Talk:September 11 attacks

Conspiracy Theories

Rx StrangeLove, you have just responded to my good faith call for sources with this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html I am assuming good faith. Can you please point out the line in that article which backs up the existing edit? Bulbous (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. Been over this. RxS (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We could also source the statement that they are called "crackpot" theories, but... --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your dilligence. However, none of this supports the current edit. The challenged line says, "These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3]". The best support that you have offered is, arguably, that Bin Laden accepts credit for the attack. How does that prove that "political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers" believe that Al-Qaeda carried out the attack? If you are serious and interested in a balanced article, why not address this statement? Bulbous (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a summary of a subarticle. It is very difficult to precisely source that particular statement; you can source fragments of it from all over. For instance, this Time Magazine article can source the "media/journalists" part. However, it's un-necessary and onerous to source the whole shebang, since one can just read the sub-article. --Haemo (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you find proper sourcing to be "onerous". But it is absolutely necessary! I didn't even remove the unsourced line. I merely added a fact tag in hopes that someone would research and defend the edit. It doesn't look like anyone has any interest in doing so, so I will be removing it. In addition, the Time magazine article you mentioned DOES NOT support the edit. Nowhere in it does it say that mainstream journalists... have concluded that the responsibility rests with Al Qaeda. Can you point out where it does? Bulbous (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it refers to "the passion" that many conspiracy theorists hold; and that they refer to it as the 9/11 Truth Movement. --Haemo (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Look at the part where it talks about the theories being "largely ignored" by the mainstream media. The point is that it's onerous because summary style doesn't require it. --Haemo (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What the article says is that "the 9-11 Truth Movement... has been largely ignored by the mainstream media". That is a far cry from saying that they believe that alternate theories are not credible, and that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda. Nothing in WP:Summary gives you license to ignore other policies. Actually, from WP:SUMMARY - The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This contentious line is debatable and MUST BE SOURCED. Bulbous (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the "passion" of conspiracy theorists as being largely ignored. It seems relatively clear to me what they're referring to, and only mentioning the Truth movement as examples of those being ignored. --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we have no support for that statement whatsoever now? Bulbous (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I said... --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any belief that "These theories are generally not accepted as credible ..." is inaccurate? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An edit does not have to be proven false to be removed. It should never have been added in the first place without a proper source. Secondly, anything that is likely to be challenged is required to be sourced. And this line has been challenged. Bulbous (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I said belief, not proof. If there is no doubt it is accurate, it should remain until a reliable source is found. If there is doubt, that would be different. On the other hand, if this is removed, I would have no qualms about removing any statement which has an unsourced implication that there is a sane person who believes the conspiracy theories. (There's certainly no proof.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is not sourced needs to be removed, from *all* articles, not just this one. However, there is a sourced poll that says that 36% of Americans believe in some alternative theory. (Presumably, the other 2/3rd are more interested in what time American Idol is on TV). That poll is currently being suppressed. Bulbous (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The hallmark of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist - the unreasonable belief that the other 64% cannot possibly be right, they must be ignorant or stupid. At least you didn't accuse them of being on the government's payroll. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, that 64% includes all that doubt some aspect of the mainstream theory. Personally, I doubt many aspects, but not the conclusion that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the four planes, and that there was no "controlled demolition". But even if the poll question were as quoted, it would not mean that the named groups accept any "alternative" theory as credible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to out-of-date figures. According to the more recent Scripps-Howard poll, its now 62% believe either LIHOP or MIHOP. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if we have a more recent poll, what possible grounds are there for it's exclusion? Especially when this discussion centred around adding a completely unsourced line about the beliefs about politicians and journalists who aren't free to think for themselves? Bulbous (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the title "Conspiracy Theories" needs to be changed. It's desultory and diminuative, as if every critical thinker that questions the "official" record of events is some kind of nutjob that sees the CIA in every corner of the room. This section should be retitled "Alternative Theories". Bulbous (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming term for these kind of theories in the media and academia are "conspiracy theories"; calling them "alternative theories" is misleading, and at odds with the normal term for these theories. Because you believe in a conspiracy theory does not make you a "nutjob", nor does the article imply as much. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories" is still a very poor term, and justifying it by its use in the media only helps prove the point. It implies that any person who has questions about the official record of events (as any critical thinker would) also believes in some kind of "conspiracy" involving the US Government. In fact, the official record of events did involve a conspiracy... albeit one involving solely Al-Qaeda. The word "conspiracy" makes absolutely no sense in this context. It's stictly derogatory. Bulbous (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. It implies that they believe that there is some conspiracy at foot; by whom, and for what purpose, is entirely left up to the particular individual. For some, it is the US government shooting the Pentagon with a cruise missile. For others, it is the Israeli government planting demolition charges in the WTC. For still yet others, it is the Bush Administration covering up glaring incidents of negligence which could have prevented the attacks. Who is theorized to be responsible, and what they are responsible for varies greatly between individuals — however, the simple fact remains that the media and academia use the term "conspiracy theories" for these beliefs. It is far from "derogatory", and the endorsement of other terms for the theories, because some people do not like to be associated with the "Jews did 9/11" crowd is politically motivated. --Haemo (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Haemo. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is *exactly* the kind of misinterpretation that the term "conspiracy theories" generates, and the very reason why it needs to be changed. You've just automatically associated *any* alternative theory with some kind of complicity or malfeasance by some government. If a reasonable person looks at the facts and the official explanations of 9/11 and thinks, "Some of this doesn't add up", that doesn't mean that they should be automatically associate with the "Jews this, Bush that, Israeli the other". Any attempt to do so is a bad faith attack on reasonable cross-examination, of a kind typically generated by those who are ignorant of the facts. Bulbous (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I struggle to see how you read that interpretation into what I said. In fact, the "things just don't add up and are being ignored" viewpoint is explicitly mentioned — negligence, in investigation and accountability is still malfeasance. The "we're just asking questions" crowd is no less accusing a wide variety of government, academic, and media figures of pointedly ignoring "evidence" which they (as untrained laymen) believe is evidence that the "official story" is incorrect. This is no less a conspiracy than the belief that Giuliani ordered the towers demolished. --Haemo (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Haemo that "conspiracy theories" is the most used colloquial term. It is not, however, the best academic term one can devise. I am sure academics use it for marketing purposes, and not because of its inherent merits. I think "conspiracy" can better be replaced by "alternative" or "non-mainstream", and "theory" could better be described as: "hypothesis" or "viewpoint" or "opinion" or "interpretation". What is crucial about them, is not that they are conspiracies or theories, but that they differ from the mainstream account. Some of them are zero theory, just the opinion that the facts do not add up. That in itsself is not yet a theory. I therefor support what Bulbous is saying. However, at the moment this issue is more a symptom than a cause of what's wrong with the 9/11 page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this page, it's in a consensual version and a small group of editors can't change that or hold the page hostage. RxS (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Widespread confusion

