Talk:September 11 attacks

archive 38

Archive 38 has a few pieces which are still relevant for the active discussion. I am listing them here.

1. 1. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#NFSM
2. 2. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#list

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

passport issue (2)

Following apparant consensus, I inserted the text:

A passport of one of the hijackers was reported found intact near the WTC. Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble discovered the passport, belonging to one of the suspected hijackers, a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.; a passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Xiutwel - Please stop with this. There is no consensus for the change to include the factoid about the hijacker's passport. This article is a summary of the many subarticles relating to 9/11. The detail about the passport is too detailed and too specific for this article. It seems there is something mysterious about how a passport could survive the crash and end up a few blocks away? Here, here, here, here, and here are pictures showing the various debris (much of it pieces of paper) that ended up on the streets after Flight 11 crashed. Landing gear from the plane was also found blocks away. That a passport also ended up blocks away isn't particularly important detail for the main article. --Aude (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely...it's a tidbid of info often cited by the CT crowd to make their fantasy story more plausible.--MONGO 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it was reported all over the world on September 16. The section I'm inserting it in is very small, it can be a little bigger. This fact is important to people. It should not be burried in some sub-article. If you're blocking edits, would you please engage in the disussion here on how to mend the neutrality of this article. PS I do not see any pictures of passenger belongings, these are just papers that were in the offices.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the bank card belonging to Waleed J. Iskandar, a passenger on Flight 11. The bank card was found in the Ground Zero debris. We don't need factoids about passports or other specific items of debris in the main article. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This one fact in the light of what happened that day does not seem notable enough for here, especially considering that it is given adequate mention in an article with a more detailed focus on the subject. This particular article serves as the overall summary, after all. On another note, I don't see how this factoid aids the c/t crowd, anyway. It's not inconceivable that objects in the cockpit could have made it through the building intact -- jet fuel is stored in the wings, behind the cockpit. The velocity of the plane was sufficient (if only for a second or so) for some items to be carried through and out before they would have been incinerated in the following explosion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, by the point where you proposed this Xiutwel, you had (as noted in that section) already created 22 separate subsections. I'm not surprised there were no further replies, what with how convoluted this talk page has become it was inevitable something would get lost in the fray. For future reference, don't take lack of response as a sign of consensus, especially when a discussion has become as confused as this one. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It might have been your edit regarding 22 subsections directly below my question, which misled me...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that according to Ms. Susan Ginsburg, who directed part of the investigation, before the 911 Commission, the passport was found before the towers collapsed.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? New York is home to a lot of people, and that leaves a timeframe of several hours following the crash in which the passport may have been found before the tower collapsed. Now, if it had been found before the crash, you would definitely have a case, but this alone means nothing. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Burke's pictures (linked above) were taken before the towers collapsed and before Flight 175 crashed into the second tower. There was quite a lot of debris on the ground from the first crash. That a passerby found the passport amongst all the debris, picked it up and gave it to a police officer, is not surprising. --Aude (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what you or I think about it; it is significant to a lot of people. A lot of hits in google. Why is it so important to you to block this info? And please, engage in the neutrality debate above. I want to know whether you think this article is neutral.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Who finds it significant? And is this the most significant thing not in the article? How does it improve the article? Why should we include this fact above thousands of other facts that are not in the article? RxS (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Suqami passport - 46 hits in the Google News archive, compared to other details, such as Atta's last will and testament - 3,520 hits on Google News. Suqami's passport is more of a minor detail, one not worth including here. We don't have space for everything in a summary article. As for other threads on this talk page, I'm not interested in repeating myself here, when you can read the talk page archives to see my previous comments. Nor do I have the time to keep up with all the new threads. --Aude (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you are counting google hits in NEWS, you are following hits in RS to establish notability of a fact. This is exactly what I mean by Narrative based Fact Selection, #NFSM, which leads to a-neutrality.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• repeated question: Who finds it significant? And is this the most significant thing not in the article? How does it improve the article? Why should we include this fact above thousands of other facts that are not in the article? RxS (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for not replying sooner, RxS. If one does not google in NEWS but in plain google[1], you find a lot of conspiracy sites. So, these people have not forgotten this little fact, and do not deem it an insignificant chance coincidence. They may be looney in doing so, but Commons sense tells us it is likely relevant to view B, and therefore it helps in making the article a bit more neutral. If other wikipedians would want to balance this (dis)info with statements such as above, that is also possible. I predict the biggest hurdle will be for us to determine: what is: "balanced"? When is this balance achieved? (And yes, I know that a google search is not a RS to warrent a statement, it is OR.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurdle. You are merely fundamentally ignorant of our policies. There is no "view B" to be discussed here. We have one view: The view that is supported by reliable sources. We simply do not make distinctions between viewpoints by any other standard. If anything, the term "view B" signifies any view unsupported by reliable sources, and asking us to give it creedence it would violate half of our policies, not the least of which: WP:NPOV. The passport information is not relevant to this article, and your Google test, which does not determine notability, is mistaken. If you simply type hijacker passport you will receive every page that has those two words in any combination. Adding quotation marks around a specific phrase will narrow it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you are counting google hits in NEWS, you are following hits in RS to establish notability of a fact. This is exactly what I mean by Narrative based Fact Selection, #NFSM, which leads to a-neutrality."

This is the crux of the problem that we have with the alterations you are trying to make to this article. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. It's one of the founding policies of the entire project. If reliable sources do not exist for the content you are trying to add, then it simply cannot be added. What more is there to say about this? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am happy that the passport issue is at least in a subarticle of this main article. However, information in subarticles does not balance this article. We need more issues to add to this article to make it less POV, suggestions? (Or, we might remove all the not-agreed-upon material from this article, but that would not be my preference.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• I propose to include a trimmed down version of this, a single sentence, into the Responsibility paragraph.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At best, it shows an individual was at the crime scene (along with 50 000 others). Peter Grey (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

was --> might have been. It also shows that it might make sense to have a paper black box on board every plane, because there are instances where the black box is not recovered (4x) and a passport is. Seriously though: I think you should not judge everything whether it is important in your view of the world. There are other views, I would like it when you respected that. Or, is there only 1 WP:TRUTH in your perception?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I re-added the tag - obvious dispute in the talk page.--Striver - talk 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One person does not a dispute make; nor does a dispute with Wikipedia's fundamental guidelines make an article non-neutral. An argument on the talk page does not indicate that an article is non-neutral, especially when the argument being made for changes violates our fundamental guidelines and policies. There is a lot of sound and fury here, but no substance; please do not add the tag. It's disruptive. --Haemo (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, I would like to go back to our discussion on WP:SYNTH. Just below "#good editing" before, you made a claim that what I proposed would by in violation of that guideline, quoting the guideline partially. I then provided a more full quote, and you did not comment on that further, and you put the section into archived mode. (I am assuming good faith, it is a complex discussion with a lot of participants who each defend narrative A in their own way.) So, would you please explain why you would think that: -

• when I were to add a RS-based fact which appears to weaken narrative A in my eyes, but not in yours, without drawing conclusions, it would be SYNTH? The essence of the guideline here is: "when put together". I am not synthesizing facts or implicit conclusions, I am just adding facts on one big heap to make it neutral.
• the sources cited are related directly to the article, agree?
• you wrote: there [should be] reliable sources asserting which facts "narrative B" in this situation uses, or their relevance. Without reliable sources, the determination of which facts fall into this category is original research. I agree that, when claiming in the article that narrative B uses fact X, I should have a RS to demonstrate it. To include fact X, however, wikipedians can use their own judgement. The RS are not committed to being WP:NEUTRAL, but we are.
• I am not aware of wanting to violate any guideline. If you disagree, could you provide a quote of mine and a quote of a guideline which it conflicts with?
• adding bias to a neutral article makes it biased. Adding bias to a biased article is inevitable in making it neutral.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you're adding facts which do not appear to have any significance or relevance to the topic — . Indeed, you've explicitly endorsed adding facts which no reliable source ties to the event, or gives them any significance. In other words, you're taking sources which report something, but which do not tie them to this event in any meaningful or significant way, and trying to include them because you think they're relevant. Relevance does not come from my opinion, or your opinion, and it doesn't come from whether or not I think they undermine anything. Synthesis is explicitly "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article" — if you are citing sources which include facts, but are not directly related to the subject of the article, you are engaging in original research. Wikipedia is not a fact grab bag, where we go about (as you say "use [our] own judgment") to decide which facts are, or are not relevant to an issue on our own. I might think it's super-freaking relevant to the terrorist attacks that on September 10th 2001 a crazy guy went on a shooting rampage; however, no reliable sources would back up that relevance, so it shouldn't be included. The same goes for the POV you are trying to push here — you don't seem to understand that Wikipedians are not supposed to be deciding what, and is not, relevant to an article's subject. That's what researchers in the field do — historians, experts, journalists, etc. We are a tertiary source, and thus defer to them — accepting relevance if (and only if) they assert it first.

Again, I ask that you think about what you're arguing — you have a very strong POV on this issue, and are explicitly trying to bias the article. You say as much above. Think about applying your argument, and what you seek to do here, anywhere else — it opens the door for everyone with a theory and some facts which they can source to reliable sources to add whackjobs of unrelated facts to any article? Think the Sun is inhabited by an ancient race of Machine-Gods? Well, start adding facts about how certain alloys can survive near the suns surface, how "anomalous readings" have been held by some to indicate life, how some futurists have speculated about an inhabited sun, or whatever else you want. Perhaps this is why it's prohibited by our guidelines? I explicitly gave you an argument earlier which was exactly the same, but for Hitler's death and vegetarianism — you rejected your own suggestions when the issue was something you did not believe strongly about. That should tell you something about its validity, and your motivations here. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how you think your example of veggy Hitler to be the same, or even similar.
The sun machine gods would not be against policy, when this view was nontiny.
For 9/11, there exists a notable, 9/11-B view. Its existence is backed by RS. Its merit is not (to the contrary). B is nontiny. Thus it should be included fairly in a neutral article.
Let's distinguish 2 concepts: related means: connected, the same subject. relevant means the same, but stronger: additionally it also means: significant or important. SYNTH mentions related, not relevant or significant, sou could you please explain how adding facts would violate SYNTH?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the intensifier "directly". The semantic difference between a source being "directly related" to a subject, and the facts outlined in the source being "relevant" to a subject is nil. This is Wikilawyering in the extreme. If you look at the Hitler argument, it has exactly the same structure as your argument — yet you opposed it! You also seem to misunderstand, or are confused about the Sun example I gave — suppose it was not "tiny" in your terms. You claim adding all of those facts to the article would be acceptable — however, at no point are any of the source give "directly related" or "relevant" to the article! It's textbook synthesis — you just explicitly endorsed synthesis, again, as you have been repeatedly doing so. --Haemo (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, there are two kinds of notability, and you are mistaking them. If a large portion of the population believes in the sun machine gods, there can be an article about the social movement of believing in them. The article about the sun will not mention the possibility of machine sun gods living there or select otherwise unimportant facts to hint at their existence. Likewise, we have an article about the social phenomenon of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but for the same reason, we do not balance the conspiracy theories with the actual account, which is based on available reliable sources, in this article. I do not know how many times you need to be given this information for it to sink in. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie, we can have an article about the phenomenon of a social movement which has some belief that most of us don't share. I agree. And there should be an article on the 9/11 Truth Movement as such. But, when such a social group is nontiny, it is therefore a group we must consider. Perhaps the first question is: are we talking about a tiny, or a significant minority? When we agree on that, I will think about the synthesis bit, because now I must go and catch my train. Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I am thinking about the synthesis bit, and I am not sure I get what you are saying. On Hitler: one could add the vegetarian bit in "death of..." if and only if there is a significant minority view which (acc. to RS) claims that the two are related. And, that claim should be made explicit, and attributed to some holder of that view. In the machine god example: I must apologize for not thinking it thru. I concentrated on the facts, not on which article you wanted to put it in. The article of the Sun should i.m.o. then have a single line saying that some believe it is inhabited, and the rest goes in a seperate article. Whether the Sun is inhabited or not has little bearing on its other properties, like heat, rotation etc. Likewise, I wouldn't dream of adding the "passport issue" to United States.
In retrospect, I think your hypothetical examples are creative, but are only confusing in the end. There is no good parallel between them and the reality of Wikipedia at hand. For instance, the passport: the 9/11 article is supposed to be a summary of its subarticles. The 911/Responsibility article has the passport bit. Therefore it could be in the main article. It's a WP:WEIGHT issue, then. It makes sense the event/fact is related to the guilt of the perpetrators. The fact can be (and is) interpreted in two main ways: (a) it is a plausible coincidence that it survived and was found, and it proves the hijacker was on board; (b) it is an unlikely event that it could have survived, and therefore "indicates" it was planted. The fact in itself is rather neutral. I am amazed at the strong objections, since it was originally promoted by the White House as proof for Al Qaida's involvement. Would you please answer me one question:
would you agree to calling adherents to
   the "view", that: from the facts around 9/11 a LIHOP-scenario is likely, or at least well possible and nees further investigation
— would you agree to calling them a significant minority?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reference the Global Warming example. Are we to group the individual scientists who oppose the IPCC consensus as if they were a single movement when their opinions are varied and often contradictory? The same is the case here. In my talk, you yourself said that the only constant among the conspiracy theorists is the belief that "A cannot be true": who, how, when, why, and to what extent the government had a role are all points of contention among them. Is this general assertion alone binding enough to warrant treating "group B" as if it were a consolidated movement? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, it makes no difference how big the group is. If what they believe is not supported by reliable sources, it cannot be included. Prevalence of the belief does not translate to plausibility of the belief. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, as your logic violates nearly every point on this list. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okie, would you please specify/explain what you mean by "supported"? It is ambiguous: it could mean that RS are saying a belief is or might be true; it might mean that RS are stating that some people have such a belief.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Jc-S0CO: Any individual is unique. Whether two individuals are in the same group, depends on the criterium we choose. If we choose "supporters of a specific view B_x", then no doubt there will be many tiny minorities, and only a few significant minorities. (We could go and do that, when necessary, but it would be a hell of a job.) If we chose "opposers of view A, in the sense that they hold possible a government LIHOP scenario", then we would have a clearly defined subset, for which I have no doubt they have a lot of prominent adherents. I think we do not need to assume a consolidated movement to define a view B this way. How do you feel about that?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As an Arab Muslim, I find this article very bias. In order to make it a neutral point of view, they must have some sort of evidence that an Arab Muslim hijacked the aircraft. No evidence exists. If someone knows of any evidence explicitly proving that an Arab Muslim did in fact hijack each aircraft please post the sources on this article. Until then, please remove the "Al Queda" references which only further the misconception that terrorists are Arab Muslims and vice versa. There were no Arabs on Flight 77 or 11 according to multiple passenger lists: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This point has been raised (and answered) before. Those are not passenger lists, but victim lists - the difference being that they do not include the names of the hijackers. Contrary to what the above poster implies, the sources merely state that there were no Arab Muslim victims on the flights in question. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It still feels strange to me that the names of the hijackers were not mentioned in these articles. They were not victims, but they were passengers before they became hijackers. Also, how can we be so certain they did this? I would still like to see the original passenger lists, including their names; anyone?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree (with user Xiutwel): However, I think it is important that anyone exploring the addition of this information ensure that a credible reliable source is used... I find it highly unlikely that the names of the passenger will be published somewhere... but who knows? --CyclePat (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."

Am I the only one that finds the strongly one-sided opening statement of this article f*cking ridiculous? Excuse my French, but this is clearly a biased article. There's no proof or factual evidence relating Al-Qaeda or any terrorist group to 9/11 past what the super foolproof "official" 9/11 Commission Report claims. The problem I have with this is that when people look up 9/11 on say, Google, the very first result is the wiki article. Then, when they continue on to this article, the first thing they read is a "this is what happened and we're totally sure of it" statement. Honestly, it's very irritating. I'm not trying to stir up conspiracy talk here, even though what the press, media, and commission report tells us happened clearly didn't, but that opening line is just too... full of itself. I find it misleading at best, and really want something to be done about it, whether it be removed, changed, or made much less biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominatrixdave (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one who finds this statement biased. But in stead of making, in your indignation, biased claims to the contrary is not the best you can do in creating consensus. So, if you have a good, neutral suggestion, I would welcome it !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim that you are not pushing conspiracy talk, then go on to assert that "what the press, media, and commission report tells us happened clearly didn't." I find this lack of subtlety amusing... ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The opening of the article is the result of many long discussions. You might want to skim through the archives. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only thing full of itself is Dominatrixdave. Timneu22 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[nonpolite bit deleted /Xiutwel] ... who locked it from edit? BBC.com says 7 of the supposed hi-jackers are alive and well! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.25.221 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-locked, you can edit it when you register an account. The article you quote is very old, I am not sure anno 2008 the supposed hijackers are still believed to be identical to living persons. If you have recent verifiable information on this, I would welcome it !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree no nondisputable evidence proves the attacks were performed by arab muslims. Of the 19 official FBI alleged hijackers (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm), several are still alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all allegations should be removed from the lead, or made explicit, saying "the US government stated as fact that the hijackings were done by 19 Al Qaeda hijackers." or something like that.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Administrations handling of 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and everything else, how can we trust their list alleged hijackers/institutions? Its still arguable whether or not Al Qaeda is funded by the US government simply because the CIA will not release records disproving their financing of Osama Bin Laden since before the Gulf War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To be in your shoes...

