign intent to it; which is why it's on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, and not here. --Haemo 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The first two points deal with the response on the day itself. Was that a mistake also? I think it deserves including. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

back to the polls

I quote:

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

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

I don't think you can come to a consensus on that. As Haemo pointed out, polls can be greatly over-emphisised. Statistically, they are mostly inaccurate at that. Look at what happened in Florida during the 2000 presidential elections. So many of the major news orginizations called Florida early, and as a result helped create a huge mess that we are still dealing with today. I think instead, we should focus on the experts, who have strongly shown support for the facts. I don't think we need to mess this up even more with polls. --Tarage 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Request clarification; Tarage, are you referring to:

• A) some major news organizations correctly predicting Gore's victory?
• B) Fox News erroneously predicting Bush' victory, and the other news agency's slavisly following?

But about the 911 polls: ofcourse a poll can be a factor of 2 wrong, but half of 40% is still 20% which would be quite the opposite of "negligable" for New York State public opinion. So, I would be glad to be informed if anyone knows of RS polls indicating that the 911 truth movement is a borderline phenomenon??
I would fully understand that, if wikipedians believe that 911-conspiracy is a marginal phenomenon, then we should not give it much coverage in this main 911 article. If however, the 911-inside-job paradigm is as widespread as suggested by polls, the current 911 article is worded rather strangely. I realize it will be hard for anyone who is firmly convinced of the 911 official version, or more general, of the integrity of government, to use less than firm wording. But for wikipedia to take side with the mainstream account, we need either the conspiracy theories to be non-notable, or reliable sources to have thoroughly investigated the matter. Agree? In my opinion, researchers from both paradigms suffer from selective fact picking, and reliable research independent of the alleged prime suspect (the status quo: government, corporate universities and media) is non-existant. So, anyone, any ideas how to solve this paradox? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're asking us to do, what? Prove a negative? As has been pointed out before, large numbers of people believe frankly counterfactual things, which are widely disregarded by qualified experts in the field. In the same way that a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution, we do not compromise the entire page because of it, and give such views a page at Objections to evolution, we do not compromise this page with speculation (less popular, in fact), and give these theories an entire page at 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is not the court of popular opinion; it is an encyclopedia -- Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Haemo 03:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Haemo, for the most part. There is a difference, however. On the evolution page, it is said that evolution is a theory, which is widely believed. I agree. And I would be satisfied if we did the same with this article: state clearly that is is an account which is widely believed. I understand that for you and many others this belief is so strong that it results in taking the account as "factual" and "certain". For me the account is no more than an account. It would be great if we could agree on such a change in wording. Alternatively, dissident wikipedians like myself should be convinced of the account. Unlikely in my opinion : I think there are too many facts which still are at odds with the official account, and have not been explained away (I predict: will never all be explained to my and others' satisfaction) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the point; the comparison is not evolution as a theory, but rather the statement that evolution leads to speciation and genetic drift. The article clearly, and unambiguously states that these are facts, and these occur. Creationists would have them qualify these statements to be "theories" or "are believed to occur by many" which gives undue weight to creationist pseudoscience. The attempt to qualify this article -- or any other, be it the issue of the death of Hitler, or 9/11 -- is of the same merit. --Haemo 01:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Though I am a firm believer in evolution, I do not see how I could label creationism as pseudoscience when so many people engage in it. If (many) creationists were to ask for it, I believe no-one would be harmed by placing an introductory sentence which states that a large creationist movements disbelieves evolution as a mechanism for creation of life or speciation. Once such a introductory sentence has been put in, there is little harm in stating all the other well founded scientific theories as facts.
How would you feel about this? Would it meet your needs for fairness, clarity and truth? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point; doing such a thing gives creationist views undue weight. In an article about something which occurs/occured, like evolution or the 9/11 attacks, fringe theories about how they happen (or don't happen) do not belong in the lead. They belong, as explained, in a brief section which gives them appropriate weight; as both 9/11 and evolution do. --Haemo 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) I agree: from my viewpoint that evolution exists, creationism is a fringe theory. When it has such support among Americans, I would not call it 'fringe' anymore. 'Wrong', maybe. But to call it wrong inside an article page, I would need a RS that is acknowleged by all major players involved. I am curious — genuinely — how you would decide creationism to be "fringe" within wikipedia rules and guidelines. Can you help me understand this? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As it says on in the guidelines, the moniker is not popularity, but rather peer-reviewed journals with respect to evolution. Creationism does not, and never has, met this standard. --Haemo 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Evolution theory is western science, which uses peer-review, and creationism is religion, which cannot peer-review. Some of the scientific literature says that random evolutionary processes cannot account for the whole evolution; instead they propagate intelligent design. Wikipedians need to reach consensus on how to word an article. I continue below...#peer-review and reliable sources — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That's super, but maybe you'll change your view when you read our external linking guidelines; specifically, point 12 under "what should be avoided". --Haemo 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We also talked about this at great length a while back and there was consensus that it not be added. See archive 26 I think. There are multiple problems with it. RxS 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