I note that the article states there was "widespread confusion" the morning of September 11th. I was tempted to add a sentence to this, until I discovered the article is protected. Perhaps the administrators would consider making some small additions, if they feel they're warranted?

I distinctly remember NBC news reporting, shortly after the second tower was hit, that as many as ten airliners had been hijacked (unconfirmed report). Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that the original plan was to take ten planes simultaneously . Although this piece of the confusion has been little-reported in the post-9/11 analyses, it seems to be traceable to the military training exercises underway the morning of the 11th, where bogus radar images were "injected" into NORAD tracking stations during a simulated hijacking scenario . Richard Clarke also touched on this in his book.

It seems important to me, because it helps explain the inexplicably-slow response of the military to hijackings over the Capitol. Under normal circumstances, unauthorized flight paths over our most sensitive military headquarters would garner a response within MINUTES, not the hour it actually took. The only logical explanation, to my mind, is that air traffic controllers had no way to know which reports were real and which were part of the ill-timed military exercise.

The events of 9/11 remain enigmatic and of public interest precisely because there remain unanswered questions and the suspicion that not everything has been admitted. Certainly, the quick removal of the Bin Laden family on the 19th and the hijacking simulation on the morning of the 11th are key pieces of the on-going puzzle. These CONTROVERSIES -- established facts that have not been explained -- are separate and distinct from the Wiki page on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

The main 9/11 article, in my view, should at least link to these key discussion points. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, that's written partly in first-person, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Second, 2 of your sources are other Wikipedia articles, which we don't use as sources. Words like "bogus," "ill-timed," "enigmatic," and words in ALL CAPS are unnecessarily dramatic. The second paragraph is all your opinion and most of the third paragraph is an improper synthesis of other sources ("key pieces of the on-going puzzle"). Mr.Z-man 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm sorry if I misled you. The discussion above was meant as a "discussion," not as the actual proposed addition to the Wiki article on 9/11. I thought putting it on the Talk page would make that clear. I agree that first person narratives and all-caps are not appropriate for Wiki articles.

The links to other Wiki articles are exactly what I was suggesting be added to the main article. The backstories are out there, but nowhere on the main page is this mentioned. That seems like an oversight to me.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls

An edit has been made to the conspiracy theory section which I have two issues with:

The new text includes poll data information from a 2006 poll. I thought consensus has been that poll data becomes outdated and is therefore to be avoided.

It also tweaks the text to be in line with the reference and not the reference added to support the text. Isn't the conspiracy theory section supposed to be summary style of the supporting article?