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

---

disclaimer: I am going to make a good faith effort to voice the debate from the other side as best as I can. Please assume no demagogous or rethoric intentions. —Xiutwel

---

" If were to have a certain view, and I would feel confident and sure it was correct, I would expect this view to be in line with what I would find in any encyclopedia. If there were to exist some little sect Church then, which held a view completely opposed to my view, I would not want their view to be in Wikipedia. Now, if some prominent film stars and celabrities were to become member of this church, it might gain a lot of media attention. Who cares... even a lot of the general population might be infected by the philospohies of such a church. Something does not get more true because more people believe it. I should not have to argue that the Earth might be flat because such a church claims so, and has notable supporters. I would become a member of what I, for brevities sake, would like to respectfully call: "The A-team". Saying: the earth is round, and it is anyone's right to believe otherwise, but we need not include such nonsense in our article about the Earth. Just a single mention to the historical flat Earth believe is appropriate and suffices.

I can imagine any editor believing this to be right and just, and the purpose of wikipedia. We can respect their view, allow them to have it, but we need not honor their view. No need to be neutral, because the argument is silly.

But, should I not take a step back when 10% of the world population would have the view that the Earth is flat (view B)? It's alright for me to know that the Earth is NOT flat, but they do not know that. Should we then change the Earth article, making it say: a majority believes it is round, and a minority believes it is flat? I would feel very, very awkward about that. Because I bloody KNOW it is round, don't I?

And if some notable Professor were to adhere this view B, and perform experiments: place a floater device on the surface of a calm Sea, and note that the floater does not move sideways "as one would expect when the Earth was round", would I want to allow this experiment in the "Earth" article? And all the other crazy arguments which exist? This debate should belong in a seperate article! "

---

I repeat I am not trying to use some cheap trick here, I genuinely see the problem. I hope we can now jointly work to a decision for this, a hypothetical matter: what course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority)?

It is hard.

---

" I find it difficult to simply assume the neutral position here, on wikipedia, describing this flat Earth debate, because the notion is ridiculous in my eyes. Yet I think wikipedia policy would prescribe me to do so: assume neutrality, and give each side plenty of fair space for their view - where one is the truth and the other, demonstrably, a delusion. Contrary to the neutrality-policy I would be inclined to discard this bit of policy, because it seems silly now. It's more of a disease than a viewpoint to me! Yet also I believe in the wisdom of all the policies combined, being the result of seven years of co-working between thousands of people in perhaps the biggest single collaborative intellectual effort that has ever been undertaken. So, now I am genuinely confused: neither solution seems to be the right one. " I end my role play here. ^{(1) (2)}

---

(taking time to become me again)

(endulging in a little rant) Looking at all the facts, even when hoping or believing there is a simple explanation for them, is the only thing which has ever advanced science. If a scientific theory is correct, it will stand, regardless of how fiercly it is attacked. If it is flawed, it will be replaced — after a few or after a few thousand years. Access to this complete information can speed up this process. Wikpedia should provide acces to knowledge, neutrally. And that means(!): displaying a lot of nonsense in the process.
In most cases where there exist a view A and a view B, most likely both of them are partly false, and the truth, view T, can be discovered the fastest if enough parties begin to use perspective C: i.e. beholding both views, and their related facts and arguments, from a neutral perspective. I feel relief, having put all this into words. I feel enthousiastic thinking this contribution could turn out to help us reach consensus on how to apply wikipedia policy in this article! — Xiutwel and Sockrates dual 12:33-13:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one sick of Xiutwel saying the same thing over and over again, ignoring everything we've said, and presenting the same 'debate' each time? Can we put an end to this and say "No, Xiutwel, you are wrong based on Wikipedia Principles. Do not bring it up again"? I think this is the ONLY way we are going to move on, since he refuses to understand. --Tarage (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one...? No. Peter Grey (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think at this point that his intent is to ignore us to the point that we stop wasting our breath fighting him, then to interpret the ensuing silence as a green light to add his content. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case(Not saying it is), can we get a moderator or two in here to put an end to this? --Tarage (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am disappointed that your reaction is one of frustration, in stead of moving forward. I too am working very hard here to improve wikipedia, as are you. True: Perhaps I have not responded to every individual claim raised by others, when (and only when) I thought that the other matters I did address would sufficiently answer and deal with these other points raised. If I am wrong, which you are saying, and there are still claims of yours you want answered, I promise I will. Name them. I am trying to pinpoint the core of our dissensus, not ignoring your points. My opinion is: (a) Articles have to be neutral. (b) There exist two nonsignificant viewpoints on 9/11 responsibility: (c) One of them being the majority view. (d) In such a case, guidelines are instructing to write neutrally, not engaging in this debate. (e) We should have RS for any fact or claim, but (f) notability is not temporary: if RS stop reporting on facts and using them, in their analyses, we need not erase them from Wikipedia afterwards, nor should we be forbidden to include them. They are still valid. (g) It is not OR or SYNTHESIS to include facts which are supportive to view B, and seem unsupportive of view A. On the contrary: it is our task, being neutral, to include them, duely. (h) The only thing open to debate, is the amount of what is due: what do proportionate, and prominence mean? My preference would be to say: ideally, 80% of the article neutral, 15% pro view A, 5% pro view B. (i) Currently, I would say the article is 50% neutral, 49% view A, and the redirect to the conspiracy theories article seems the only treatment of view B (1%). This is too biased for my taste.
  Please answer the unanswered questions I raised in previous sections requesting quotations from guidelines, when you disagree with me.
  The fastest way to get out of this debate is to find out what it is exacty that we are disagreeing on (which interpretation of which policy); after that we can discuss how to create consensus. I suspect there will be two points: (a) should we still be neutral if we know one of the views to be nonsense? and (b) is it Synthesis to include a fact which is not supportive of a view of any RS? Or need the fact only be supportive of any nontiny view to be relevant enough for inclusion?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I stoped reading at "I too am working very hard here to improve wikipedia". If this were even remotly true, you would have stoped arguing with Wikipedia policy for the past... how many months? Your argument is state, and you don't seem to understand that your problem isn't here, it's with Wikipedia's policy, which I am 99% sure you won't be changing. I get the feeling giving you a long winded explination is moot because you've ignored the rest of the ones above. --Tarage (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you cannot give me any recognition for my efforts. So be it; I consider working for consensus and discussing matters of improving the article to be "working" as well as working directly on the article. You are right that I believe that you are misinterpreting policy, not I. You are also right, that a long winded explanation is probably not what is useful now: so better not give me a new explanation. Simply quoting the things you think I have ignored earlier will do; then we can see if I have overlooked something, ... or that it is you who is doing the overlooking. OK?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment makes it clear that you have no intent to listen to anything we have to say, as you have already come to the unmovable conclusion that as long as we disagree with you we are, irrevocably, wrong. I must admit that your persistence in this discussion is impressive, but although now you claim your motive to be balance and neutrality, this stands in sharp contrast to some of the comments you made at the very beginning.^[2] However you dress it now, through your past actions I still have a very hard time believing that your intent is any other than to post a list of reliably-sourced factoids in a way which synthesizes a conclusion which does not meet the same standards. That was the point of the Ronald Reagan analogy I made before: even reliably-sourced facts can be strung together to form a fallacious conclusion. That is why the policy exists to begin with.

I can barely stomach this debate at this point, but I have to make this one point clear: Achieving consensus and driving away all editors with differing viewpoints through a relentless filibuster are not the same thing. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But he was not replying to someone that was just "disagreeing with him", he was replying to someone that explicitly said that he decided to just ignore what he wrote ("I stoped reading at...").--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pokipsy76 !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• You poor editors. Let him be. You've pointed out the flaws in his contribution and he denies your points. It is not your responsibility to guard WP from misguided editors. If your arguments against his edits are valid, others will come along and improve or remove them. While he may be trying to interject a certain POV, he's also adding at least some information - even if it is only that there are some people who believe some things that are whacked out. Now, on to review his edits for myself! Dscotese (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, someone is always going to have to be on guard with his edits, making sure he doesn't put something in because he takes some comment as consensus. I think it would be FAR more productive to simply give a flat out no and move on. --Tarage (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So this dispute is about whether or not to include the "factoid" that one of the hijacker's passports was found - in the section describing the fact that the hijackers were "well-educated...". Think about this: why would you call it a "factoid" instead of a "fact"? Also, I noted that some editors are concerned that certain "factoids" are being used by "the CT crowd" to promote the conspiracy theories. Oh no! Not evidence that people who disagree with me can use! I am firmly on Xiutwel's side in this debate - at least for that edit.

I resolved this by adding the facts that Xiutwel wished to include to the subpage for "Organizers of the 9/11 attacks" or whatever it's called. It seemed the right place for this information.

Dscotese (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have no problem with this; again it is a reliably sourced factoid which I do not see to particularly benefit either side of this debate. But what Xiutwel was attempting to do was add it here, to the main page. My main opposition to this was that in the full summary context of what happened that day, something like this is really was too minor IMO to include on the main page. Hence the use of the term "factoid". ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral P.O.V. is an oxymoron. Neutral is oblivious to point of view. Facts cannot be edited. Editing is subjective as is point of view. To ignore a fact for any reason, bias, fear of reprisal, is to pick a side, therefore it's not neutral. The whole premise is absurd. Like calling a piece of information a a factoid. Lay out the evidence. Be neutral, nd let readers decide what is real based on the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deminizer13 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lay out the RELIVANT evidence. We don't support synthesis, but you don't seem to understand that. Listing off random facts does NOT help the article at all. The ONLY thing it does is push one POV. Unless you can use RS to put all of these facts together, they don't belong here. THAT is what we have been trying to tell you, and THAT is what you continue to ignore, to the point where I just want to call a moderation and get this argument banned for being frivelous. --Tarage (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

ceasefire? / pledge 2

Because the discussion is going off-topic, and becoming personal, I've explained my motives at my own talk page: User_talk:Xiutwel#my_intentions.

I think the debate is stuck. Other editors accuse me of ignoring their arguments, where I would say I do not ignore them but disagree. When I ask to point to which arguments I would have ignored that need addressing, there comes no response. On the other hand, I've repeatedly asked for quotations of policy. I got one once, but when I replied that that quotation was i.m.o. out of context, and despite repeating my call for quotations, it remained unanswered.
So both sides are accusing the other of not listening, now. I can only conclude that this debate has become stuck, and indeed needs outside help, or just a bit of rest. I will now go and prepare some content to be added, in my userspace. That may take a while.
Another pledge: I will not presume consensus silently. When I want to claim consensus, I promise to announce it on the talk page that I am assuming it, 24 hrs before editing the article accordingly. Because I know how annoying it is when you do not trust a "hostile" editor (mark the quotes) to leave your hard work be. (Remember the cruft deletion campaign?) So, you need not reply to my arguments for fear of me concluding consensus in stealth. Please only reply to help Wikipedia.
I still would like to reach consensus on this topic, and naturally I would still very much like this discussion to continue and develop into consensus. But I would agree with a pause for a couple of days or weeks, and if all agree we can put the above debates in archive-mode, as far as I'm concerned.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an indefinite pause — forever. By all means, please stop introducing proposals that violate policy so blatantly, especially when you’ve been informed of their violations by all experienced editors and administrators who are familiar with policy and involved in this page. In fact, your incessant (often epic poem-length) proposals have driven people away. Many involved in this talk page have simply ignored you the last couple of weeks, and don't expect that to stop if you return with these proposals, your good intentions aside. Unwillingness to adhere to policy is unlikely to garner much respect for your proposals in the future, and may prompt editors to revert such comments based on your pattern of disruptive behavior. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On another note: I, personally, have repeatedly told you of policy violations and advised you to review specific policy pages. Others have done the same at every turn. You have been anything but deprived of opportunity to be made aware of policy. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always reread the policy when you linked to it. However I could not find it supporting your approach. That's why I was asking for quotations. Why didn't you give them?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It has been explained to you more times than I can count. Litterally, over and over. Policy has also been quoted to you directly more than once. Your behavior has become disruptive and you will be reported if you continue. If you truly do not understand policy, ask questions on the pages of the respective policies. First, you may want to re-read the archives to find what other editors have told you about policy. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, thank you for your message on my talk page! I've replied there.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Note: further additions should be made outside of the archived section.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Norman Mineta testimony issue

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for Comments

Template:RFChist  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please respond all the way at the bottom of the main section: here.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to include a text on Norman Mineta's testimony (below) into the article:

discussion / insertion point

• in which subarticle and in which subsection should it go? I would say: Responsibility...
• Any amendments?

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• For this article at this point it has no place to go. There needs to be a subsection under U.S. Government Response called "Immediate Executive Branch Response". You would need a different cite for this article as a cite from a 9/11 conspiracy website would be greeted quite harshly here. This issue is covered substantially in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The authors contextual arguments should be added to that article Edkollin (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

  How about: September 11, 2001 attacks#Immediate national response ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. [moved the rest of my comment, and Xiutwel's reply, to a more pertinent location]

proposed text - open for amendment

new article subsection: Immediate Executive Branch Response

text version: 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Vice-president Dick Cheney stated that he was watching the second tower being hit live (9:02:59 a.m. local time). He tells that shortly after, he was evacuated to the underground shelter in the White House, the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Cheney himself testified before the 9-11 Commission that he was not in the Command loop until 9:58 AM, but according to testimony from his collegue, Norman Mineta, the acting Secretary of Transportation, he was already in the command centre and giving orders when the plane that was to hit the Pentagon at 9:37 AM was still 50 miles out. Norman Mineta's testimony was not included in the final report of the Commission. Cheney refused to testify under oath, as did the President. They also insisted on testifying together instead of seperately, against the Commissioners' request. The reason for this given by George Bush was: "It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them." In december 2001 the President declared that being in Sarasota, Florida, he had watched the first airplane strike live on television, just prior to entering a classroom to monitor a childrens' reading programme. After being told about the second plane striking, he and his staff continued the session with the children (estimates for this vary between five and nine minutes), while the third plane was being hijacked and nearing the Pentagon. In fact, some of Bush’s Secret Service agents had watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. Bush left the school between 9:30 and 9:35, just a few minutes before the Pentagon was struck. references preview please start at nr 4, the rest belongs elsewhere  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21 01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

further discussion (Norman Mineta testimony issue)

I am on an enforced wiki break but dropped in to say that the only ref in your list that has anything to do with Mineta is the last one which is from a non reliable source. In addition, this information would be OR. There is not a reliable source that has reported on this. It is not relevant that one or the other of two people mixed up the time. - PTR.

Is it OR? Or is it good editing? There are reliable sources for all statements. There are no claims to what the contradiction could mean. When we can find no RS which has tackled this, we cannot conclude even that "one or the other has mixed up the time" - that would be OR. Nor is there a problem with SYNTHESIS, because that deals with making unrelated statements seem related. All here is very closely related: testimony and statements by White House officials on where they were, what they were doing, and how they were feeling. It kinda adds a personal touch to the article, don't you think?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see — you apparently think that a contradiction between two individuals statements about the timing of events is related to the attacks in some meaningful way. Yet, you have no reliable source that connects these two facts, or even establishes them as an important or signifigant contradiction. It's really telling that this is exactly what you proposed earlier, and everyone told you was original research (which you ignored), and that your proposed section says next to nothing about the section title, and instead focuses on a whole bunch of minor details which no reliable source ascribes any importance to and which would probably be inappropriate even on the relevant subpage Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The "personal touch" you are adding to the article is (suprise) laden with your POV on this issue, and is not supported by reliable sources. Nonetheless, I expect this rejoinder to bounce off you like literally all of the other ones, since you don't appear to listen to what people tell you and instead persist in truly novel interpretations of Wikipedia's guidelines which fly of our fundamental policies. --Haemo (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You [who? /Xiut] should note that people saying "this doesn't work in principle" should not lead you to suggest "ah, but perhaps it works in this one application", which is exactly what you're doing here. --Haemo (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, let me address your points one by one: /X

1. a contradiction/statements ... related ... in some meaningful way. Yes, you are correct, that is what I think. I am not claiming that this meaningfulness is the majority view: it is, in fact, a significant minority viewpoint that this would be meaningful. I am sure we agree on that? I think it would be unappropriate/unnessary to source that meaningfulness in the article text, but I'll be happy to discuss it. /X
2. have no reliable source that connects these two facts. Well, both facts concern testimony on the whereabouts of President and Vice-President by themselves and their collegues. They are obviously related, and putting them together can in no way lead to any misrepresentation of facts, I believe. /X
3. establishes them as an important or significant contradiction I make no claim (in the proposed article text) about them being a significant contradiction. Viewing the amount of controversy among editors, and for brevity, I think we best leave it to our readers to decide whether this is significant, or whether one of them was mistaken or lying. As there has been no formal investigation into this, there can be no RS assessing this, and we can only mention that the 9/11 Report ignored the testimony of Mineta. /X
4. Your objections towards my style are noted, and I am willing to discuss this and other rejoinders you may have, with you on my talk page, if you so wish: but I do not want to confuse the topic here with personal discussions. Hope that is ok for you? /X
5. I apologize for my remark in answer to PTR above which I'm striking now, it's really not to the point. /X
6. You claim my edit is laden with POV. The facts are simply facts. When there exists a reliable source that Mineta was mistaken, we should add it. As far as I know, the matter lays unresolved and untreated by reliable sources. These facts are unimportant in one POV, and important in another. Wikipedia should remain neutral, and not take sides here by omitting that half of the facts that the minority POV finds important and that the RS avoid treating. In stead of removing all POV from the article, we may balance it, see: NPOV/FAQ. /X  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The facts are facts — but there are many relevant facts, and many irrelevant facts. Here, you have two irrelevant facts, with only your claim that it is "obvious" they are relevant to the article — when the standard is not what you think is relevant or related, but what reliable sources. You are, once again, trying to insert irrelevant and unimportant facts based solely on your POV that they are in some sense "important". You cannot even find reliable sources which discuss these facts as important to the "minority POV" — all you've got is your own original research and opinions. It's exactly what everyone told you above was wrongheaded, and violates our policies, and here we go again, indeed.--Haemo (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See below.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again... --Tarage (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mineta's timeline has been discussed at length in various places[3], as it contradicts most other peoples' accounts (and occasionally his own recollections, given at different times, contradict each other). Conspiracy theorists ferociously defend his timeline: everyone else is lying and Mineta is a walking atomic clock.