So... the longer the argument, the better it is? You need to take some debate classes my friend. --Tarage 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You completely lost the debate when you called me a vandal for adding a link that is linked to on numerous other Wiki pages. Blah42 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When you randomly add a link without any sort of consensus, yes, that is valdalism. But I am in awe of your ability to determine when a debate is won and lost. I wasn't aware I was in the presence of a deity. --Tarage 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The straw poll was over whether or not it violated guidelines, and should be included. I would point to the open wiki nature of the project to back up that point. --Haemo 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, it's still linked to by some Wiki pages, which makes sense, because no one has made an equivalent timeline. I think that edits have to be approved by the project manager, Paul Thompson. He has a book on Amazon, so he's not just some anonymous guy. Blah42 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem like an angry fellow. Perhaps you should take a break from editing, and come back when you have a cool head? --Tarage 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• The timeline has implicit assumptions as to what is or is not September 11th related, plus it implies causation relationships which are wrong or unproven. Peter Grey 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

12:01, 16 August 2007 Weregerbil (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv, not a conspiracy article)
06:37, 10 August 2007 MONGO (Talk | contribs) (114,008 bytes) (no basis for adding this)

I've re-added the link. I think it is a disgrace to not link to a wikipedia article because the content doesn't suit you? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre attack intelligence, July 10 2001 meeting?

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

In my opinion, probably the best place would be Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, you also might want to re-write the "United States" section, because it's a horrible mess at the moment. --Haemo 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So they went to the White House and extended all those serious warnings to Dr. Rice… remember what Cofer Black said about her criminal neglect with regards to clear and present dangers of impending attacks. He said:

"The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." 78.0.67.12 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

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

• Agree I would prefer to link September 11 and 2001 further on in the article, after the lead. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice that the links have been removed in the lead sentence, but not added later on, which results in the "what links here" connection being broken! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, per WP:DATE, the date should always be linked so a user's date preferences are displayed. Dave101→talk  09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WTC 7

Why is there this sentence?

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

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

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

• The NIST is the official explanation, and their interim report is the draft of their final report, which is due out soon, IIRC. --Haemo 00:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Agreed, so why doesn’t the article state it so, as it is, that is? As you may well know we don't know what will the final report look like since the working hypothesis "may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation." 78.0.67.12 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • This is the best official explanation we have now. The phrase "collapsed after being heavily damaged by debris" is very bland, and general for what the NIST has explained top be their belief. Specific theories about how it collapsed can be included when they finalize their report. --Haemo 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • It would seem so if we wouldn’t talk about extremely disturbing and emotional event or if we wouldn’t be aware of the damage done to other buildings (such as wtc3 and wtc6), which sustained colossal impacts, yet stood. The point is, there is nothing which would indicate, even slightly, that there are problems with wtc7 collapse, on contrary as it stands now editors have provided an explanation where there is none. If so we might as well suggest some more plausible hypotheses, such as this one:
      • [Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition] 78.0.67.12 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • You mean the buildings with were short and fat stood when pierced from straight above, but the ones that were tall and thin toppled when hit from the side? Fascinating. --Golbez 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Please focus, there is no explanation for the fall of building 7, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind implementation of that sentence, which is yet to be proved. That sentence is POV, plain and simple. Not to say that I'm honestly not sure what are you talking about, were there some other buildings which toppled over? 78.0.67.12 01:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
            • • It clearly says that the official explanation is that debris hit the building, and it collapsed afterwards. This is the official explanation based on the NIST interim report. The specifics of this will be explained when the final report is issued, but as they say, the basic underlying explanation of what happened is not changing. --Haemo 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