Summary style does not exempt us from the need to reliably source the wording. If it is contentious, as this case most certainly is, then it must be sourced as instructed in WP:SUMMARY. I have no objections to references being added that support the edit, but I have not as yet seen even one. Bulbous (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted twice today and really don't want to get into an edit war so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Is this okay with everyone? --PTR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong, it's outdated. Some context would have to be provided and this isn't really the place for it. There's an article about the polls for example and the CT page of course. RxS (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Responsbility

Don't know if the section is detailed enough, how much responsibility does rely on Saudi Arabia(where most the hijackers were from).I think its just as much a violant and terrorist region as iraq or afghanistan.Rodrigue (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert any nation is responsible for the attacks, so I don't know why we're talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation for that matter. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But what is its responsibility?, shouldn't it be mentioned as such. Rodrigue (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd think the host country would have some notable direct or indirect responsibilty for the atacks, considering how much focus there is on other co-conspiraters and they're state.Rodrigue (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Afghanistan, the then ruling clique the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden and his training camps. The fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals probably has more to do with Bin Laden, also a Saudi native, than it does with the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. They're smart enough to know better than to push it too hard with the U.S. as surely, had they been harboring Al Qaeda openly as the Afghans had been, a similar fate would have awaited them in the aftermath.--MONGO 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Streamline the lead a bit

In the lead, the passage that now reads:

On that morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to WTC dust. Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998 — most of whom were civilians.

seems unnecessarily clunky due to trying to fit too much information into one sentence. I propose a slight rewrite:

On that morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175. Each team of hijackers included one who had had some pilot training. They intentionally crashed one airplane into each tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, and a third into the Pentagon building near Washington. On the fourth aircraft, passengers and crew members attempted to retake control from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Both WTC towers collapsed soon after the impacts, causing extensive damage to nearby buildings, and the Pentagon was seriously damaged. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and at least one person was determined to have died later from exposure to WTC dust. Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998.

This elides a number of bits of information in the interest of presenting the basic facts smoothly. All those other details belong in the article body, I say, and indeed most of them are there. (I have also made a few changes to what is and isn't a link.)

I can't make this edit myself since the article is protected from us evil anonymous users (and no, I have no intention of registering at the present time), so I hope someone else will do so. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this proposal. --Haemo (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say in the paragraph, which flight was crashed into the Pentagon, which at Shanksville, which into the WTC. If you can reword it to specify that, then I'm open to changing the lead section. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - shouldn't Flights and Flight be lowercase? Vrac (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a style issue and it makes sense both ways. I haven't checked the WP:MOS, but I think I see them capitalized elsewhere in Wikipedia in this sort of context. I still think that listing which flight was crashed where is a subject that belongs in the body, not the lead. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanently lock

The POV/conspiracy pushers for this article are just insane. I visit this talk page every now and then and it's the same old crap over and over. The wacked-out theories are worthless. To you POV pushers, please do something constructive for wikipedia (and society), and drop this topic and move on.

I suggest this article be permanently locked, along with its talk page. Nothing good can come from allowing either of these to be edited. All I see is a huge waste of everyone's time. Timneu22 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's pointless to discuss this. It's not going to happen. Ever, as it violates basically every principle of Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't permanently lock articles on Wikipedia, but I would like a rule that would limit the conspiracy pushers the ability to constantly harp about it on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see that too. Conspiracy pushers are basically (somewhat borderline) trolling when they bring up unreliable sources to push radical claims over and over (and continuously attack Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources), though some of these editors also make constructive edits so they can’t really be classified as "trolls". In extreme cases users who refuse to stop trolling could theoretically be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but if it isn't outright disruptive behavior over long periods it might not fly. Of course it goes without saying that any IP addresses or new users that troll and vandalize a lot can be reported. But to make a long story short, yes, I'm as annoyed by it as everyone else :). But lets not feed them too much. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree A quick read of this section serves to illustrate which camp deserves censure. I haven't seen much trolling, except as written in the above paragraph (allegations of trolling IS trolling). Asking for a page to be permanently locked is just saying, "No more discussion. Everyone already knows everything about these incidents. Stop asking questions". Hopefully, pending regime change in the US will bring more hidden facts to light. It's definitely premature until after the elections. Bulbous (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These folks aren't just "asking questions". They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit. People are more than welcome to ask questions - but that has not been what is going on. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, you can certainly keep asking questions. By all means, try to find out the truth if you don't think the view based on seemingly reliable facts is correct. Write a book. Call government officials. Get in contact with others who share your view. Watch Fahrenheit 911. But keep it out of Wikipedia. We don't give credence to original research, speculation, and unreliable sources. We report what the reliable sources say (the accepted view of things), and that is all. None of these conspiracy theories are supported by reliable sources and most are based on some form of original research where the editor claims to come to a certain conclusion based on a long list of "facts" cited with unreliable sources - or none at all. Therefore, we cannot integrate these theories into a prominent place in the article as though they are accepted as plausible alternative explanations of 9/11, which, at the moment, they are not. That being so, these editors who continuously push for these theories on the talk page are being fairly disruptive. However, they are not exactly trolling, as I assume most of these editors at least don't intend to disrupt. Though if they push again and again as we have seen, it begins to look a little more like trolling. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're getting several different discussions mixed up here. This section concerns permanently locking the article. Even if the motivation is thwarting "conspiracy theorists", the end result is that you will be locking out any future WP:Verifiable information as well. And so the proposal is only self-serving for those looking to close the book with the current "official" record of events. And that makes no sense from any perspective. Bulbous (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehem. Sorry, but im just an ordinary web-browser from Lithuania. Why don't you want to at least include a section about that conspiracy theory, which is, let's say a sorta likely theory, like "criticism" or so? I understand that you would do anything to keep everything the way it "should be". Thanks god i don't live in USA. Who knows, maybe i would have end up brainwashed like you are. Don't dare deleting my message, i'm looking forward to an answer. I hope that people who created wikipedia won't let wikipedia be controlled by people who should be in jails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP has an entire article about the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory section in this article links to it:

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

--PTR (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Golbez, I hear your frustration when you write: They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit — and I can well imagine your dismay. To be honest: I might also have made the mistake of accusing you of bad faith, were it not that I have seen members of my own family turn violently against "conspiracy theories" — who's good faith I do not question. My conclusion is that it is possible to be an intelligent individual, study 9/11 and conclude that there is nothing to worry about, no inside job. I've seen it happen so often. But, it remains for me hard to grasp. So I can well imagine that others would suspect you of foul play. Just as it is hard for you to imagine anyone genuinely believing it being an inside job and being intelligent and reasonable at the same time, so it may be hard to believe you are not a reptilian. This brainwashing is cleverly done, and its succes is at the same time the explanation for 9/11: they wouldn't have tried it if they didn't think they would get away with it. And they seem to be getting away, at least, for six years pretty much already. However, the struggle between the two camps is pretty much symmetric in arguing. The pro-mainstream wikipedians seem a majority, but this may be the result of that it's easier to "defend" one shared, false, story than dozens of potential alternative explanations. To be continued, I'm afraid... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you misinterpret the point of this talk page and Wikipedia. We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Notice this kind of off-topic discussion is exactly why I locked this section earlier. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Page must be tagged "neutrality disputed"

For formal reasons, this article (in the present VERY excentric) form, must be tagged to warn information seeking readers!
Compare to: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States!

Or do you even want to dispute the fact, that many of its details are controversial?
GH --125.24.208.245 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is not he same as neutrality. The fact that there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial is not sufficient for a demonstration that the article is non-neutral. Compare to evolution, where a much larger minority believe the factuality of the processes related on the page is also controversial, yet there is a featured article on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Haemo, your comparison does not work 100%. The dispute is not at the existence of the process of evolution, it is of the origin of life: Evolution#Origin_of_life which is in section 5.1 and is only four sentences long. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Even better, in Abiogenesis wikipedia uses the wording: the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. This is how I would like to see things frased. Can you point me to a place in wikipedia where it is said that life emerged from non-life, period? I would love to see the RS for that one! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You say:

...there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial..

• You missed the point. The fact remains that, in America, there is a significant percentage of people who do not believe the process of evolution occurs. At all; period — to them, the claim that evolution occurs is controversial. Nonetheless, our article on evolution does not present it as anything other than fact, and that controversy does not make it non-neutral. Tenuous metaphorical appeals to a simile which I did not make does not change this fact. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware of the fact that even Fox and CNN have confirmed, a majority is convinced, that the official story is wrong. (Poll "Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence")
--81.169.155.23 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

agree we should tag it. Better would be to start attributing claims. A simple disclaimer in the lead, that this a majority view would also be helpful. For instance: this article describes the events from the point of view of government and mainstream sources. For alternate views, see...etc.etc. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "majority view" — is a view supported by reliable sources. There's a difference, which you fail to understand. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk FAQ needed

Talk:Muhammad has a FAQ subpage covering common suggestions that conflict with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps this article needs something similar: It could cover such arguments as "This article should be less biased towards the mainstream account and talk more about the cover-ups and conspiracy theories". We could then insert the usual consensus response to these arguments based on Wikipedia policy: original research, reliable sources, and so on. This way, hopefully, we can avoid such off-topic discussions in the future.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here.

The above is the banner on the Muhammad page, some form of which we could add here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you moved that out of your userspace yet? That FAQ is outstanding. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there was much bemoaning and gnashing of teeth when I proposed it last time; plus it's not really finished. I frankly just use it as a Coles' Notes version of a reply for virtually any question. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's set a date to move it out. It still needs a little work, but it looks good. I just did a test edit, you can see what you think. How about Mid feb? Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)