There are also pretty big questions in his recollections. E.g. much of it relies on the plane that was "50 miles out" being the one that hit Pentagon (how did the "young man" who gave the "50 miles out" notification know the destination of the plane?) Others describe a "X miles out" countdown of Flight 93 to Washington. Mineta confusing which plane the "young man" was referring to clears up most of the confusion.

Without reliable sources discussing the possibilities of whose recollection and assumptions are incorrect, making claims about it is WP:OR. Even if two statements are superficially true, putting them next to each other can mislead and make the reader dumber: The moon is yellow. Cheese is yellow. You do the math. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Weregerbil (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Weregerbil! Let me quote some from there, and see if we can use it improve the new section-to-be-included:
CBS: "Within minutes [after crash 2], he was deep under the White House in a secret bunker, joining Vice President Cheney, helping to direct our defense, as the planes kept coming."
9-11 report: At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out.
At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to “engage or “take out” the aircraft.
Mineta, acc. 9-11 hearing 23-5-2003:...aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon...50 miles out ... I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m.
Now, I am confused: crash 4 at Shanksville is estimated between 10:03 and 10:06. This is much later than crash 4. Is there some timezone problem? The suggestion that the dialogues " 80 miles" and "50 miles" are similar and therefore would likely refer to the same event, seems synthesis to me. The whole article you pointed to seems to be a lot of original thought, and synthesis, aimed to arrive at a conclusion. That Mineta witnessed evacuation in progress is not necessarily in contrast with (another?) formal evacuation order at 9:45. We must also consider that any party, including Mineta, could be lying or be mistaken. Has he revoked his testimony? I would really like to include some good RS material into this, but this is just too vague.
I conclude mentioning the testimonies of Mineta and Cheney is not misleading our readers, absent some RS (which then should be added) that Mineta's testimony is false.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As you describe, there appears to be much confusion as to which planes are being talked about at each time. At various times there were even thought to be several more than four hijacked planes. Making claims about them, whether explicitly or by pulling the The moon is yellow. Cheese is yellow. trick, seems pretty clear WP:OR to me. Weregerbil (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We all agree that from those two sentences, it does NOT follow that the moon is made of cheese. (And it would make no sense to put them together, then.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been saying this to him for literally months. Hopefully you can think of some new, and creative, way to say "this is inappropriate" which will ring some alarm bells. --Haemo (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim I am trying to insert facts which are irrelevant, unimportant, or both. Correct?
Testimony, by members of the White House, on what they were doing on 911, in a paragraph about what was being done, on 911, can hardly be irrelevant. (When you disagree, Haemo, please give a direct guideline quotation for using the average opinion of reliable sources to establish the level of relevance for inclusion into an article.) That leaves the unimportant option. I do not see why this conflicting testimony should be unimportant. It might be. It might be not. So let's include the text. There is a significant minority present who thinks it might be important.
Have you noticed and agreed with the parts about Bush' testimony ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What important fact are you trying to describe? Weregerbil (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have, repeatedly. "If the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research". If there is a dispute over whether a given fact is related to an article, i.e. if its importance is challenged then it "must be supported by a reliable source". Read your guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first quote appears to be from the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy (you did not mention so). So is your second. You only quote a few words, however, and interpret them wrongly. This is synthesis in interpreting the guidelines, I would say. The whole bit "If there is a dispute over whether a given fact is related to an article" is a fantasy of yours.
Besides that, do you really want me to find a source which says that Norman Mineta's testimony about 911 to the 911 commission is related to 911? It will be difficult for me to find such an exact quote, since most people realise right away that these "might" be related. I must have misunderstood you??  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

hint, you might wanna try this one as well: "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; see below." (same policy)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You might pause to think on this: why might you be yonly one who shares your novel interpretation of guidelines? Numerous people have pointed out why your interpretation is wrong, and why it's contradicted by the guidelines as plainly written — they've even been so kind as to give you examples of the Pandora's Box it would open. The relevance of a fact to a subject can be challenged. Material which is challenged must be supported by reliable sources. You cannot cite sources "directly related to the subject of the article" which support the importance or relevance of the facts listed, ergo, you are engaging in original research.

You have long demonstrated your inability to work within, understand, or interpret Wikipedia's guidelines. Instead, you have attempted to push the same POV on this issue for months on end — attempting many different tacts and arguments to try and get around policies and guidelines. When rebuffed, you have not attempted to understand why you are wrong, or contribute within guidelines. Instead, you go back to the drawing board and try to find another way to circumvent them. This is classic tendentious editing, and it is a waste of time for everyone involved.

So, here's a suggestion for you — all of your suggestions, and arguments, are at odds with policy or guidelines. Do not waste our time with them — go to the relevant policy pages and argue to change the wording there to endorse what you want to do on this article. That is the only way you will gain any traction here, and the only way you can make a suggestion without wasting everyone's time yet again. --Haemo (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish to change any guideline on this. It is WP:COMMON SENSE that we cannot leave out all the arguments from one side when being neutral. The only guideline I am seeking to change in order to be more clear is WP:DUE, because I feel a minimum weight should be more clearly described to avoid debates such as on this page.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I could cite primary sources (for viewpoint B) which cite the Norman Mineta testimony as important (to their view, mind you), and I could cite secondary sources which say the primary sources exist. That more than suffices?
But now this: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (WP:V). So for me to be able to provide the necessary sourcing: would you please define what you are challenging? (more than one is possible, or one I did not think of...)

1. "Norman Mineta gave the above mentioned testimony"
2. "his testimony related to 911"
3. "his testimony is possibly relevant to the whereabouts of Cheney on 911"
4. "his testimony is correct and true"

I did no research on this myself at all, I just copied the notable research of proponents of view B, which is fully supported by RS. I hope you are not WP:Wikilawyering here? Since you dislike mine, I am rather curious what your approach would be to make the article balanced, giving view B due treatment.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see — I challenge that his testimony has any direct or established relevance or importance to the 9/11 attacks. It is barely a footnote, not more or less important than any of the other millions of footnotes established about that day. You cannot provide any reliable sources which establish it as important to anyone — not even conspiracy theorists. All you have is your original research that it's significant to a sizable minority of people. You claim you "don't want to change any guidelines" and instead argue that common sense supports your edits. It should be clear that when you're the only one arguing for your interpretation, it's not common sense, and you need to get the guidelines changed instead. Also — don't censor my comments. Your conduct on this talk page is directly relevant to this discussion — I am not alone in telling you this, yet you do not heed our warnings. Perhaps you should? --Haemo (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• We have one member of government contradicting another on the timeline which is crucial to the matter of why the planes were not intercepted, which could have saved at least 125 Pentagon employees. Not important? You are using WP:LAWYER to deny adding that information, claiming it is not important. You claim that contradicting witness reports are not important: without having yourself a RS for that claim, but asserting I must provide a RS saying, speaking for itsself, it is important, period, not just "might be important" or "is important according to 911-critics", mentioning e.g. Loose Change which does say so. Just because not much RS are willing to stick their necks out and point at this, we cannot add valuable info? This can never be the intent of the guidelines. And you are accusing me of breaking most of them with this edit: SYNTH, RS, OR, V - the lot. We're stuck then.
  I am requesting comments from other users on:

  "Should the edit be included to make the article more NPOV, or need RS be given themselves agreeing with the (minority) viewpoint that the matter has importance before we can include this? "

   — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on editors trying to include information to show that it is relevant or important. You have just admitted that you cannot produce reliable sources to support this. That's all that needs to be said on this matter. --Haemo (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not yet. And I am disputing I would need RS to establish importance for inclusion, the NPOV policy mandates it. And here is what Norman Mineta has to say on this (in June 2007): the conversation he overheard was before American Airlines went into the Pentagon.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  Hahaha, yeah, right. And I would like to include the fact that on September 11 1999, the price of the Treasury's benchmark 30-year bond rose 6.87 1/2 cents per $1000 invested. I can source that factoid to reliable sources too! Neutral point of view demands that we give equal weight to the opinions of my Federal Reserve theory! --Haemo (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  Will you take back this bad analogy, or stand by it?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  It's not an "analogy" it's an example of exactly what you are arguing to include, with exactly the same level and type of support. --Haemo (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  There exists a significant minority, with prominent adherents, regarding the view that Mineta's testimony is significant. Can you claim the same for your theory? If you can, and your fact is part of that theory, I believe we can include it?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  Provide reliable sources supporting this claim. Oh wait, you can't. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The discrepancy between the Commission's report and the Mineta testimony (and the other evidence supporting it) - see this article in "The Canadian": http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/22/02147.html - is important. Something like two years ago, the New York bureau chief of the Washington Post emailed me back, writing "You're absolutely right, someone should have found Minetta [sic] and tried to figure out how he sees and hears Cheney and why the 9/11 Commission ignored him". He also wrote: "I agree that there are many and important unanswered questions and contradictions hanging out there. And I wish that we, the Post, had looked much more carefully at the NORAD/FAA contradictions early on". That amounts to acknowledging that the RS in question had not done everything it should have done to find out the facts. Well, apparently they still haven't asked Mineta or looked at the contradictions. Perscurator (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this sentence is relevant: "In december 2001 the President declared[8] that being in Sarasota, Florida, he had watched the first airplane strike live on television, just prior to entering a classroom to monitor a childrens' reading programme." Bush probably meant that he saw the first tower burning after the strike. Perscurator (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he said he saw the airplane hit the tower, thought "what a terrible pilot", had no time to think about it, and went into the classroom. Where he learned about the second strike, and waited another 5-10 minutes, 'not wanting to disquiet the children'.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be a case of poor recollection or an imprecise expression. Perhaps he just meant that he saw the first tower on fire on TV after the airpline had struck. Perscurator (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it can be caused by almost anything. The point is, it can also be caused by him lying. I'm not saying he is, I'm saying this needs clearing up. And ignoring it is not helping. Someone once claimed that the matter had been cleared, without providing a source though. I would like to have that source, than we can mention that next to his account, and let the reader decide where he is lying and where he is telling the truth. /X 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The point is, when a member of government makes a statement that conflicts with that of another member of government, that is automatically significant for inclusion, even when most reliable sources miss it, suspecting no harm. Even the fact that it is ignored in the final report, makes it more relevant to this article, not less. Like the other thing the report ignored: the fact that WTC7 collapsed. "Just forgot to mention that!" I hear nobody argue that we should remove that collapse from this article? (I am not willing to do so just to make a point, but it would make sense to follow the report on both matters in the same fashion.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Here is another source for it: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html

America's Chaotic Road to War
Bush's Global Strategy Began to Take Shape in First Frantic Hours After Attack
By Dan Balz and Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 27, 2002; Page A01 

If this mention in this article does not make clear its significance for the subject of this article, what would?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• and another SPTimes 4-7-4  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• confusing: zero hits 509 hits with nr 1 being the testimony 22.100 hits of which only 1 RS?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• discussion of David Ray Griffin's video  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• diary of Japanese politician  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no objections. I feel we should include the text.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Minetas testimony is well documented and a notable amount of people regard it as important. It needs to be in the article. --Striver - talk 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I dissagree with everything you just said. --Tarage (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Florida Executive Order No. 01-262

• re: September 11, 2001 attacks#Immediate national response

Where can we find Florida Executive Orders? This order is alleged to have declared a state of emergency, which would not have been lifted.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. I have not looked at that issue in a long time but from what I remember those were long standing orders for hurricanes and things like that that had to be resigned periodically to keep them in effect. The resigning four days before 9/11 aroused suspicion of prior knowledge by Jeb Bush. I would do the usual Google and 9/11 conspiracy websites like 9/11truth.org prisonplanet.com etc. Edkollin (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is probably nothing, but it might be that 01-161 was a general one, and 01-162 was related to 911? So if anyone knows whether these are published on the web...?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda?

Shouldn't we be saying that it's believed that Al Qaeda were responsible, not that they ARE? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 01:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, no. AQ claimed credit and no one else has. No reasonable argument has been made otherwise, only wild conjecture. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should say "it's believed" rather than that they ARE. In fact, every fact in WP which is disputed should be reported that way. It's really up to the people that believe one story or the other to insist that WP represent their beliefs as FACT rather than belief, if they feel that it is helpful to readers. But really, who, besides BQZip01, believes that doing that encourages people to educate themselves? So change it. I'll support you. Where is the spirit of sticking it to the man, guys? Dscotese (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on "sticking it to the man", it is based on reliable sources who report the responsibility of Al Qaeda as fact. --Haemo (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources report the responsibility of Al Qaeda as fact. However there is no undisputed evidence of responsibility. What takes precedence? RS or facts? Wayne (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no indisputed evidence that the moon is not made of cheese. Verifiability, not truth. --Haemo (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We use RS for sourcing OUR statements. For sourcing facts, and for sourcing opinions. Not for presenting their opinion as a fact. (That's how I see it, but perhaps not the other editors on this page.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So is it Osama bin Ladin's opinion that he was behind it? --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Controversial claims should always be attributed, so you are absolutely right.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is al-Qaida's responsibility for the attacks really such a controversial claim? Only in the sense that proponents of fringe beliefs assert that the mainstream view is controversial. Fortunately, the question is moot: there is already a reference in the article for it. Currently it's reference #2, and it's in the second sentence of the lead. I'm surprised no-one noticed it before now. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a controversial claim, it's just a CLAIM, and not a FACT as far as I can tell. Many people CLAIM to have seen elvis recently, many people CLAIM to have killed JFK. None of them however have provided proof, and that is exactly what seems to be lacking in this case. It has nothing to do with "fringe beliefs", it's just a wording issue. The reference doesn't prove anything, it just supports my initial question. Maybe they did do it, maybe they didn't, I don't really give a damn, I'm just trying to support wikipedia by bringing possible errors to the editors' attention. If someone can show that it's been proven they were responsible then fine, keep it how it is, if not then lets change it. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that while you'll be hard-pressed to find reliable sources asserting that Elvis is still alive, we have scads of sources discussing al-Qaeda's involvement. The belief that the 19 hijackers were in fact not responsible for the collapse of the towers is indeed a fringe theory, and is treated as such. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• "the question is moot: there is already a reference" (Sheffield, above) The point is not whether or not the claim is made, the point is whether it is an 'undisputed fact' or a 'claim'. A RS which treats it as "undisputed fact" does not make it one. When large parts of the world, even in America, even former ministers of G8 countries, doubt it, it is logically a (disputable) claim. So the starter of this topic, Badharlick, is right. And the article needs fixing.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you can show a significant quorum of reliable sources supporting the view that it is not a fact, then your point has some merit. Otherwise, you're just pushing undue weight with an appeal to authority to attempt to shore up your argument. --Haemo (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Question: Are you now making the statement that there is no significant minority?

  By the way, here are some that describe the debate without asserting it is a fact: (I guess it is not often that RS would explicitely state that something is not a fact but disputed, more implicitely. The most vocal was the Zembla documentairy.)

  1. Trouw 31-7-2006 (Dutch)
  2. NOS 20-5-5 (Dutch)
  3. Volkskrant, gepubliceerd op 07 juni 2006 15:34, bijgewerkt op 31 augustus 2006 16:49 (Dutch)
  4. Zembla 09-2006 (Dutch)
  5. RTL 2006 (Dutch)
  6. Telegraaf 25-6-2006 (Dutch)
  7. Over 40% doubts who was behind 911 (Flemish)
  8. 21 augustus 2007 (Flemish)

  Here is Google translate: click.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some foreign language sources which you must rely on machine translation to read. Oh, they don't dispute the mainstream opinion — they just don't explicitly say it is a fact. Sounds good to me! --Haemo (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  ZEMBLA asserted that Danny Jowenko, a leading demolition expert, had no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished. They went on to provide no evidence or suggestion that or why or how he might be mistaken in this opinion. They suggested he was right. Is this not the same as expressing doubt at the official version implicitely?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• In other words, if a news source says "So and so claims X" without immediately refuting X, the news source is reporting that they endorse or believe X. I think even you can see the problem with that. --Haemo (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I will not hold against you that you cannot follow me here, since you are no Dutch speaker, and cannot check the nuances of tone yourself.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just note that if you have to rely on "tone" to get an endorsement, you're probably stretching. --Haemo (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Trouw article: Maker Kees Schaap maakte onlangs in deze krant duidelijk dat hij de samenzweringstheorieën niet zonder meer afwijst.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I repeat and not for the first time^{attempted consensus point 4 / Stop this. The list you have made has nothing to do...} my question above:
  Question: Are you now making the statement that there is no significant minority?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me handle that, no....there is no significant minority. You haven't shown one, and repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it so. A short list of sources you read meaning into does not a significant minority make. RxS (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating that, RxS. But I would like to know Haemo's opinion. (You're not his PR spokesperson, are you?)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I wrote a FAQ to answer this one... --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not, please answer my question in the Andreas von Bülow issue section related to this, thanks. RxS (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, can someone show me the proof that they were responsible?▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) And by the way, I believe that moon rocks have proven that the moon is not made entirely of cheese. ;) ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of proving things, we report what reliable sources say, and they are pretty unanimous on this point. RxS (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you leave out the parts they report and of which you think they think it is not important. The RS are assuming the mainstream account, not proving it, and it should be attributed. If they had proved it, they would have dealt extensively with Osama bin Laden writing with the wrong hand, Mineta contradicting Cheney, 3 ministers questioning the account, etc. They assume and thus we should attribute.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources report...."Proof" or "Truth" doesn't enter into it. If you think reliable sources are leaving things out you need to take it up with them. Perhaps that's the source of your confusion. RxS (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We have to correctly report all that they report, and attribute it as they often do. We mustn't copy the editorials which, for brevity alone, would take the mainstream account for granted.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: You think we landed on the moon?! --Haemo (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda's claim to responsibility should be mentioned as just that (Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks). What is the problem with saying it in that fashion? There are similar terrorists attacks (e.g. Ahvaz bombings in Iran), in which dozens of terrorist organizations took claim for those attacks. Certainly we can't PROVE which one actually was responsible, but the most noteworthy case should be given its proper weight per WP:POV. Wikipedia does not give undue weight to fringe theories. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks" ... well, even that is debated, since they also denied it, and there are confession video's around in which bin Laden writes with the wrong hand.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the links?