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

FOIA no Arabs on Flight 77

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

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

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

All those documents say is that the coroner did not autopsy anyone with an Arabic name. There were also no Arabic names on the original flight list. Why is this important? Who knows? Instead, we have basically a non-notable online blog trying to make news by speculating about what this implies. It has no bearing on the 9/11 attacks at all; at best it might be footnote on 9/11 conspiracies. --Haemo 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, if the Arabs hijacked the planes, and there are no Arabic names on the flight list, and we know the names of the other casualties, could you please tell me under which non-Arab names the hijackers have boarded the planes? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps said Arabs were simply not autopsied by the coroner? The article Flight 77 amply covers the evidence that these people did, indeed board the plane and flew it into the pentagon. --Haemo 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I am not talking about autopsy now, just passenger lists. If you suggest the Arabs were there, but not autopsied, I'd expect them to be on a passenger list, either under an Arab or a non-Arab name. Correct? I do not know. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's simply not true; most of the "passenger lists" obtained omitted the terrorists in the first place. Reconstructions of the seating, as the Boston Globe did for Flight 11, give complete seating charts -- including the terrorists. In fact, Flight 77 has even stronger evidence, with one of the hijackers caught on film both boarding the plane, and being searched by security prior to entry. Regardless, I don't see what any of this has to do with the article. --Haemo 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

has to do with the article. Well: If the article claims there were Arabs on board, it should explain why they are not on the passenger lists. (Reconstructions are no help. Anyone can reconstruct that IF they were on board, they had to sit somewhere.) Please provide a RS for their omission. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, they are. Printed transcripts, obtain by the Boston Post and other sites online pinpoint the exact seats -- the Globe even did a graphic for Flight 11. The fact that some people are confused about this is totally immaterial to this article -- if anything, it would be a minor footnote on Flight 77, or a related article. --Haemo 05:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please be willing to provide such a minor footnote? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an editor on that page; you should probably discuss it with the editors there. --Haemo 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They are example: Flight 11. but please remember: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. RxS 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the manifest! I am afraid I would rather have a real one, i.e. where terrorists are not in bold, but a simple passenger list. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are available if you request them; for instance these guys have a copy. However, I would just like to reiterate that this has pretty much nothing to do with this page and we should really not be discussing it. Haemo 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that conspiracy theorists like to confuse two things: passenger lists and victim lists. A whole bunch of conspiracy theories have been created based on not understanding that terrorists aren't victims. Looks like there is a new variant of that scam: equating passenger list and autopsy list. Weregerbil 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo and Weregerbil. I see there is a lot of confusion about it.[9] But surely, 6 years later, the names under which the terrorists boarded are known? What are those 19 names? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The big problem still hasn't been fixed

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

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

Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.

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

This is an absurd interpretation of a policy and has been discussed repeatedly on this page. Reverted.--Cberlet 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Absurd intepretation? ""Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"" says the rule. The statement is so clear there are no other possible intepretations.

No matter how many times this has been discussed, it doesn't change a thing. The article is tinged with American bias and is an advert for whats wrong with wikipedia. Anybody with any interest in making this project work must nessecarily be on my side of this. Damburger 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Really? Does that mean you think I do not want to make Wikipedia work?--Cberlet 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the impression given by your reverts. You want wikipedia to present a slanted POV. Damburger 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please see the Draft 9/11 FAQ. I'll repost the answer below:

Why do you call them "terrorist" attacks?

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

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

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

Related archives

• "Terrorist", "terrorism" and "freedom fighter"
• "Terrorist" words occur 30 times
• POV - suitability of "terrorist"
• Deleting terrorist?
• Terrorist attacks
• Usage of terrorist...