Why are there no links to discussion of the conspiracy theories in the Conspiracy Theory section? They're all listed (I think) under 9/11 Truth Movement. I'll add that link. Dscotese (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The very first link in that section is to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. --Haemo (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"not including the 19 hijackers"

A line currently says "There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board of the hijacked aircrafts survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon." Wouldn't it be better to say that "There were 2,993 fatalities: 265 on the four planes (including the 19 hijackers. No one on board of the hijacked aircrafts survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon."

Were the hijackers not fatalities and did they not die on the aircraft? What is the point if exluding them from the list of deaths? JayKeaton (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. But we would always mention them separetely in either case, to be clear to the reader whether we were counting them.
The present wording is justified because according to the widely believed official versions, the hijackers intended to die for their cause. In any army clash, you would name casualties on both sides separately, not together. (Which is a shame, in a sense, because they were all human lives, also the alleged hijackers. And since some of the pilots among the hijackers could hardly fly, it is not impossible that they themselves too might have been hijacked and killed innocently.) But to be realistic, I think it can stay like it is, for the time being.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe those weren't even planes. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Several of the official FBI hijackers* are still alive so they should not be added to the death toll:

• http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa Why include them in the death toll if they are still slive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

DUDE. Give it a freakin' rest, and try to keep up. Here's a more recent roundup on that and many 9/11 issues by the same BBC as who released that report within the first two weeks after the attacks: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html Your information is old, out of date, and it doesn't belong here. --75.178.92.119 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know the BBC was under (some) intelligence oversight?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Andreas von Bülow issue

proposed insertion point

conspiracy theories section

proposed text (amend, please)

proposal, version 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Andreas von Bülow, arguing in his book that the US government mounted the September 11 attacks in a plot to win global domination, has gone further than Michael Meacher, Tony Blair's former environment minister, who was widely criticised for claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. Von Bülow, a former research minister in the German government, believes that September 11, when more than 3,000 people died, was staged to justify the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

references preview (only the last one counts)

note

still to do

add the French minister of Housing and her opinion. Any comments?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not add this to 9/11 conspiracy theories instead? --Haemo (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because WP:NPOV says this article should be balanced. Of course, it can/should also be included over there.

• Yukihisa Fujita, a member of Japan's second largest political party, questions the Japanese efforts in the War on Terror because of the many questions that remain about the September 11 attacks.[4] [5]

Let's see. Perhaps you can tell why this material is inappropriate for the article? I'm sure you can but don't care — after all, undue weight is just a pesky sidenote which have decided you can ignore. --Haemo (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you are trying to troll ... it's not befitting an admin.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's a vain attempt to stop myself from going insane by repeating myself over and over again. --Haemo (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is what a former German research minister (whatever that is) said 4 years ago relevant here? RxS (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this same question first in the section below, and answered it there. You may copy your question and answer to here, if you prefer.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph article also includes this text:-

“ In more than 271 speculative pages, full of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes", the lawyer weaves his own version of the world-changing events. In it the Arab hijackers were creations of the CIA and were not even told that the planes were to be used as weapons.

The World Trade Centre collapsed due to explosives, not the impact of the Boeings; no planes flew into the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania; and mobile phone calls made by those on the latter flight were simulated by the CIA.

”

If you're going to quote a source, it's important to fairly represent what the source says, and the tone it takes. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, I was not arguing that the telegraph supported his view, only that it noted his view. If you think the criticism of his work by this Kate Connolly in Bonn needs to be in the article, feel free. Unless someone has a RS that he has left his viewpoint (which he has not) we should include his view and Meachers in the article, just for balance' sake.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph portrays his views as being distinctly non-mainstream - one could almost say, on the fringe. But that is beside the point. His views fall squarely into the "conspiracy theory" category, and as such should be included (assuming WP:V and WP:N are demonstrated) in that article, not this. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of POV tags - again

Dear friends, fellow wikipedians,

you can wikilawyer all you like: removing this sourced material (#Andreas von Bülow issue) makes the article even more extreme POV. I also object to the removing of the POV tags.

The text which was removed before I placed the tags did not begin to balance this article. What do you want with this article? A total fantasy, copying the fantasies we read in the newspapers, who omit all the facts they themselves had once painstakingly dug up, and then conveniently forgotten? Do you want to just repeat what authority says, stifeling dissent as in the USSR or in China? With editors such as you, we need not fear any government dictatorship. You, the people, are the proletarian dictatorship already. It is sad that you think you are upholding policy this way.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

guideline quote

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. [...]

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one wikilawyering is you. Numerous people have told why your insertion of this material is wrong. You have ignored this. But, feel free to rant some more about about we're "suppressing dissent" and become a dictatorship akin to China or the USSR. It might surprise you to realize that policy is not designed to support your crusade, and relies on reliable sources — no matter how much you think they are biased and suppress the facts. --Haemo (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy has a purpose. Omitting half of the relevant evidence can never be the purpose in a scientific process which writing an encyclopia is. And numerous people stating the same agreed upon misinterpretation of policy is not policy. It's noise.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, what's noise is the hundreds of thousands of bytes of policy-violations you have tried to pass off as a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines — which plain English, and numerous other editors have told is wrong. You take the facile, and telling, opinion that if there are two viewpoints on an issue, that both have "half the relevant evidence" and should be given equal weight — once again merely demonstrating that you still don't understand what undue weight means. But, then again, you've never balked before at displaying classically tendentious editing practices. In the light of this, you might reflect on the notion that purpose of policy is to prevent people from pushing their POV on Wikipedia — which might explain why you're having such problems inserting the Truth™ into articles. --Haemo (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

pushing their POV... Maybe this is an appropriate time to ask you what the POV of the current article is, and whether you believe that to be NPOV compliant?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you know my answer to that. --Haemo (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not ask if I knew. So: is the POV a) neutral b) that the government account is true c) that there was an inside job (obviously not) or d) something else. And question 2: how do you reconcile (b) with NPOV, if that is your answer.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be (a). --Haemo (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I correctly interpret that as "the article is WP:NPOV representing, fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." ? If so, at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that what Xiutwel meant by "half the relevant evidence" was that it is unacceptable to completely ignore one side of a controversy. This does not necessarily mean that both sides should get equal weight. You have misrepresented what he said.

That knowledge, as it is disseminated by whomever constitute "reliable sources" in a given society, is partly shaped by political considerations should not come as a surprise to people who think deeply about questions of fairness in these matters. In fact, by way of example, I have just been reading Karl Popper on how Hegel, in his opinion, was a charlatan who only became influential because his writings served the interests of the Prussian state. Interestingly, this was in the same book as Popper's rejection of the "conspiracy theory of society" which is cited in the conspiracy theory article to support the argument that "conspiracy theories" are automatically invalid. Michel Foucault took this further and said, in effect, that power is truth. Foucault's critique has been one of the most influential elements of postmodern thought and should therefore be taken very seriously. Constitutionally of course, Wikipedia has difficulty dealing with the politicisation of thought and knowledge because of the problems it brings up about how to balance articles. Nevertheless there would be absolutely nothing wrong in at least being willing to acknowledge and discuss the issue with a view to seeing what can be done to address this dilemma. The fact that you and so many other editors are completely unwilling to do this suggests very strongly that it is you who are POV pushing at least as much as those others you so liberally accuse of trying to push their own agenda. ireneshusband (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there really isn't a controversy. No political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. There's one here of course, but that doesn't count.

Your comments about fairness, politics and power as regards to Wikipedia belong in a more general discussion space, the Village Pump or the mailing list maybe. RxS (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A national poll taken during the summer found that 16 percent of Americans believed hidden explosives aided the collapse of the buildings. More than a third believed the U.S. government instigated the attacks or decided not to stop them.

That's why scientist Thomas W. Eagar, initially reticent, is willing to do interviews now.

"I've told people that if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate," said Eagar, a materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It is getting more mainstream, and Steve Jones is responsible for that."[6]

Your friend Haemo seems to think very highly of Thomas Eagar's credentials as a reliable source, so no doubt you do too. Obviously Eagar seems to think there is a controversy involving, among other things, a difference of opinion between himself and another academic. Therefore please do not repeat yet again your absurd claim that there is "no controversy at all" among "reliable sources" or "relevant academic community". The world and his dog know that this is untrue and it is shameful that I should ever have had to produce a "reliable source" to prove something so obvious.

As for what you say about my comments regarding power: No, they do not belong elsewhere. Wikipedia policy already has some provisions for dealing with such issues in the way that I have suggested. They are Common sense and Ignore all rules. If you have good reason to think that common sense has no place here, then please explain yourself. ireneshusband (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"My Friend Haemo"? If you can't keep the snark out of this conversation you should withdraw. You claim there is controversy among reliable sources but you don't produce any evidence (not debunking). What is a shame is how uncivil you insist this debate is. I'll repeat: There isn't a controversy. No political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. Bottom line, no significant amount of reliable sources (political, academic, or scientific) take any of the conspiracy theories seriously enough to debate amongst themselves whether there is any truth behind them. There is no controversy here, no matter how many times you assert there is.

As far as Thomas Eagar goes, one voice does not make it a controversy. Polls don't make a controversy. We report what reliable sources and the relevant academic community reports, not what the man on the street thinks. RxS (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not one man, it's thousands of prominent people. That does not prove them right, ofcourse, I agree. Then, can you answer these two questions for me:

1. Where in policy does it say that, for us to give it adequate treatment, a significant minority view must be held by an academic community, where so simple a thing as the integrity of a government is concerned? All I read in policy is that an opinion is significant when it's easy to name prominent adherents.
2. Where does it say we may not use primary sources, once independent reliable sources have acknowledged the existence of a minority viewpoint?

For what purpose are you fighting us? We only want to give fair, not even equal, treatment to a minority view. As policy prescribes.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

details in the conspiracy theories section, yes or no?

How come, Haemo, you allow sourced details pro debunking but you do not allow sourced details pro conspiracy theories? Is that not against NPOV ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a debunking, it explains the relevant opinions on the theories. Summary style encourages this explicitly. --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is the difference with mentioning two former ministers who oppose their view? Are their opinions not relevant? And the anonymous experts nobody ever heard of are relevant? Can you explain?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Read summary style. The section is supposed to summarize the subarticle, and (as the lead does on the article) it includes the important objections to these theories. The views of the majority of engineers are explicitly mentioned in the lead of the subarticle. The two former ministers are not. --Haemo (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The views of the majority of engineers are NOT explicitly mentioned. The text says "the structural engineering literature" and refers to Bazant's article, which is the view of a single structural engineer and does not address the opinions of others, but only that of the paper's authors. I have tried to address this problem in the past, but someone has reverted it. Dscotese (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Haemo, for drawing our attention to WP:SUMMARY. It says,

Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.

which means that the tiny little paragraph assigned to "conspiracy theories" in the main article, as opposed to the much lengthier treatment given to other aspects of the topic, is completely inadequate and unacceptable. So now that that is clear, which is it going to be? Do we beef up "conspiracy theories" into a decently sized, self-standing subsection? Or do we cut the rest of the article to bits and farm it out into lots more subarticles, leaving the main article as little more than a collection of empty stubs? ireneshusband (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's coverage is about right, as I keep saying there is no debate among reliable sources nor is there an academic or public/political controversy. It's coverage on this page is about right. No one has shown that it justifies any more coverage, and I'm sure they would have if they could have. Your appeal to WP:SUMMARY is unfounded. RxS (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that that is not true. There are plenty of reliable sources. You yourself are in the middle of an argument concerning Andreas von Bülow, a former German government minister under Helmut Schmidt with experience in both defense and intelligence who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Therefore you clearly know of at least one reliable source. You are also well aware of the controversy concerning Steve Jones. There are countless other examples. I can even point you to articles in the Daily Mail, of all things, that take alternative accounts of 9/11 seriously. Please do not repeat this ridiculous claim again. ireneshusband (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are sources that report on this as a cultural phenomena and that a tiny number of government employees believe this stuff doesn't mean there's a significant debate among RS, experts working in their field or in political or journalistic circles. When you find someone from the mainstream you really hang on for dear life. But in any case I'm done with your incivil attitude... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 05:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression, RxS, that you feel that our guidelines require there to be a significant minority of experts, and that a general group of people would not suffice to have a significant minority in the sense of WP:NPOV. Am I correct? If so, can you quote a sentence or so from a guideline where you base this idea on, or not? And in any case, my impression is that there are plenty of experts who raise questions from their expertise.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate. RxS (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• sigh.. ok, I will go and add the edit in the subarticle first, then.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• done. So can we now agree to include both or delete both from the Summery style section ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, why is the 4 year old opinion of a former research minister relevant? RxS (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, this wasn't a rhetorical question, thanks. RxS (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? He still holds the opinion. (I met him in 2006 in fact. Where he also admitted, he would never have said anything about it whilst in office.) A counter question: a thought experiment. Suppose the President came forward and admitted advanced knowledge. Suppose the press reported that, litterally in all the newspapers. And suppose then, after that, no member of Congres, no journalist ever asked him another question about it. Just business as usual. Would this article be allowed to mention that fact, without the RS to support its ongoing significance?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant speculation: this scenario you just described has not taken place, and any analysis of it would be pure conjecture which varied from person to person. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what a thought experiment is. Something more abstract, less political, then: suppose the Geological Society issues a press release in January 2009 that the Earth is flat. And suppose no one ever mentions that again in any RS, after the first reporting. Would Wikipedia be allowed to include this fact, or no?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Private conversations don't have any meaning here, so...why is the 4 year old opinion of a former research minister relevant? RxS (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is there a Wikipedia policy only you know about that says we can only cite the opinions of people if they have publicly reaffirmed the opinion in question within the last year or so? Would this rule apply to the opinions of people who are dead? ireneshusband (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 parts to the question, what is an opinion of a former research minister relevant relevant? And is it still relevant after 4 years in an article about the current situation. So, stated another way, is the 4 year old opinion of a minor government official relevant? RxS (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. A former minister is a prominent person, that's why it's relevant. It's not some ultra wing politician or attic conspiracy writer. I believe he was also in the department of defense, and in a Parliamentary commission on the Intelligence agencies of East and West Germany, so he is also an expert in related fields. /X
2. He is still a prominent adherent of the sig-min-view. He is quoted. The is interviewed. The fact that he is an old man and not very active such as Alex Jones does not make his opinion less relevant. /X

Does my answer satisfy your question? I am not saying he makes no mistakes, just that his existence is important for readers to make up their mind about what these theories are all about.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, von Bülow is a former minister-secretary for defense and a member of the committee that deals with intelligence. He is therefore very well-qualified to comment on the plausibility of the official 9/11 story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireneshusband (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he wasn't a defense minister. He worked in the defense ministry. Not sure what a "minister-secretary" is. And why is his opinion more important than the 192 defense ministers who haven't written a crackpot book? --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that function is just below minister; in responsibility re defense it is almost the same, there are just some meetings you are not going to be part of.
And about the 192 ministers that did not write a book: what about the 5.999.999.999 people besides Von Bülow that never wrote his book? Your argument seems to have no merit, unless state that he voices a minority opinion, on which we were already in agreement?
You have every right to reagard his book as "crackpot" personally, but I hope you agree that Wikipedia should not call his book crackpot; citing people who call it crackpot is all we could do. OK?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...conspiracy theories section / arbitrary talksection break