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

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

Yes, the point it's making is that the "X says Y" is "Every single reliable source we can find say they're terrorist attacks". Hence, we say "these are terrorist attacks". The FAQ provides you with a quick run-down on why the article is the way it is; since people, yourself included, don't appear to want to read the archives where this has been extensively discussed. --Haemo 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say 'you can ignore this if you can find a whole bunch of sources to back you up'? It doesn't. You are simply making things up. This is clearly a case of cultural bias. The rules say one thing, the 9/11 article says another. Funnily enough, the Contras article sticks to the rule and calls them 'armed opponents' of the Nicaraguan government of the time. Stop pushing an American POV and look at things objectively. Damburger 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That because you can find reliable sources which do not call the Contras terrorists. This is not true of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks; we do not even label Al-Qaeda as terrorists on this page, only those who carried out the attacks. And you will note that guidelines are general principles, and not ironclad rules; this is one of exceptions. --Haemo 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The phrase 'terrorist' is pejorative (this is recognised as a fact by wikipedia policy) and so theres is no 'sourcing' of it that would allow it in the narrative voice, regardless of how reliable those sources might be - they are simply sources reporting the opinion of people that it WAS a terrorist attack. Since reliable sources report people (such as Osama Bin Laden) saying it wasn't a terrorist attack, your argument has absolutely no merit.

I would like to add how cute it is you've used the word 'declined' in your revert, implying that you have some kind of authority here when you in fact have none at all. The only reason I am going to let it stand is because I won't violate the three revert rule. Congrulations on another victory for mob ignorance. This isn't over. Damburger 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, our side of this dispute can produce thousands of cites to reputable published sources that say they were terrorist attacks. What cites do you have to reputable published sources that claim they are not terrorist attacks?--Cberlet 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute isn't about producing source - thats just a simplisitic strawman you've cooked up - the dispute is about intepretting what seems to me to be fairly simply worded wikipedia policy. You are just refusing to accept whats right in front of your nose so that you can continue pushing a cultural POV. Damburger 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase can be pejorative when used without accuracy or guidelines; the simple fact is that all reliable sources which comment about terrorism explain that these are terrorist attacks. What you are suggesting is akin to calling evolution a "disputed theory" rather than a fact because certain creationists think it is. It has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and declined in the past repeatedly. --Haemo 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pisspoor analogy. There is no wikipedia policy about calling scientific theories 'disputed theories'. If you think there is, cite it. It has not been 'declined', the voices of reason have been shouted down by superior numbers. You talk as if the suggestion has gone through some kind of professional review. It hasn't. You, and Cberlet, are an example of the problem with wikipedia. You come together on political sensitive pages and overrule anyone with an objective viewpoint which might not sit well with mainstream US opinion. Damburger 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It might please you to note that I'm not American, but anyways. And there's a whole page about how to deal with fringe theories and undue weight. --Haemo 01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You may as well be American, as you articulate American cultural bias as if it were indisputable fact. By the way, since when has the STATED POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA been a 'fringe theory'? Is applying the rules equally to al-qaeda as to the contras giving 'undue weight' to the rules you claim are a 'fringe theory'? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You seem to have in your head the idea that I don't think 9/11 was a terrorist attack, but I do. I simply have the intellect to seperate my opinions from what facts. Do you? Damburger 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and avoid future personal attacks and claims of superiority.--Cberlet 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply asked the question, are you smart enough to tell your own opinions from facts? You as far as I am concerned are being smug and condescending, having won a victory through strength of numbers rather than actually having any factual credibility. In fact, I take your sudden unwillingness to discuss facts of any kind as an admission that you are wrong. However, I have no illusions about you correcting your mistake on the page any time soon. Damburger 01:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Please remain calm and be civil. What you have cited is not policy, it is a guidelines — in fact, it is part of the Manual of Style, which is not the primary reference for content issues. We have pointed you to the extensive previous discussions about this matter, as well as the related content guidelines, including those about fringe theories and undue weight. You might also care to read through the archives, and see that this issue has been extensively discussed previously, and the current version is the result of a long-standing consensus. --Haemo 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I clearly showed above, undue weight and fringe theories do not apply. The question is not which opinions make it into this article, its making sure opinions are presented as just that - OPINIONS. No ammount of previous discussion, or attempts to sidetrack by attacking my manner, are going to change the fact that you are just plain wrong about this. As to your ridiculous assertion that I should leave this alone because of a consensus - that line of reasoning could be used to oppose any change to wikipedia whatsoever.