What I find really strange is that in a so tiny section about "conspiracy theories" about 30% of the space is given to the alleged opinion of the community of the ingeneer about a particular specific theory that is even not cited at all!! I mean: it is correct to not cite this specific theory alone because it is not a relevant or prominent theory and if we cite it we should also cite other more relevant ones. But if we have correctly decided not to mention that theory it makes no sense to cite opinions about it.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, that's one of the reasons I thought is should be balanced or removed. It is a rebuttal of a censored theory, really.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed unless we decide to have a more detailed section mentioning that particular theory and therefore all the other claims that are more relevant.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is now protected, we'll need a consensus on whether or not to include the POV tags that Xiutwel added and which were removed by Haemo, Strangelove, Mongo, and some others. So who feels that NPOV is not disputed in the Conspiracy Theories and Immediate National Response section. If you feel that it is not disputed, please explain away my own and Xiutwel's contention that those sections do not have a neutral enough POV to be left without the tag. Dscotese (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because when you say "those sections do not have a neutral enough POV", what you really mean is that they don't have enough CT content. For that to be true, there would have to be a genuine controversy about it within reliable sources. There isn't. To repeat myself: There isn't a controversy. No political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. So there is no need for POV tags. To add them would be (and is) POV pushing. RxS (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they have enough CT content. Missing are facts that are not explained by the mainstream account. The minority viewpoint can generally be characterized as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which holds some conspiracy theories, so I can see how you make the connection. However, whether you consider mention of unexplained facts as "CT content" or "Mysteries of the 9/11 attacks" doesn't matter. The POV dispute is that there are two conflicting viewpoints (mainstream is right vs mainstream is incomplete/wrong) and one of them is not represented as well as it should be. I suppose that finding a consensus about that means getting around those whose POV is the better represented one. Dscotese (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But the only dispute we'd recognize is one reported by reliable sources. That's why I keep pointing out there is no dispute of that nature. If this was about Health care or the war in Iraq then there would be debate to report on. But in this case there isn't. There isn't a "mainstream is right vs mainstream is incomplete/wrong" dichotomy, because it doesn't exist among reliable sources...not in academia, public/political debate, not among experts working in their fields. If they don't report it, we don't report it. No matter how much you think the mainstream is wrong about something...that's not why we're here. We report the "POV" of mainstream reliable sources (including significant minority positions). CT is not a significant minority position because minority positions show up in public/political debate, in reliable sources or the relevant academic communities. There is no CT debate in any of those areas. RxS (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy, if you look closely at the Conspiracy Theories section, you will see the following: "Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories" and if you click on the latter portion, you will be taken to the article covering that topic. There's no need to worry about us not including enough material on conspiracy theories. It's all in that article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not worrying about including enough material: I was disagreeing about how the few material in this page about the topic was choosen. It clearly makes no sense (from a nattarive point of view) to cite the objections to a particular (not necessarily relevant) theory without citing the theory itself. Don't you agree about this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The material that's here is the first and last paragraph of the lead of the CT article. As it stands, that's a good approach to providing a summary of another article. However, I see your point about controlled demolition. I think the solution is to remove the phrase "rather than controlled demolition" from the summary paragraph. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is completely meaningless to attach the first and last phrase without considering the relevance of them in the context. And your suggestion to remove the phrase "rather than controlled demolition" would make things even worse: not only we are citing a phrase debunking a particular theory (that seems also to be reciving undue weight in this summary) but we *completely* erase any possible reference to the theory!! I can't imagine anything worse than that: that phrase would seem to be completely pointless in that context.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) OK, how about this? Taking the lead of the 911CT article, and trying to provide a concise and fair summary, I get this: "Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. Some claim that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately not shot down, or that it did not crash into the Pentagon. The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers." Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this at least makes sense!! :)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed new wording.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

reverse method

May be we can reverse the process: in stead of making some balanced text, and arguing over the validity of its sources, let's turn it around. We have this documentary of Dutch TV txt NL which interview Meacher and Von Bülow. English subtitles are provided. We could then attribute all the claims that are made in it directly to the speakers, and then include the summery of this video into the article. How would that be? This solves WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOR - did I miss any?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a response from those that opposed the previous two issues...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Or this one:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do. http://securingamerica.com/node/692

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been out of commission with work the last few days, and have lost track of your comments. This seems to be related to other recent proposals that are still under discussion above. Inserting so many proposals simultaneously, or very close together, and in so many subsections is really confusing and probably limits the number of responders you will get, and the number of people who will understand fully what you are asking. You should probably consider revising your delivery method. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're on that subect, you might also try to reduce the number of horizonal breaks. They can confuse people further. Thanks, Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, I was referring to the inclusions of these texts, especially the final one:

1. #passport issue (2)
2. #Norman Mineta testimony issue
3. #Andreas von Bülow issue

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't Comspiracy Theories section link to the 9/11 Truth Movement?

The beginning of the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article says this at the beginning of the second paragraph:

Many of the conspiracy theories have been voiced by members of the "9/11 Truth Movement," a name adopted by organizations and individuals who question the mainstream account of the attacks.

Certainly, the 9/11 Truth Movement should be mentioned and linked to in the summary, no? Since Haemo provided no reason for claiming that my addition gives undue weight, I'm reverting his revert. Haemo, if you'd like to revert for undue weight, please only revert the edits that you feel violate undue weight rather than previous ones that address other issues, such as the removal of POV tags. Dscotese (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't (and can't) speak for everyone who believes in this stuff. It'd be undue weight to single them out, bordering on promotion. RxS (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And why is being able to speak for everyone who believes in this stuff an important qualification for inclusion in the summary but not the main sub-article? Do you think the sub article itself should also not mention or link to the 9/11 Truth Movement? What others are there that could be included in order not to single them out? Dscotese (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the section discusses the theories generally. --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't even be mentioned there. Remind me to fix that, thanks. RxS (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I read it correctly, the 9/11 T.M. article is not on a single organisation, but on the whole phenomenon of all these organisations together. In that sense we should link to that as well. I am not sure whether we should merge the two articles, but that is not a discussion for here. So I would prefer we link to both articles, but more directly. I object to the current version of saying "have emerged" and then linking to the movement: that is confusing to me, and I suppose to other readers.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xiutwel, I had assumed Strangelove was correct about 911TM not speaking for everyone who believes this stuff. Strangelove, please review the article we're talking about and explain, if you still feel that way, how the "movement" cannot be said to speak for everyone who believes it. I mean, is there some group that is questioning the mainstream account and insists that it is not part of the 911 Truth Movement? Dscotese (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that everyone who believes in CT self identifies with 911TM? Because they can't just claim to speak for everyone. RxS (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A movement is a rather vague concept. It's akin to: "conservatives". Would everyone who hold ideas we would call "conservative" call themselves "part of the conservatives"? Certainly not. We should use wording which avoids such confusion, indeed. Good point.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection status, 3 March NPOV revert war

Having had a forced wikibreak, I did not notice the revert war prior to now. We still have 4 days left till March 10 to reach consensus.

I say: we should write balanced articles. That means that significant minority views get fair and proportionate treatment. That means that the debate "outthere" is described fairly, not engaged in. Just prior to the revert war I made some changes which are now not in the frozen version. I feel we need to include them, to make the article a little more balanced, and a little less POV. I disagree with Haemo that it would be neutral now, and I disagree with RxS that there would be no debate (outside wikipedia). I propose to:

1. include the passport issue, mentioning that it was reported found both before and after the collapse;
2. include the Norman Mineta, Bush, Cheney testimony issue;
3. rewrite at least the lead, not stating the guilt lies with Al Qaeda as a fact, but attibuting that allegation;
4. include further relevant information, such as whistleblower (lawsuits), e.g. Sibel Edmonds, John O'Neill, Anthony Shaffer; FBI statements on Osama's involvement; pools of molten metal; tapes seized or destroyed; etc. etc.

How much of these facts to include, we must discuss here. I say it does no harm to dedicate a paragraph or so per section to the minority view.

All of these facts above are no conspiracy theories^{(neutral meaning intended)}, but they are agreed upon facts, as recorded by reliable sources. They just happen to be ignored by a lot of people, but so is the spin of electrons. Including these facts is not POV pushing, but restoring NPOV; not OR or SYNTHESIS or UNDUE weight, but fair treatment and good editing. I call upon those editors that have an agenda other than upholding the policy and the purpose behind it, to change their ways and only revert non-encyclopedic POV pushing by inexperienced editors. I agree that is indeed needed, and I would never find the time to do so all by myself, so I need your help with that. But you cannot block edits which are improving the article, according to policy.

Haemo, when you state the article is neutral, I am confused; would you please respond to my question "If so, at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view?"

RxS, when you say that there is no debate among all those people that you take seriously, I suppose you are right in that. Next to that, however, is a large minority with prominent adherents. We are bound to give them fair and proportionate treatment.

Especially, we need not rely on reliable sources to make the case on behalf of the minority viewpoint in stead of the prominent spokespersons for the minority viewpoint themselves. Once the RS have named prominent spokespersons, we are allowed to use their own books, video's and websites for their own opinion. We have to accept that there is a systemic bias in the reliable sources, which makes them unsuited for this purpose. Using primary sources is not OR, when secondary sources cannot be found we may use it. And it would only be synthesis when we juxtapose unrelated facts, changing their meaning and/or making them seem related.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are finding this frustrating but we must use reliable sources as written in WP:RS, otherwise anything could be included in the encyclopedia and this would make it more than useless. Reliable sources are those that are known for verification - other sources, such as websites, videos etc., are not. In unverified sources people can write their opinions without having a it verified by fact checkers.
Second, it is difficult to put in two disparate facts without resorting to synthesis. You've done it above with the "Cheney said but Mineta testified" part of the paragraph you want included. This is synthesis, since the second part of the sentence is always going to show as a denial of the first part it gives a wikipedia opinion that Cheney is not to be believed.
Third, a few prominent people have talked about 9/11 (Bulow, Blair, Charlie Sheen, Puten, Bobby Fischer) and their opinions are just their opinions. If we start putting in all 9/11 opinions the article would become overrun with them and would become unreadable - and we would first have to find reliable sources that show that a person's opinion is relevent. Fourth, the Al-Qaeda part of the article is attributed to too many sources to attribute it without writing a four page paragraph so there are references where readers can go to read more.
Finally, this is not the only 9/11 article and the editors here have been trying to keep it to the events of the day with summaries of other articles with links leading to subarticles. Other information has been moved to subarticles to provide more information. This is, of course, just my take on the situation. Others may disagree. Again, sorry for your frustration - now I'm back on enforced wiki-break which I seem to be breaking. - PTR

1. Good points, PTR, thanks. (a) I believe noone is debating we should have RS for the facts we want to include. Secundary sources are best, but we can use primary sources for such things as opinions where no Secondary source can be found. We should not ofcourse include opinions of people who never made it into the RS in the first place. But at the moment, nobody is using primary sources to include the opinions as text into the article, only to convince other editors that certain bits of text have merit for inclusion.
2. Synthesis is the joining of seperate text, while altering its meaning. Juxtaposing conflicting testimony is not altering any meaning of any testimony. And, in no way does it follow from the inserted text that Cheney's testimony is the one that's wrong. (Some editors above even believed Mineta was too old to get his facts straight.)
3. I feel the majority opinion should be attributed, e.g. to the White House, and it would make sense to name the most prominent, most well known advocates of the minority opinion as well. The alternative would be vague sentences such as "there exist people who claim that the officially accepted account may be wrong in some respects."
4. As for sub-articles are concerned: as long as this article makes statements about the events as factual when they are in fact disputed by a large minority, I will feel the need to balance that. Subarticles cannot balance the main article. You are correct of course that we should not include things in the summary texts which are not in the summarized article.

Thank you for your concern about my frustration, I appreciate that! I'm doing well, even when I would like it when the road to consensus were shorter.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you are only forcing editors to repeat what has been repeated to you many times before. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Heres a couple of reliable sources that do conclude that "Cheney is not to be believed". Scoop The Mineta Testimony: 9/11 Commission Exposed and Opednews Norman Mineta Proves Cheney Lied About 9/11. As for the passports....it is NOTABLE that in an accident where four "indestructible" black boxes and two cockpit voice recorders were presumed destroyed, four and only four passports were recovered from the wreckage of the planes....four crashes and a passport from each, all belonging to hijackers. What it means is anyones guess but it has to be notable. This RS, Uncle Sam's lucky finds, comments that "never in the history of modern warfare has so much (evidence) been found so opportunely" and that the finds "tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism. Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence (regarding the finding of evidence)". This should all be in the article. The problem here is that anything that has been used to support CT's is excluded which is not a valid reason to do so as it only strengthens their position. Truth is it's own defense. Wayne (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources for establishing anything other than the writer's opinion — they're both op-ed columns, the first explicitly written by a 9/11 Truth Movement member. These are only useful as sources for those particular people's opinions, as they explain in their columns. --Haemo (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, in your opinion, what are the best pieces of evidence that can be included in the article which support the contention that the official version of what happened that day is inaccurate? Can you find a reliable source that indicates the presence of molten metal in the rubble heap, days after the towers collapsed? Which of the following two pieces of evidence makes the strongest case that the official version is incomplete or wrong?:

1. WTC 7 collapsed, but the NIST report does not mention it.
2. There is a photo of a fireman with a severed support column in the background in which the break is not jagged or torn or deformed, but straight, at a remarkably acute angle.

I suspect that you'd be very good answering any of these questions, but that you won't answer any of them. I don't understand why this would be, but your contribution history seems to back it up. Do you think that these pieces of evidence should be excluded from the article simply because they support various conspiracy theories which you consider to be baseless drivel? Dscotese (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had sources, I would provide them. I don't, and apparently no one else does either. I don't debate theories on this page because that's not what it's here for. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: 'They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. "New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster" (PDF). the structural engineer. 80: 6. September 3, 2002. I can get you others if that would help. Dscotese (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this shows, or why I should care about it. --Haemo (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

DScotese: Can you find a reliable source that indicates the presence of molten metal in the rubble heap, days after the towers collapsed?

Haemo: If I had sources, I would provide them. I don't, and apparently no one else does either.

DScotese: Here you go: 'They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal...

Perhaps you were answering one of my other questions? Dscotese (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you meant why this is relevant, which I remain mystified towards. --Haemo (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no significant minority view within reliable sources regarding this topic. There is no debate that reliable sources takes seriously. Cherry picking "facts" is synthesis. And there is no "large minority" that buys into conspiracy theory. This is becoming slightly silly when you folks bring up 6 year old opinion pieces as your justification for adding factoids. We've been over this...you make the same assertions and ask the same questions, you get the same answers back. And until you show that there is a significant debate among WP:RS about this, or that there is a significant minority in the relevant academic community that takes it seriously you'll always be getting the same answers. Because those are the debates and minorities we report on. RxS (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A fact is not a "view". A fact must be inserted if it is informative in the context and there is a reliable source that certifies its truth. The "notability" of a fact is not decided by reliable sources: reliable sources allow to write things, they don't forbid. Citing WP:SYN is completely inappropriate: it doesn't say that something must not be said if is can *eventually* be used to reach an original conclusion, it just speak about the *way* to present the material, not about *which* material can or cannot be presented in order to avoid possible deductions.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is predicated on minority "views". At the very top you'll find this: That means that significant minority views get fair and proportionate treatment. What's happening here is that people want to included what they claim are facts to "balance" this article (they really mean insert a POV but that's another subject). I don't know what "context" there is in this article that would make anything about passports informative (besides, as I say including something that CT holds up as evidence for some nefarious explanation of events). But that's not even where you're most wrong. When you say a fact "must" be included if it's true by RS and it's informative. Well, you're right about the first. But judging what's informative is where POV sneaks in. No RS thinks the passport issue is informative enough to spend any time on, no RS thinks pools of molten metal is meaningful in any real sense. These are factoids that people want to include to push a POV, not because reliable sources think they mean anything. Bottom line, a single fact may not be a view but a collection of them, picked the right way can absolutely be a view (or promote one in this case). RxS (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What a reliable source thinks to be informative is not our problem. We must not rely on the decision of RS about what is to say and what is not. We use them just to give reference to what we are saying. We have a policy WP:NPOV that says that we must present all the possibly relevant facts in a neutral way. The only objection you can do is about how and where people wants to insert a fact. You don't see any approprate context? Ok, nobody is saying you have to make a suggestion about it, when someone will suggest where and when a fact must be inserted you will be free to argument why that particular context would violate WP:SYN.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RxS, did you know that the revert war on which we are trying to find consensus is in a section of the article called "Conspiracy Theories"? Molten metal in the rubble heap is one of the main reasons for suggesting that the official account of the events is incomplete or inaccurate. You may be hard pressed to find an officially sanctioned RS that points this out, but the Steven Jones article is an excellent source about the conspiracy theory itself, and the molten metal is one of the main topics. Does it make more sense to you now? Dscotese (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it belongs in the conspiracy theories article, which it is. The question here is if it's a notable enough pov to include here which it isn't. The rest is just repetition. RxS (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be explained why these desired facts are notable or important to this article within the context of the official account. And remember, we have to assume the official account is true because there are no reliable sources that explicitly say there is a significant scientific debate over the issue, per WP:OR. Therefore, if the reason for inclusion is to illuminate a "significant minority" or because you think these facts are important since you believe they support an alternate view of 9-11, we cannot include them. Relevance of these facts must be established within the conclusion(s) supported by reliable sources, or including them would be undue weight and WP:OR. That is, unless a reliable source makes the direct statement that there is some scientific consensus regarding the falsity of the official account, all of these attempts violate WP:OR. Furthermore, given the "reliable sources" compiled in this section so far, I would strongly recommend that some editors read thoroughly through WP:RS. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have a lot to say about the above discussion, but let's take one thing at a time. I would like to repeat a question which I've asked several times:
  If [the current article is neutral], at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to repeat what has been said to you many times over the months: There is no notable scientific minority view to be represented. To repeat, there is a difference between a minority view where some people believe something and having a reliable source directly stating that there is some consensus within the scientific community that the minority view is correct (see WP:OR). Without that reliable source, the official account has to be treated as the only notable factual account, and the unverified “minority view” is only represented by mentioning that conspiracy theories exist, not balancing those theories with the factual account. The question we should be asking can be found in my above comment. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the "scientific community" have to do with things like passport findings and testimonies? The official account of 9/11 is not a "scientific theory".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For lack of a better word, I was using "science" in a broad definition - experts, etc. The point is, we have to decide if adding a mention of the passport or any other desired fact is notable in the context of the scientifically accepted account. In other words, considering that the official story is true because it's the only one supported by reliable sources, why is it notable to mention that a passport was found? How is that relevant to this article? How are any of these facts useful to this article? I remind you, because there are no reliable sources that show there is even a small consensus in the respected "scientific community" (or among any relevant authorities... see WP:RS and WP:V) that the official account may be wrong, we can't cherrypick facts whose importance lies only in that they may point to the falsity of the official account (see WP:OR). Remember, we can't present any conclusion that is not drawn by the relevant experts and expressed in reliable sources. We don't seek truth, only accepted or plausible views as expressed in reliable sources. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this relates to this article, of course. There are daughter articles that aren't focused on the accepted account of the attacks and their repercussions. Some of these facts may be worth mentioning there. In particular, anything used by conspiracy theorists can be mentioned in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes completely no sense to speak about "scientifically accepted account" of 9/11. You can speak about "scientifically accepted account" just about very specific phenomena happened in 9/11 (like the tower collapse) which have been analyzed by the scientific community. Only a small part of the account of 9/11 can be considered unobjectably settled by "experts" and only a small part the "conspiracy theories" disputes the experts. The remainder of the account is completely open to different hypothesis. You can obvioulsy say that coverup allegations have not been proved true or that you find them unreasonable but you definitely can't say that the falsehood (or unreasonableness) of - say - the LIHOP hypotesis has been settled by any "expert".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To stay closer to the subject of this section: I don't understand which are the "experts" according to whom it would be irrelevant to report the passport findings or the testimony. Not only I don't understand which are personally them, I wonder which kind of "expertise" they embody that makes them an authority about what has to be assumed to be real and relevant in an enciclopedia. Can you clarify this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okiefromokla, for the past month we have deliberated on all kinds of stuff. If you now hold the opinion that there exists no significant minority viewpoint to express, than you could have spared yourself a lot of time you spent on reasoning all the other stuff we talked about, or am I mistaken?
  I disagree with you however: in my opinion there does exist a significant minority we should take into account according to WP:NPOV. In the end it comes down to editorial decisions, which we should make together. I'll start a subsection for this question; in the meantime, for those editors who: think the current article is neutral but agree there does exist a significant minority opinion, I would still like it when you could point out to me where in the article this SMV opinion is expressed, outside ofcourse of the section "conspiracy theories".
  For me, the bottom line is: we should present all facts which are relevant to the article, and not just those that happen to fit in nicely with the mainstream account of what happened, how it happened, why it happened. And the latter are the facts which, naturally, those RS who agree with the mainstream account keep recycling.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a significant minority view (SMV) exist ?