You obviously have nothing of substance to offer to this discussion. Damburger 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll step out; I've said my piece and don't really want to deal with this level of hostility right now. --Haemo 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Damburger, your hostility and aggressive attacks violate multiple Wiki guidelines and rules of conduct. Please consider apologizing to Haemo, and changing your confrontational approach.--Cberlet 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I beleive in confronting ignorance, and I see a lot of it here. I can only conclude from your nitpicking at my 'hostile' attitude that you have conceded I am right. Damburger 09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that he has conceded that you are too hostile to debate with on a rational level, and refuses to get into a pissing match with you. Reguardless, you aren't going to get your way here. --Tarage 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Please actually read everything I've said. You have completely missed the point. Damburger 09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have. You are objecting to the use of the word terrorist. However, in your own cited definition, it says "unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"." We have plenty of "X says Y" which you seem to be ignoring, but out of my own sick curiosity, I'm curious as to what you want it replaced with. Bad guys? Evil people? Or do you believe that people who fly airplanes into buildings with an intent to do as much dammage as possible are on the right side? --Tarage 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misread that sentence. It says that the citation (i.e. the part of the article, not the thing to which it refers) must be of the format "X says Y". For example "The UN says this is a terrorist attack" or something semanticaly equivalent.

As for not calling them terrorists - I think that if you describe how they flew passenger jets into buildings and killed 3000 people that the reader will be able to grasp they are bad people, so its not nessecary to explicitly state that. Wikipedia, once again, agrees with me (from WP:NPOV):

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

Damburger 09:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean it as an insult at all. Medical conditions are not insults. I understand though. I'm sorry. Everyone is different. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't try and psychoanalyse me in order to find out the 'motivation' behind what I am saying. Don't try and pretend I'm only saying these things because my brain doesn't work properly or something. Please, actually address my arguments (which noone has done so far). As far as I can see, my points are bulletproof and the only reason why I can't now simply change the article is that I'll be out-edited by the mob. Damburger 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the only one who seems to find your arguments to be 'bulletproof' are you and you alone. Everyone else has tried to show you that to edit out "terrorist" would be very idiotic. I'm sorry you can't see that, but you aren't going to get your way here. So lets move on?--Tarage 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only me, WP:NPOV and WP:WTA think it shouldn't be there. I'm such a nut, citing wikipedia policy aren't I? You have failed to make a single counterpoint, apart from assinine references to people who describe the attacks as terrorist (which, as I tried to dumb down for you, don't matter because its a question of the internal rules of wikipedia). The fact is nobody has presented me with any serious challenge to refute. Thus I'm just going to go ahead and edit the article. Damburger 12:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Per Talk"

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

• Per archives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, "per archives" is a bit vague. I would like to invite anyone who feels that consensus on anything has been reached in some archive, to pinpoint it. There are just too many archives not to. Agree? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

A problem with "newspaper so-and-so says they were terrorist attacks" is that it looks like it's a fringe opinion of a few dissenting sources. Listing all the sources that routinely describe it as terrorism isn't particularly practical either... When sources routinely say it's a spade, and it has the added benefit of very well fitting the definition spade, let's call it a spade. WP:RS. Weregerbil 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And, once more, you have completely ignored the point. It does not matter one bit what the balance of opinion is; the policy is clear. We don't use that word in the narrative voice, because it is a pejorative. You seem to think there are exceptions to this rule, but there are not any (feel free to try and find some). You haven't a leg to stand on so you are presenting the opposing argument as something it isn't. Thats called a Straw Man, and is intellectually dishonest of you. Damburger 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wonder why you don't get much response to your comments, it may be because you keep attacking and biting everyone who disagrees with you. Please see WP:NPA. Weregerbil 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling you on your evasions and straw man attacks is not a personal attack. I'm commenting on your pathetic excuse for an argument, not you yourself. Now, can you actually address the subject and find a part of wikipedia policy which contradicts what I am saying? Or are you going to keep changing the subject? Damburger 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Indeed, it says that you should say it in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". So in this case, you may say "the United Nations consider them terrorist attacks", but not "they were terrorist attacks", like I pointed out above. Melsaran 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they were terrorist attacks. I define terrorism as: killing person A to scare person B. I disagree with the wikipedia policy to not use this word in the narrative, but I abide by it. I think 911 was perpetrated by either islamic extremists, homeland terrorists, or both. However, I more believe in sticking to consensus, so I agree with Damburger, Rklawton, Melsaran: do not use the word terrorist in the narrative. Disclaimer: I may accidently violate this rule of style myself. Feel free to correct me whenever I do so. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Use of the word 'terrorism'

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

Previous Comments

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

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

Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does WP:NPOV say "terrorist is the word to use"? It isn't exactly neutral, because the word "terrorist" is POV and can be avoided. Melsaran 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" cannot rationally be avoided in the first sentence. Most of the rest of the occurrences are unnecessary, except where quoting sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the word "terrorist" from the first sentence doesn't make it any less informative. You can still add a sentence like "many Western countries and organisations, including the United Nations, <etc etc etc> regard them as terrorist attacks" in the body of the article. Melsaran 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any sources presented that call these anything other than terrorist attacks. I mean, we can probably safely presume that Al Qaeda doesn't call them terrorist attacks, but then again, the perpetrators of crimes rarely call their crimes "murders" or "terrorist attacks". It's abundantly clear that the term used is "terrorist attack"; I mean, look at the Oklahoma City bombing. Should we avoid calling that a terrorist attack? Should we avoid calling Charles Mansons killings "murders" because he viewed them as art?

Basically, the notion here is that we should stop using a given word because it has negative connotations, and it can be argued that such-and-such an attack is "not terrorism" by some logic. The manual of style enjoins us not to use this word loosely, because of the connotations attached to it; instead, stating that we should try to attribute it when used. However, we have to accept that, at some point, words have meanings, and those meanings can be applied to events. In this case, the attribution of "who calls these terrorist attacks" includes almost every single reliable source on the planet, including governments, newspapers, experts. The thunderous wall of unanimity about "are these terrorist attacks" is so deafening that even to simply attribute it would be stunningly pointless. It would be far better to attribute who didn't call them attacks; and I've never seen a source for that, even Al-Qaeda. It seems ridiculous to me to blindly apply a manual of style guideline when it is so obviously meant for other situations.

My suggestion would be to attribute who disagrees that they are terrorist attacks, and we'd need some reliable sources to attest to this. --Haemo 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great to list the organizations that do not consider this to be a terrorist attack. Awesome idea Haemo. Rklawton 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

comply &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft introductory paragraph

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

Suggesting a new lead:

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

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

Rationale: I do not think we will easily reach consensus on this article. Clearly the editors which advocate the official story have a need for the article to be according to their view of the world, and are abhorred by wording it neutrally. Therefor, I think the best solution is to have a consensus article and a seperate article for the mainstream view. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. (cur) (last) 14:39, 16 August 2007 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv, no consensus for change) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 14:36, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 14:23, 16 August 2007 Aude (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 14:21, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 14:18, 16 August 2007 PTR (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (Undid revision 151606506 by Xiutwel (talk) - Discuss on talk. The 911 commission is not the only source.) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 14:11, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,126 bytes) (wikipedia is not about proving you are right, it is about attributing knowledge Undid revision 151557362 by Weregerbil (talk)) (undo)

• Reject because few if any neutral, reliable third parties believe that it was anything other than a terrorist attack, there's been no solid reliable evidence that it was anything other than a terrorist attack and very few people really believe it was anything other than a terrorist attack. The aggressive effort to push these CT's come from a political motivation rather then a scientific, good faith effort to find facts. Besides, the draft leaves out energy beams. RxS 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject - see also Wikipedia:Content forking Rklawton 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I belive 911 was an inside job, but I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". I agree with Xiutwel that the future for this article is under a main-page. It has it's righfull place on wikipedia, but needs clearifying about beeing a Point-of-View-article. Geir 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reject - Enough of this already... --Tarage 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• as a compromise I would be willing to abandon renaming this article provided that in the lead there is a sentence explaining this is a mainstream view, not an objective view. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't HAVE to compromise a thing. The article is fine the way it is. It will not be changed no matter how much you complain about it. I for one am sick of arguing this over and over again. LET IT DIE ALREADY. --Tarage 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

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

Okay, as an editor who hasn't looked at this page in a while, this article loses almost nothing from the fact that the word 'terrorism' doesn't appear in it (in the voice of the article itself). "...consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks" has just as much meaning as "...consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks". Using the word 'attackers' in place of 'terrorists' in other places in the article creates a version of the article that can be unprotected and edited once again, because I doubt there's much dispute that the 19 instigators of this incident can be described as 'attackers'. The purpose and results of the attack can be derived from description of the events themselves.