In my experience of the past debate, we sort of had agreement that a significant minority view (SMV) existed. The problem always seemed to me to be that a lot of editors evaluated this view as "crackpot", and not worth mentioning in wikipedia, really. Now it seemes that some editors feel that there is not even a SMV to take into account. How are your opinions? /X

• There is a SMV, and it is easy to name prominent adherents: several retired Generals, 2-3 ministers or former ministers of states of G8 countries, Hollywood actors/filmmakers, scientists of all kind of fields, etc. There is a relatively vast constituency to this SMV, if we look at opinion polls.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• No, there isn't. To quote from myself: There's no political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. No controversy = No significant minority view. RxS (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What RxS just said is true, but there is a "significant minority view," because of how much press this conspiracy theory has gotten and how many silly celebrities have endorsed it.

I'm not going to bother going into the details of the above, but one thing that Xiutwel said that was totally off-the-wall was, "not stating the guilt lies with Al Qaeda as a fact, but attibuting that allegation."

It's common, public knowledge that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. You don't need to source common knowledge on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. Your bizarre assertion that such an obvious claim needs to be "sourced," makes me very suspicious of the rest of your proposals -- a whole string of contentious proposals, being pushed all at once. No, you can't do that. Sorry. Wayne: The sources you cited about aren't reliable. Obscure newspapers of dubious credibility, with low journalistic standards (the second source is called "OpEd News" for pete's sakes), are not reliable sources.

If anyone here would like to continue this behavior of pushing conspiracy theories, it will not be tolerated here and I suggest the wiki at ConspiracyResearch.org. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to this comment) Xiutwel, I am sorry I keep sounding gruff towards you, but I don't understand why you bring up the same proposal over and over. Editors have explained to you why your mindset is at fault here, and I don't understand why it isn't getting through and, frankly, I don't know how to make it sink in. Because some people do not believe the official account does not make it a significant scientific minority. Popular belief does not translate to expert belief, and expert belief is the focus of this article. Also, I am confused by your frequent criticism of reliable sources. It's like criticizing oxygen. Complaining that reliable sources are skewed just doesn't make sense. The reason there aren't reliable sources to back your conspiracy theory is because experts place no validity in it, not because reliable sources are censored. It should be noted that when you first started your crusade, you listed a surplus of "facts" that weren't true or were otherwise unverifiable, and I think you've realized that, because your campaign has shifted to a selection of a few insignificant but verifiable facts that you believe advance your theory, but have no relevance otherwise. Once again, unless you have a good argument to explain why it’s important to mention the passport in this article (other than to represent a view unsupported by reliable sources), you are wasting everyone’s time. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• RxS, it seems you define "no controversy" as: all those who disagree with the mainstream view, cease to be part of the general [scientific] community, and therefore there is no controversy in the general community. If that is what you are saying, you are no doubt correct by your own definition, but I claim it makes no sense to assess the existence of debate in this fashion, using this self-referential definition. (Circular reasoning).  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the revert war about?

1. Inclusion of a link to the 9/11 Truth Movement page in the section titled "Conspiracy theories"
2. Inclusion of this tag:

in the section titled "Conspiracy theories"

1. Inclusion of this tag:

in the section titled "U.S. Government response"

I would like to address only the first issue. RxS suggested that "because they don't (and can't) speak for everyone who believes in this stuff," 911TM should be linked to in the summary. This is a decent argument for inclusion of 911TM links anywhere that claims to speak for everyone, but it sidesteps the issue at hand. The question is whether or not such a link should be provided in this subsection of this article. Until it is no longer such an important piece of the subarticle, it makes sense to link to it from the summary here.

If your consideration of linking to it does depend on how representative of "everyone who believes this stuff" the 9/11 Truth Movement is, please consider the following: In its first incarnation, the 9/11 Truth movement Wikipedia page states "The movement is informal, decentralized and fractious..." On Dec. 10, 2006, CBS News released a story in which the "one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen..." are labeled as the "so-called 9/11 Truth Movement". This suggests rather strongly that the term does in fact apply to "everyone who believes in this stuff," not because an organization with that name has "everyone who believes in this stuff" as a member, but because the term is used to refer to ALL of them collectively. Dscotese (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At best, they assert that American proponents of these theories identify as part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Even if we accept that assertion, which is dubious and at odds with the organization our article depicts, we ignore the rest of the world — which is significant, since these theories are most "mainstream" in Arab countries. --Haemo (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue why we could not link to two wikipedia pages on "conspiracy cranks" in the "conspiracy cranks exist and are a social phenomenon" subsection of this article, in stead of only one. (...?) /Xiutwel 09:07, 9 March 2008

See WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, good to see you here again! Would you perhaps respond to my question, in which sentences the article is representing the SigMinView? Or are you now joining RxS in saying there is no debate and no SigMinView ? (I would say that NIST debating the answers to Frequently asked Questions is debate...)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. In which sentences is a given article being neutral? All of them. Neutral does not imply that we apportion an article by sentence to each view. --Haemo (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". If there is no sentence about a significant minority view then NPOV has been violated. So I suppose it makes sense to ask where in the article a POV has been represented.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." A sentence from WP:RS, taken out of context, but it may be an inspiration for us to resolve this dispute. I think we must find a modus vivendi together. I have respect for the wish, voiced by some editors, that Wikipedia not be misused as a propaganda tool for cranky theories, but that wish should not make us waver our WP:NPOV policy and disregard SigMinViews or the undisputed facts these views claim to base themselves on. We are going to have to compromise here. I know this article will never be 100% as I would wish it, and I therefore will not even try. The strength of wikipedia is editors holding different views working together, not dividing articles between different groups of editors (a "walled garden" for each group).  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

molten metal issue

I'm interested in adding a sentence or so about the molten metal which was found in the WTC debries. In order to balance that, and not just report nonmainstream explosives-suspicions, I am looking for RS which explain how this metal could have gotten melted; I've never heard a mainstream explanation for it and perhaps someone here has? E.g. a side effect of the pancake crash or gasboilers exploding?
(I've noticed a lot of talk about it in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, but perhaps there are other spin-off articles as well? Or are the RS I'm looking for already in that article?)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. NIST answer to question 13, from the above wiki article.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four RS that report on the existance of the molten metal, Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md, Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC and WABC-TV footage of the burning South Tower at 9:53 a.m. showing large amounts of white-hot molten metal, (presumably iron and later estimated at around 8 tons), pouring from the 81st floor. Excluding CT's, there is only a single RS that explains what possibly caused the molten metal.

"Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon. Given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can form Thermite and react violently. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building it is entirely possible that this is what happened".- Thomas Eager [is] professor of materials engineering and is the head of the Department of Material Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and sits on the National Research Council Committee for Homeland Security

Wayne (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! I am however puzzled where the oxigen, the rust, should have come from? The fires were oxygen-poor and the steel, we may assume, was not rusted.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thermite does not need Oxygen to burn which explains why metal was still molten under the debris weeks later. Eager did not explain where the rust could come from. Wayne (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. When in-built oxygen is a part of thermite, allowing it to burn itsself fiercly, we need oxygen added in the formation. So either rust or another source of oxygen. When Eager does not explain it, we need another RS which explains it, or else it will be hard for us to even suggest the possibility of sponteneous thermite formation in the debries or in the standing towers.
Please help!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this section be archived. There's no "molten metal issue." There's nothing to be said beyond the following:

• It is likely that a thermite reaction took place.
• That's it.

Attributing any significance to the lack of a 100% complete explanation of how this reaction began constitutes a God of the gaps fallacy. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did the rust come from, you reckon? Let's not archive this yet.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. Did you appreciate what I was saying about a "God of the gaps" argument? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, "God of the gaps" eludes me, alas. Perhaps you will explain it in plain, Dutch English? That you are not curious is your decision. I am curious, and as long as this matter is not settled we would provide a service to other people who might be curious. Those who are not curious will not be harmed by reading this information.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. As you well know, this material is covered in the controlled demolition hypothesis page, which is the correct place for it. There's no point discussing this further. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

controlled demolition hypothesis page... speaking of which, let's link to this article then, from the conspiracy theories section. And let's include a short frase on the discovery of the molten metal in the c-t SUMMARY. How about that?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to mention molten metal there, because it is just one of the arguments (and far from the most popular) made in favour of the controlled demolition hypothesis, which is a sub-topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rather than giving your preferred material the maximum prominence, let's instead maintain a logical hierarchy of article contents that matches the hierarchy of subjects. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

March 10 changes

See also: § passport issue (2), § Norman Mineta testimony issue, and § Andreas von Bülow issue

I'll explain why I think the changes I'm making are improving the article.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The conspiracy section:
   1. The paragraph spoke of the community of civil engineers, but for those who are new to the subject it is not as yet known that there even exist ideas that it may have been blown up in stead of spontaneous collapse.
   2. I'm including a see also to the controlled demolition hypothesis article, since that deals most directly with this issue.
   3. I'm including a link to the 9/11 Truth Movement article; this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so.
   4. I'm adding Andreas Von Bulow and Meacher to show the level of controversy inter and outer the theories.
2. the testimonies concerning the immediate national response:
   1. I've made the text more clear and complete
   2. I desperately need a source for the rectification that supposedly has been made. Someone once said that it was on the talk page, but I've not yet found that.
   3. issue 1: Cheney and Mineta at odds with the timeline
   4. issue 2: Cheney and Bush refusing to testify under oath
   5. issue 3: Bush' account he saw the first plane live
   • to be added later diff the matter of the bin Laden trade delegation which was allowed to leave.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I'll postpone the passport issue a bit.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, I've reverted your changes since consensus has not been reached. Why not try to discuss your edits one at a time? -PTR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• disputed edits (diff)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, PTR, that when you object to my edits, the right way to proceed is to remove them and discuss them. So I'll in the meantime add the POV tags, and ask that you voice any of your concerns now which have remained unaddressed. I do not think we should still discuss the edits one at a time, because that stage has past. We now need to discuss what the article should look like as a whole, which is an editorial decision and in my opinion we cannot receive much help from the guidelines, because the edits are guideline-compliant but we might still decide not to make them.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Some critics:

1. Michael Meacher claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks -> this is not a "theory", it is an accusation
2. the phrase

   which subsequently took the lives of another 3,000 American and British soldiers

   seems unnecessary and I think against WP:SYN.

3. "It has been suggested that the WTC buildings...":
   • suggested by whom???
   • wouldn't it be better to speak about a "hypothesis" rather than a "suggestion" (like in the title of the wikipedia article about the subject)?

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pokipsky76,

1. I would agree with both versions
2. I don't really mind removing that, when you object, but I do not think it is SYN because it implies nothing which is unsupported. (Or what do you think it implies which is unsupported?)
3. OK, and well, to whom should we attribute such a hypothesis, then? A person? A specific group?

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Ok.
2. Yes, it doesn't imply anything unsupported but it suggests that the war was something bad or wrong. For example if we were saying "the war that allowed to free the population from the talibans" we wouldn't say anything unsupported but we would suggest that the war is good. (maybe it's not a matter of WP:SYN but WP:NPOV).
3. According to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center the most notable proponents are some member of the 9/11 truth movement. However I don't see why this specific theory (controlled demolition of WTC) should be mentioned in the summary despite other ones. What is special about it?

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, most of your recent additions are linked to your proposals that have been rejected by the community continuously for months. Why did you add them anyway? But thank you respecting PTR's revert. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? I remain unconvinced that the arguments given were valid to warrant omitting this information. After discussing these matters on Wikipedia talk:NPOV my conclusion is that in the end it comes down to editorial insight. The guidelines do not specify which fact to include and which to omit. Something being largly ignored by most RS is not per se a reason for omission on wikipedia, provided for the text to insert RS do exist and when it somehow makes sense to add it. Wikipedia is superior to most RS in several respects: /Xi

1. Wikipedia has 6,600,000 registered editors; 1500 admins (compare Encyclopædia Britannica: 4400)
2. We bring expertise from across the spectrum together, we are inter-disciplenary, multi-cultural
3. We are not bound to any financial supporters for our content. No RS has such latitude, they all have owners, clients/customers, money-supplyers. All we need is donations for the servers.

That's why in many respects we are unique, and unmatched in a lot of respects. (We have 2,200,000 articles, ten times the amount of Encyclopædia Britannica — even though a lot of topics of lesser importance are covered by wikipedia, being virtually unlimited in available space). That's why it is invalid to say we could go no further than the RS are going. It's just that every fact we report has to be based in RS, but joining related facts from different RS in an article is not SYN, but "good editing" provided we do not alter their meaning or imply unwarrented conclusions. (The current article joines 198 sources.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you are simply wrong. You are confused about the nature of Wikipedia. Without reliable sources, there is no Wikipedia. Your argument that we can include something despite there being no reliable sources violates every single one of our core policies. Each one of them. It tears at the very foundation of Wikipedia, and if you continue to base your relentless arguments on the premise that Wikipedia's core policies are flawed, you are being disruptive, and I will revert you. Take complaints about policy elsewhere. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems it is you misunderstanding. Nobody was saying that "we can include something despite there being no reliable sources". Actually everything that has been proposed for addition comes from reliable sources.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And you absolutely positively do not get to hold the article hostage with pov tags because you don't get your way in this dispute. You've never had consensus for the additions you want, they've never been part of the article and there's no consensus now. RxS (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say there is no consensus either for how the aticle is treating some issues which are under discussion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The changes all appear to be weak but dishonest hints that the regular account is flawed, using trivial details to create inuendo without improving the article in any way. (Note this is not the same as identifying reasonable criticisms or uncertainties.) Peter Grey (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem which has plagued all of these proposed edits. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why is it a problem?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty in an encyclopedia - this is not a sufficiently self-evident problem? Peter Grey (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I am very glad you also feel this way — partly. Dishonesty is a problem i.m.o., whenever it is there!
You sense dishonesty when
...weak but dishonest hints [are put in] that the regular account is flawed, using trivial details to create inuendo...
I sense dishonesty when
a selective part of the undisputed facts is omitted, because the RS happen to (tacitly!) agree that these facts are unimportant to establishing the true chain of events, whereas it is obvious to anyone that those who hold view B are relying exactly on those facts for their view. No RS are known to us which demonstrate that these facts are irrelevant. All the RS do is ignore them, or quote people who have opinions that these facts would be irrelevant, without quoting the people who have opinions that they would be relevant.
I cry: It's like scientists fixing the statistics and the data on their experiments. That's called scientific fraude. We Wikipedia should not copy that behaviour!! (Am I being to harsh here?)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

because the RS... agree Peter Grey (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If this feeling is due to the fact cited above then you just can't argue on the base of this feeling that the facts must not be reported. If instead this feeling is due to the way of expressing these facts then why don't you suggest alternative ways?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

another textual change

thanks to PTR for spotting this:

• Cheney himself testified before the 9-11 Commission that he was not in the Command loop until 9:58 AM, but according to testimony

should become

• Cheney himself testified before the 9-11 Commission that he was not in the Command loop until 9:58 AM. This contrasts with testimony

...otherwise the sentence would be suggesting that A is false and B is true. Hadn't realized, thanks. Hope this fixes it. We could i.m.o. also reverse A and B into "B contrasts A", if people prefer that.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

(moved comment from the section below to here)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to clearly identify a genuine, good-faith dispute among competent experts reported by a reliable source. Wishing for a dispute is not the same as identifying an existing one. Peter Grey (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing in the guidelines which makes it mandatory to make sure that competent experts are discussing a fact, before we can put it in. That's our own decision! If you feel otherwise, quote them.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more that you may find helpful from WP:FRINGE:

1. Since Wikipedia describes in its articles significant opinions, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the significance-validating source for non-significant theories. If another well-known, reliable, and verifiable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to such claims. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks secondary sources that are reliable.
2. We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus
3. In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
4. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
5. The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
6. Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
   And another quote that might help:
7. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work there, Okie! /Xi

1. Most theories have been discussed by RS - but badly, though. So this one does not apply. Agree? Mineta's testimony is not a theory: it is a fact that he said that, so it needs no discussion. Agree? /Xi
2. Conspiricy views held by a tiny minority are FRINGE, agree? Conspiracy views held by a SigMin are a SigMinView and deserve fair treatment by wikipedia. Agree? /Xi
3. How about George Bush saying: "we should never tolerate outragous conspiracy theories?" // Or the Loose Change bashing? Though that was not done very well, it was done seriously, worldwide, and for several weeks. Agree? /Xi
4. We wouldn't have all these pages about them when we had not already established notability. /Xi
5. The theories have been commented on by secondary RS. The question is: are we (wikipedia) allowed to voice the SigMinView more fairly than such RS have done? -- I say: yes, provided we have good primary sources, and especially when the SigMinView's claims themselves are verifiable, because they are also based on RS. Agree? /Xi
6. the Mineta testimony is non-scientific, so this does not apply. Agree? /Xi
7. This one is very interesting!! A fringe theory is not the same as an observed phenomenon such as molten metal. That leaves:
   ...not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.
   You may have point here, but I do not see that these sentences would demand of us to omit all kinds of RS-based undisputed facts from this article. It says: it is not our intention to do what institutions did not. But does that mean it is prohibited, even when we comply with everything in the five pillars??  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I didn't say mandatory, but if the 'dispute' is only in your imagination then the tag does not tell the editors anything helpful. See WP:POINT. Peter Grey (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As you will agree (?) the dispute is not in my imagination, but a lot of competent experts do not engage in it, but some do, and millions of people do, sometimes becoming self-educated in the process, even.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:43, 11 March 2008

March 10 POV tags edit war???

Stupendously lengthy and unproductive debate

contribs) m (120,789 bytes) (revert - there was no consensus for the inclusion.) (undo)

1. (cur) (last) 02:04, 11 March 2008 Wowest (Talk

Fahrenheit 9/11

I tried to add it to the film section, but Xiuilel....removed it. Why? 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

I removed it. Xiutwel tried to re-add it, and then I removed it again. The problem I have with adding a wikilink to that film is that it is mostly about the War on Terror; it has very little to do with the attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, two different topics. There's probably a few places it belongs but this isn't one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talk • contribs) whenever (UTC)

We have a whole paragraph on the War on Terrorism in the article...! You are not trying to limit our readers in accessing certain information, are you?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Xiutwel, your propensity for assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors with differing opinions continues to astonish us all... ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You, SOCO, cannot just take down my link without giving a reason why.67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

OK. The reason I took it down is because there was no consensus to add it in the first place, and considering the multitude of films made about the attacks with a more direct focus on them, consensus must first be reached before we can even consider adding it. I apologize for not including this in my edit summary, but would appreciate if in the future you would assume good faith just as the rest of us are expected to do within reason. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is consensus arrived at in a system such as an equivical three strike rule? I still do not understand what your objection is to Fahrenheit 9/11 being linked on the 9/11 page considering the reasons given to post as opposed to not. Could You explain your position SOCO?67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

I already explained my position. There must be agreement here that this is notable enough to include when weighed against other material on the page. The "three strike" rule is enforced in order to prevent edit warring on this site, which does nothing to improve the article and provokes nonconstructive anger and resentment among editors. Basically, don't try adding material until it's agreed upon and things run much more smoothly around here. It's a system which has been proven to work. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider Okie's comment on the history page. Okie goes so far as to say that Fahrenheit is not a documentary. Obviously this is false because it debutted in the documentary catagory at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. This is why the three strike rule is ineffective. People base reverts on opinions instead of fact. Is there any feasible reason Grey, Okie, or Beer that Fahrenheit should be excluded because Xiutwel and I have given more than enough proof it should be, i.e. Xiutwel's film summary.67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

No, I'm not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! /Xiutwel

The relationship between Fahrenheit 9/11 and 9/11 is apt and undeniable. The documentary precludes, includes, and concludes many of the events of 9/11. It directly speaks to many of the events listed in this article, such as the PATRIOT act, bin Laden family flight, and numerous interviews with members of the Congress and Senate in the wake of 9/11. The fact it was reverted by, Beer, is an example of his own opinion and not fact. I'm sorry Xiutwel!03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

The film is about how the attacks have been exploited, which is a different subject matter. It's not wholly unrelated, but the connection is indirect (though that's true of few other items in the article as well). If the hijackers didn't do it, it's probably something that belongs somewhere else. Peter Grey (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC), Peter Grey (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Xiutwel's indentification of Fahrenheit 9/11 not reasonable enough to grant its inclusion by consensus?67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

-Alone, no. Nor would I alone, if the situation were reversed, or any other editor here. I invite you to please calm down and take a look at the Wikipedia policy on consensus. Mutual agreement, not force of will, is what Wikipedia is built on. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-Xiutwel is not alone because I seconded (or rather Xiutwel seconded my addition). I invite You, SOCO, to please not speculate on something as unidentifiable as emotion and focus on the issue of whether or not Fahrenheit 9/11 should be included. I say "Yes" because of the reasons given by Xiutwel below. Now how does this consensus work does everyone else say "Yea" or "Nay?" :) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.163.114 (talk)

Dear 67.165.163.114, please avoid personal attacks, I was perhaps crossing the boundary above as well, and I'm sorry, ICB. And ICB, let me quote from Fahrenheit_9/11#Content_summary and would you please tell why you feel it's not warrented to link to this article?

• election fraud
• September 11, 2001 attacks
• causes and aftermath ... including the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
• Bush family, the Bin Laden family, the Saudi Arabian government, and the Taliban
• United States Government evacuated up to 24 members of the Bin Laden family on a secret flight shortly after the attacks
• (8 paragraphs about other things than 911 follow)

- Even when Iraq is not directly linked to 911, for some reason I will wisely not speak out loud, a lot of Americans thought Saddam was behind 911 and supported the Iraq war because of that.

- I totally agree with you, ICB, that the film is not 100% about 911. But about 20-30% is not bad, that's damn relevant.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize as well for my above comment, Xiutwel; as you may understand, this debate has become increasingly frustrating. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪ Accepted.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I never personally attacked anyone, I'm sure, and the point I made is still valid. The only reason, Beer, has given to revert Fahrenheit is because of its irrelevence to 9/11, which has been adequately refuted in the subsequent entry by Xiutwel. I called out SOCO because SOCO deleted Fahrenheit without a reason at all, and in the general understanding of Wikipedia that is preposterous! So if there isn't anything else, Fahrenheit 9/11 should be kept on the page. If Beer should choose to revert it again, I would be concerned with the state of objectivity and fact here. 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)~GUAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.163.114 (talk)

Replied above. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the edit I reverted was by a different IP than you. If you are using a dynamic IP, and that other address indeed was you, it would already put you in violation of WP:3RR. As it is, I would strongly suggest that you sign up for an account before angrily denouncing anyone who wrongs one of the many identities your computer may take on. It makes it easier for other editors to interact with you if we're interacting with the same identity consistently. I posted a similar message on the talk page of the IP you have used most consistently, but thought I would post it here as well in case it does not reach you for that reason. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like this is borderline and doesn't fall into any guideline or policy jurisdiction too clearly. So it's a matter of consensus if we include it or not. I am against it, as the "see also" section should only include articles that would be helpful. If someone was looking up 9/11 in an encyclopedia, would this pseudo-documentary that is mainly about criticizing the bush administration really be helpful? The fact that 9/11 is used in the movie as one factor in Moore’s assertions against Bush is not a good reason for it to be in the see also section. In other words, the movie isn’t “about” 9/11. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is a continual format mess. Anyway, there's controversy about the films factual accuracy, it's only indirectly related to the topic and it's basically a attack/op-ed film. It really adds nothing to the topic. RxS (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Doctor, I don't think that correct. You have given your opinion ("attack/op-ed film") and I disagree. There is, mind You, controversy about the Bush administration's factual accuracy too. Fahrenheit 9/11 certainly has much to do with the 9/11 attacks as illustrated adequately by Xiutwel. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

Re: my opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree, that's the nature of trying to find consensus sometimes. RxS (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a better match for Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks than for this article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the docu is about both topics, it's equally apt there and here. I've added it there.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate in both places. It's clearly about what led up to 9/11, what happened on 9/11 and the results of 9/11. So is the OCT. The two theories simply weigh and emphasize a different set of incidents to emphasize. 76.87.151.24 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seventy Six Point...and Xiutwel. The doc shows evidence that the Bush Administration had ties to the bin Laden family. Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the 9/11 attack and therefore the documentary is valid for inclusion in this article. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

9/11 by Noam Chomsky

9/11 by Noam Chomsky should be added to the book list as it is entirely concerned with the events of 9/11. Consensus?67.165.163.114 (talk)GUAM —Preceding comment was added at 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you let the other discussion thread come to a conclusion before opening up another one. We've seen this happen here before, and it causes a lot of problems. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your apprehensiveness, but the last thread about Fahrenheit was deadlocked, so like any good citizen I bypassed the bureaucracy and suggested an unequivically scholarly book written by a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There should be no objections, thus enhancing the quality and quantity of information in this entry. Consensus?67.165.163.114 (talk)GUAM

I didn't say I was opposed to adding it, but still given the touchiness of the present situation it might be best to put this on hold if it gets reverted. Have you considered registering for a profile? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, does Wikipedia have an article on the book? If so, please provide an inlink for easier review. It has to meet notability requirements to be included in the first place. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that a book have a direct link for its inclusion (the other two books in that section do not, and perhaps we are better off for that. I might add that Wikipedia is not the end all be all, and Professor Chomsky's credentials should be proof enough of its authenticity, notability, and feasibilty for this entry). I didn't suggest You were opposed to adding it, S0CO. To answer your question I have not considered registering for a profile, but you can still talk to me on my number link. Consensus? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

-If there are no objections I will be adding professor Chomsky's book now. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

The article is currently protected, so I don't think that you'll be adding it anytime soon. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That read malevolently, maybe it's me though. This "Assume Good Faith" thing is a trip. Anyway, now or later it's all good. Do You object?

Couple questions, why this book among the thousands that have been published? What does it add to the article? RxS (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question, Doc. Aside from filling in a portion in need of filling, the perspective of an authoritative voice on American military, politics, and foriegn policy for the last fifty years (professor Chomsky) would be an invaluable addition to the scope of the 9/11 attacks. Professor Chomsky thoroughly inspects the terrorist attacks of 9/11, giving numerous citations (domestic and foriegn) along the way. His book is invaluable to this article, but I need not bolster his relevence and superiority. You can read him yourself. The point is that he is an authority. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

I haven't read the book nor am I aware of its contents. What I do know is that the book was published in October 2001. There is no possible way that the Chomsky book can help us, because much has been learned since October 2001. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Chomsky is one of the rare critics of 911-aftermath which denounces conspiracy theories. It makes sense to include his book. /Xi

-I agree, Xiutwel, with a small exception. I simply think that "9/11-aftermath" may raise illegitimate objections by people who have not read the book. 9/11 by Noam Chomsky (who has more foriegn policy knowledge, I think, than any of us) is more concerned with the events leading to and directly following the 9/11 attacks. Beer pointed out that the work was published in October of 2001. The immediacy of professor Chomsky's book is all the more reason for its inclusion. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

• When all this is so problematic, may we should have a special section with "Information which may or may not be relevant"? That would save us a lot of debate here.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-I don't see how professor Chomsky's book is questionable for relevancy sake, and since the only charge against it is its timeliness, as opposed to the facts given by myself and Xiutwel, it should be admitted. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

ZAHN: Professor, let me jump in here, but implicit in that -- aren't you saying that you understand why America was targeted?

CHOMSKY: Do I understand? Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence services, so does all of scholarship. I mean, we can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said is about half true. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state, nor do the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are not obviated by the fact that there are other good things that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/30/ltm.01.html 67.173.175.232 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

March 11 edit war on Fahrenheit 9/11

(this section is not meant to discuss the merits of inclusion of this link, but to reach an understanding on how to proceed without edit warring...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

There is no majority for inclusion of the Fahrenheit link, let alone consensus, which means we can debate it further to reach consensus, or edit war, or forget about it.

I would like to replace the POV tags for the previous issues tomorrow (March 12): since no-one replied at #March 10 POV tags edit war???, I say the POV tags should be in place while we discuss the other issues. That's not "holding a page hostage", it's informing our readers that a wikipedia editor dispute exists, which does exist. No more, no less.

To be able to do that, I need the article unprotected, so maybe, GUAM, will you agree to not violate 3RR? Then we can ask the admin to lift the block, while we discuss the Fahrenheit matter further.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

NPOV is not for every dispute that exists about the subject, it's a statement that the article fails to appropriately describe viewpoints. At the very least clearly identify the problem in the article so that it can be discussed rationally. Peter Grey (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It's nice to see some agreement on something here. 76.87.151.24 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No NPOV tags. Xiutwel, your objections explicitly break policy and guidelines. WP:FRINGE is a good example, and that ties into WP:RS and WP:V and WP:OR. You not being satisfied by policy is not reason for including NPOV tags. Your concerns have been addressed for months and have been dismissed by consensus repeatedly. Because you have been advised by editors and admins to drop this, holding the article hostage in this manner constitutes outright disruption. Stop now. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Okie, a few editors, among which are you, Haemo, Aude, RxS, JC-S0C, Peter, and several others, are jointly interpreting the same guidelines differently than I on the other side am doing (and several other editors are doing). The matter is even further complicated by the fact that you never seem to disagree among yourselves, but at the same time hold interpretations which are mutually exclusive. That makes the discussion almost impossible to understand.
It's an interpretation problem. I am not opposing the guidelines. If I would agree with you that the current existing guidelines say that which you claim they say, I would probably abandon wikipedia altogether, because I think it is impossible to write neutral, high-quality unbiased articles using the #NFSM model.
And you are confusing consensus with a majority, it seems.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And if I may be so bold to suggest Xiutwel is violating WP:SPIDER and Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. How about this. We get the hell out of Dodge...it'll be here when we get back, and let's all go make Sandy Denny a featured article. RxS (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry RxS, I am not a native speaker and I don't understand at all what these essays are driving at.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph. I suppose it's a humorous way of saying WP:DBF. Perhaps if your English isn't up to understanding that page, might it explain your trouble with some of the polices we talk about? It's not complicated really...anyway, just a thought. RxS (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball, Doc? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

Doc? Maybe if he was feeling.....lucky? ;) RxS (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

partial issue: Michael Meacher

Perhaps we can reach consensus on a smaller inclusion. This is the first part of the #Andreas von Bülow issue.

insertion point

conspiracy theories section

text

By example, Michael Meacher, Tony Blair's former environment minister and member of the War Cabinet till June 2003, was widely criticised for claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/20/wbulo20.xml Telegraph, 20 Nov 2003</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/07/nmeach07.xml</ref>

rationale

The opinion of a 2001-2003 member of the British government, which in turn was the closest ally of the Aghanistan/Iraq coalitions, is surely relevant to the allegations of conspiracy.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-Agreed. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

Why is an former environment minister's (at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) opinion relevant? Does he have special knowledge or expertise? Or is it just his personal opinion? RxS (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ministers do not only have their own territory, they are also jointly responsible for the entire government of a country, being part of the government. That means he was in on the whole discussion on WMD being found in Iraq, and the decision to invade, both Afghanistan and Iraq. When such a person breaks the ranks after almost two years, how could it be other than relevant? It is so obvious that I need not give any further deliberation. If you disagree, I really want to see a sentence in policy which says we cannot add sourced facts in the absense of additional sources which verify that the first sources are important to look at for e.g. writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever heard of a scientist not being able to quote another scientist's published work without first another RS asserting that that work is worthwhile?
Quote the policy please when you object.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But he's not a scientist...and has no other obvious expertise on this subject. As a general thing, I suppose any minister can be said to be involved in anything the government does, but I see no evidence he had any other special role, anymore involvement in the decision than hundreds of other people (or more possibly) in Great Britain at the time. Do we include the opinions of every minister (senator, congressman, MP etc)? Why is a former minister "breaking ranks" meaningful? RxS (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ministers are seldom scientists, indeed. Are scientists all that count? (Which discipline, then?)
Do you believe that Britain went to war because the minister of Defense decided so on his own?? Ministers takes such decisions jointly. Even in America, I think, the president does not decide such things by himself?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-Michael Mercher was a member of Blair's War Cabinet during the 9/11 attacks (as this topic clearly states). Therefore, his opinion is valid and should be added. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I believe this should be included. A notable person making statements like this can be used as an example of the conspiracy theories. He doesn't have to have expertise on it; if Bush says, tomorrow, that black people are inferior, that would be a hugely notable thing, even though Bush is by no means an educated genealogist who specializes in racial distinctions. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, maybe if the president of the US said it, but a environment minister? Earl Butz's (Secretary of Agriculture) comments about race isn't in African American. RxS (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The text says that, but none of the refs provided make any mention of it. In fact from [7]

Mr Blair discussed military plans with the team of ministers who will soon become his "war cabinet", who have been meeting at 8.30am every day this week.