If use of the word is insisted upon, then it could come in its own section on this page, which for the record I believe is completely unnecessary. If that section ("Is this terrorism?") appears in the article, then according to WP:NPOV, there should be equal time given to voices that believe these attacks were not terrorist attacks. In other words, if you open the box that debates whether this was "terrorism" or not as a debate, both sides must be given equal footing, and a lack of sources that say it isn't is not an acceptable reason not to include both sides. I suggest that the better course is to remove the term. Skybunny 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove the term as it adds nothing to the article and is inherently POV, but it's fine to say "organisation XXX said that the attacks were terrorism" (attribution instead of stating it as a fact), without giving equal footing to the minority opinion that it was not terrorism, per WP:UNDUE. Melsaran 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps change terrorist to "widely regarded as terrorist(and add official government announcements by a few dozen countries). Not to make a WP:POINT, but NPOV would require that, if terrorist does not appear unadorned in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would appear to be a good compromise. Melsaran 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

agree with Melsaran: do not use the T-word unattributed. comment if the attacks ever turn out to be an inside job for everyone to see, there will be less debate about whether it was terrorism or "fighting". But that's not the point, if we agree to abandon our policy on this page, which page will be next? I am very frustrated with a group of dominant editors pushing their POV without striving for consensus, ignoring the spirit and the guidelines of wikipedia in the process. I'm not saying that I do not make mistakes myself, but I wonder: do you believe in wikipedia as a community or just in yourself? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their correctness never does.

suggestion ...were attacks using hijacked planes. The attacks were widely denounced as terrorist atrocities by almost every country in the world.[refs] The point being, there is no secret about it being terrorism, it's just that we on wikipedia have decided not to use that label ourselves. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Skybunny: in situations such as this, WP:NPOV does not demand equal time to alternate/opposing views, but rather appropriate or perhaps proportionate time. Furthermore, a lack of sources is definitely a reason not to include a viewpoint. See WP:UNDUE. Jpers36 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I pointed out above :-) Melsaran 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"widely regard as" is not needed. Simply terrorist, accompanied by references will suffice. So, it would be terrorist and need to add some more sources. Or per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we could simply say terrorist with the single U.N. reference. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Aude, which would you prefer? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a fascinating case. On the one hand, we have an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources describing the attacks as terrorism. We have the event itself - the canonical terrorist attack, hopefully never to be surpassed. It became the catalyst for "The War On Terrorism" as the article says.

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

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

peer-review and reliable sources

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

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

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

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

This cannot be the way forward? We must be able to find a better way to find some balance between what to include and what to leave out? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Addition: are reliable sources not supposed to be independent of the subject matter to be useful for wikipedia? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more a discussion for Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks instead of September 11, 2001 attacks. --PTR 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would apply there, also, but this discussion is about THIS article being NNPOV. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But your para above talks about suspects. I'm not sure what you want to change. I don't think an article saying most people think this but some people think that is going to be very readable. That's why the subarticles are linked. --PTR 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For readability, and given the views of most wikipedians, I would suggest a lead paragraph stating that this is the mainstream view. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

not major - That's your opinion (and such is your right) but it is not mine. Since you believe they didn't do it, there is no need for you to question all the spin stories they put out, and you are confirmed in your belief. But your reasoning goes in circles. Independent sources would not make a strong case against the inside job theory. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See, that comment makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. It's not up to you or I to decide what's "major" Something is "major" when experts working in their field and neutral third party sources say it is....this all should go without saying. You can consider something "major", I can consider something "major" but for Wikipedia's purposes our opinions don't matter. RxS 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Enough

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

Agreed. I proposed a 1RR limit for people posting obviously controversial theories on articles like this many moons ago, this is absolutely pointless. --Golbez 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a brief read through this Talk page and it certainly seems that the normal wikipedia editing process is being disrupted - to an extent. However, I'm not sure what the best route to take from here is. If specific questions (e.g. use of "terrorist") are the issue, then an RfC is appropriate. If you feel that a particular editor is a problem, then I would suggest discussing it on their Talk page, and if that proves unproductive, requesting a third opinion or even a user RfC. The wikipedia dispute resolution process should be able to deal with this, one way or another. Be patient and keep the faith. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)