The group includes John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister; Gordon Brown, the Chancellor; Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary; David Blunkett, the Home Secretary; Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary; Clare Short, the International Development Secretary and John Reid, chairman of the Labour Party. Also present were Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the heads of the intelligence agencies. At 4pm yesterday Mr Blair held a further meeting with ministers including Mr Straw, Mr Blunkett and Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary.

So the whole thing's completely misleading RxS (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected, RxS ! Thanks for researching this. I do not remember where I picked up the "War Cabinet" phrase, it was probably some non-RS website I must have been looking at! My humble apologies. I'll draft a new bit: - It does not make much difference, I think, because the War Cabinet, I persume, is not the one that declares war but only decides on how to wage it.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

new text 3

By example, Michael Meacher, former British environment minister and member of Tony Blair's Cabinet till June 2003, was widely criticised [8] [9] for claiming [10] [11] that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. Meacher had in March voted very strongly for the Iraq war, and had voted weakly against an investigation into it afterward.[12] On the war with Iraq, Mr Meacher is among those who feels he and others in government were misled.[13]

I suppose Meacher is one of the most notable person that can be cited to have made such kind of allegations. Since we are going to have a section called "conspiracy theories" it would be better to have the claims attributed to the most notable people available rathar than attributed to nobody (see WP:WEASEL). If someone thinks there are more notable people then make suggestions.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose any such piecewise addition of trivia to the "Conspiracy Theories" section. That section needs to be a fair and concise summary of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Do you think that the reference to Meacher would make it not concise anymore?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Meacher information is probably not notable enough to go into the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article; even if so, it is surely not important enough to be mentioned in the lead of that article; even if that is the case, I can't see it being included in this article's summary of that lead, which is the section you're proposing to add it to. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, he's nearly irrelevant to this topic. He wasn't among the senior political or military leadership who were involved in the discussions surrounding this topic...he has no special expertise on the subject as the Minister Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He didn't come to these conclusions while serving in that role, he only came to them after he returned to being strictly an MP...one of more than 700 other MP's. His view isn't representative of any political viewpoint on the matter, even his Labour colleagues who opposed the war in Iraq distance themselves from his remarks. RxS (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are saying his view is not notable when there exist 700 other MP's, correct? (Last time it was 198 by the way, but the exact number matters not to me). I believe he was sacked in June 2003, just 3 months after the Blair government decided to go to war. (And therefore, including Meacher.) He "went public" in October 2003, I guess. There are plenty of plausible speculations possible on his behaviour, and of that of his collegues. We're getting nowhere with these, altough I understand your concerns, I think. I see no option but to stick with the facts (RS). So if you are saying that he believes internet gossip despite his "Blair period"-inside-knowledge that there is no cover-up, I think it is best you would provide sources, or stop speculating --at least on this page-- since it clutters the discussion.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So (you both) supposing that we want to deweasel the summary which would be the best people to which attribute allegation of cover-up's or anomalies in your opinion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would probably suggest this:- Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. It is also believed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately not shot down, or that it did not crash into the Pentagon. The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. It has the merit of summing up the lead of the article, without attempting to go into detail as to who believes what. Anyone who is interested in such questions can, should and will click on the link to the main article to read more. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sheff, you say it is not necessary. On the other hand, I would argue that it makes sense to give an example which shows that these theories are held not only by computer nerds who surf too much. You may oppose that, thinking it might give UNDUE credibility to the theories.
  I like it better to attribute, than to WEASEL these theories or claims or questions into anonymity. (It's bad enough that the mainstream account is not attributed.) Did I guess your concerns correctly?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking Sheff's proposed edits; however, there's a glaring lack of sources. Usually, when you talk about controversy, you'd like some sources to give it a foundation. Of course, I'm guessing that they'd be there in the real-time version. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Sheff's edits as well, because the current summery is way too trimmed down -- provided we replace "was" by "might have been" in each instance: In that way, we cover both those that ask questions and express doubts, plus those who answer the questions they asked for themselves. But Sheff's change does nothing to include the fact about Meacher into the article, which has merit mentioning. This seems the appropriate section for it. Why should this section be kept so vague and abstract? When Bush says "they hate our freedoms" we simply quote him, don't we? We don't go saying "some suggest they might hate our freedoms"? What is the big reason for omitting this information? off-topic: Would you folks rather be discussing the Mineta testimony? I chose this one because I expected to find the least controversry among editors...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel's summary This is not my summary Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I am not sure if the reader is helped by reading the multitude of theories - they can read them in the main CT article. Perhaps it's best to focus on the greatest common denominators:
- Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda might have planned or carried out the attacks. It is also believed that the hijacked flights were deliberately never intercepted by military traffic guidance escort service, that the collapse of the World Trade Center (in particular building 7) might have been the result of a controlled demolition, or that American Airlines Flight 77 might deliberately have been allowed to strike, or that it might never have been that plane which crashed into the Pentagon. The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that, rather than controlled demolition, the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires was sufficient to cause the collapse of the Twin Towers.
...and an imbalance in this is that the community of civil engineers is named, but the multiple Retired Generals etc. who have shown disbelief in the official narrative, are not mentioned now.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Iraq War is only peripherally related, not even to the attacks, but to reactions to the attacks, Meacher's opinions on the Iraq War are not relevant. Peter Grey (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you support inclusion when we forget about that last sentence?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As to sources: they are all to be found in the lead of the 911CT article. I copied the text without references for ease of editing and reading in this dicussion. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Meacher is notable and speaking in his area of expertise. I think the objections are due to the difference in political systems from the US. An "environment" minister in the US would not have been privy to all 911 information but in the Westminster system ministers work from the same knowledge regardless of portfolio. If he was not told everything the Minister of Defense knew then under the Westminster system the MOD could be sacked.
>Xiutwels text looks ok but I'd exclude mention of the rediculous "no plane at Pentagon" theory. Out of all the thousands of conspiracy theorists (by this I mean conspiracy researchers not general public), less than a dozen individuals support that one according to polls so it is not particularly notable. Wayne (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Pentagon-noplane; I had assumed it would have been 50-50. If you're right, we should delete it in my proposal, I will STRIKE it accordingly.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am assuming bad faith here, but I find it incredibly hypocritical that you are so willing to change something based on what one person says, so long as they are a CT-ist like yourself, yet when you have a large group of editors doing the same, but dissagree with your POV pushing, you simply ignore them. If this isn't proof that this whole argument is pointless, I don't know what is(Other than the numerous times we've pointed out what guidelines you are continuing to ignore)... --Tarage (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarage, I hear you are enraged, and I would like to speak to you about this, because I'm needing more harmony, not less. If the matter seems worth discussing to you, would you drop a note on my talk page, because "hypocritical" is about me and not about this article? Also I'd appreciate it when you take a look at #questions, questions. Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no need nor desire to look at any of your restated arguments, because you have yet to come up with anything new. It's all the same POV pushing you have been doing for years, dressed up in new words. You ignore policy, you ignore consensus, you do exactially as you please. I have no words for you anymore, because I don't believe in wasting them on people who refuse to listen. I have a feeling this is the only way to actually get through to you; to ignore you. --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that moniker -> "CT-ist". I presume that stands for "[C]ritical [T]hinker", i.e. one who thinks deeply about all the facts involved, instead of blindly accepting what their presydint thinkses. Bulbous (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I could come up with something a bit less rational than "[C]ritical [T]hinker", which would be closer to the truth... but I digress. The point is, reguardless of how you or I feel, these arguments have been rehashes and rehashed to the point where they are stale. No, beyond stale, boardering on rotten. I think you should take your POV pushing elsewhere, but you won't give up until the 'gods' of Wikipedia come to smite you, I'm sure. Sadly, it appears than you and yours don't care about policy. --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume GF and that he meant "[C]ritical [T]hinker" as I do not believe any of the conspiracy theories. I weakly support the general mainstream account but believe there was a coverup to hide government incompetence, and thus by extention the investigations were lacking and not based on evidence.
Nominal research will show it is not "what one person says" as the truth movement has extensively debunked the no plane theory so although it should be mentioned in the main conspiracy theories article it should not be in the summary here. Wayne (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Statements by others"

Does anyone else think this should be moved to the reactions section? I think there is a discontinuity considering the "Statements by others" is largely reactions. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Guam

• I'm assuming: no, because: "Statements by others" is short for "Statements by others on the alleged motive of the hijackers" which is much more specific than "reactions". Agree?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but shouldn't "Motives" and "Statements..." be merged into something like "Possible Motives," then? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

There is no accounting for taste, but, is there a specific problem you are trying to fix? Is there something confusing about the article in that vicinity? — I would like to leave it to you, I have my hands full with the issues of Meacher, Von B"ulow, Cheney, Mineta, Bush, the passport and the molten metal...☺♥ --Xiutwel 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure

It took two days, but we are moving toward our first consensus. The following is a discussion from another section that I have copied here. It is concerned with article clarification pertaining to the "Responsibility" section. I would like this discussion to concentrate on the articles overall structure and clarity, as a number of "editors" have suggested...

Responsibility can only mean the hijackers and those who gave them direct tactical support. The motivations of the hijackers, which are largely founded on US oppression and exploitation, are highly relevant and need to be included, but the hijackers made the choice. The origin of their motives is not the same as reponsibility. Peter Grey (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-I see your point, Peter. Why? and Who? are separate questions. My qualm is with the structure of the article then, based on a difference of definition not opinion. Responsibility has many definitions, which gives it vagueness here. Since we are aware that the men listed under "The hijackers" (mentioned at the opening of the article) flew the planes into the buildings, I suggest that the section named "Responsibility" be changed to begin with "The Hijackers" so those men can be considered in depth. The "Motive[s]" section could then be expanded and clarified in concert with the overall structure and clarity of this page in our minds. 24.12.56.220 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I concur. This proposed layout would be reasonable. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-How about thoughts on tying "Memorials" up with "Fatalities" and "Survivors" sections? 24.12.56.220 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I agree with Anon and SOCO on all accounts. It would do much for the page if those motions are accepted. --GuamIsGood (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit please

Template:Tp:editprotected Can someone add a period to the end of the caption for the image at September 11, 2001 attacks#Zacarias Moussaoui. Changing to: "Buildings surrounding the World Trade Center were heavily damaged by the debris and massive force of the falling twin towers." Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how anybody would object to a minor and obvious fix, so: done. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we add a link?

{{editprotected}} I would like to add a link to Shanksville, Pennsylvania which is in the first section... and maybe even the white house. Since the article is protected can an administrator do this? I think it would be good for a Canadian like me who doesn't know where Pennsylvania is.... in fact what I'm really looking for is to see a map of just how close they got to perhaps hitting the white house... maybe this could be added? --CyclePat (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Google worked wonders... here is a map... they had quite a ways to go if that was there destination. --CyclePat (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No one could possibly object this this, so I went ahead and did it. --Haemo (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Haemo. Cheers from Canada hey! --CyclePat (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please do not use this talk page as a soap box, or as a forum to discuss your views. Use it to discuss concrete changes to the article and ensure that your edits remain civil. --Haemo (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

valid discussion

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

---

I would like to invite Dscotese to reformulate [your edit which was reverted by Haemo, leaving out the non-wikirelated Founding fathers and everything, because you were i.m.o. making valid points about the current editor dispute. We have to resolve it. Ranting does not help. Neither does reverting each others edits on the Talk page.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I did not realize that the talk pages were being censored. I thought reversions on talk pages were limited to obvious vandalism. I'm not sure exactly what I'm not allowed to say on the talk pages, but I had assumed that mistakes would be left for public display as an example. If Haemo feels that this is not in keeping with the educational nature of Wikipedia, I guess it's up to him and other administrators to make it more obvious that in order to be heard, we have to censor ourselves. From the edit you mentioned, I have taken the parts I think interested you. I am suggesting that we add a tag to the article to direct WP readers to the discussion page. Dscotese (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to add useful information in Wikipedia about questions surrounding the attacks has proven quite educational, although largely unsuccessful. I believe that Haemo or Ice Cold Beer or RxS or Okiefromokla or MONGO or some combination of them will find reasons to prevent the edit, and in the process, show how to apply Wikipolicy to protect the holders of US political power, while Xiutwel, Pokipsy76, Perscurator, Wowest, ireneshusband, Wayne, Bulbous, myself, and several anonymous editors will continue adding information which promotes the independent research and healthy criticism of governments that has been so lacking in recent years that the US is now waging three wars and suffering in a recession. In this sense, our continued attempts to include "CT" information is a Pyrrhic Victory for the propaganda arm of the US government.

I think there are editors who would be completely against adding a notice to the article itself suggesting that research on the attacks may be more fruitful if they participate in or at least read these discussions. I suppose each of them believes that perusal of these discussions would be a waste of time for a visitor, that it is a noble thing for them to spend so much time participating themselves in order to avoid policy violations on the reverts they have to do to protect Wiki visitors from wasting their time on such matters as the clues that uncover "political corruption" and the growing 9/11 Truth Movement. Perhaps their beliefs are correct, but I disagree with them. Dscotese (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems there are already those willing to play the British Empire and censor any opinion they disagree with. Why not? (Deminizer (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

I believe there are a few who may see the light, so I will continue providing them with opportunity and chance wherever I can. That is what these talk pages are for, and I think they would benefit from more visibility. Dscotese (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"to protect the holders of US political power", "a Pyrrhic Victory for the propaganda arm of the US government" Sweet.....I see there's a bunch of real brain wizards at work here. You know, serious debate is one thing but this sort of personal attack and assumption of bad faith has been a hallmark of this talk page for as long as I remember. We're not here to provide or promote "independent research and healthy criticism", and those who think we are have a mistaken idea of what Wikipedia is. Please take your search for "clues that uncover "political corruption" else where. For now, serious discussion of NPOV tags and fringe coverage is pretty much over. No one wants to be subjected to such mud slinging. RxS (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd link to some guidelines that may be useful to editors recently posting here. I hope this will help people to understand what will - and will not - be removed from Talk pages:

1. Wikipedia is not censored.
2. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
3. General Talk page guidelines.

Thanks for reading! It makes life easier for everyone. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea Dscotese is trying to get across is that readers are not given the viewpoint that conspiracy theories are the result of "independent research and healthy criticism". Instead the article leans more to derogate the theories. Wayne (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe this little stunt by Dscotese is enough to add him to the 'Editors whom we shall ignore' list, don't you agree? Why not reward his bad faith in us with a little bad faith in return? --Tarage (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speak of "us" and/or "we" when editing. Your misconduct is your own, and your self-righteousness is not shared by other editors. Bulbous (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. "Those of us who abide by the guidelines set by Wikipedia and are tired of the tedious and repetative restated arguments". That better? --Tarage (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Much! Bulbous (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This once again demonstrates why this was removed in the first place. Discuss changes to the article in a calm and sensible fashion — don't accuse other people of acting for the "propaganda arm of the US government" or of "running a protection racket" to defend "political corruption" and the "holders of US political power". --Haemo (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Video Tapes Handed

{{edit protected}} In the end of the September 11, 2001 attacks#Osama bin Laden header, this needs to be added. It was removed when it shows the flip side of the videos. -- However the factuality of many of these videos is questioned and many conspiracy theorists believe that the united states government may actually have made the tapes, seeing how Osama Bin Laden, a left handed man ^{(FBI source)}, was writing with his right hand in the videos.

-- --Green-Dragon (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs to be added. Would you please elaborate? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means, Phil Mickelson is right handed and golfs left handed. I think any meaning attached to that observation would be original research. RxS (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New and intresting(Something most of these CT arguments lack), but OR. Agree with the editors above me. --Tarage (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OR? This is clutching at straws, even for a conspiracy theory. I mean, think about it: you're suggesting that the government faked the videos, going to an enormous amount of trouble to do so and finding an exact look-alike of bin Laden to play the role... then overlooked something so elementary as what hand he was writing with when making the video? Come on, people. Our purpose is to make an encyclopedia here built with solid facts, not rampant speculation. Take this stuff to a forum where it belongs and stop wasting our time. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to be that crass, but well put. --Tarage (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit not done. Requested edits need to have consensus. --- RockMFR 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Islam, the left hand is considered a dirty hand. It is used for things like cleansing yourself. The Qur'an calls people in Hell "the Companions of the Left Hand". Especially older generations of left handed Muslims would have been taught to write with their right hand. And even today, the more religious Muslim society you live in, the more likely it is your teacher won't allow left handed writing. You wouldn't write with your left hand on TV if you wanted to appear as a leader and defender of the faith against dirty Kafirs. And someone of OBL's generation would have been taught right-handed writing in school anyway. 88.113.38.127 (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we've had an unsourced reply to an unsourced original post. That's probably enough original research for now.

Unless we see some reliable secondary sources talking about this subject, there's nothing we could add to the article, so there's nothing to discuss here. This is not a forum for general debate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From a quick googling: [14][15][16][17][18][19] ("how can you use the hand that you wipe your back-side with to write the name of Allah?")

The negative stigma of left handedness in Islam is not a secret; take a peek at a travel guide to a Middle Eastern country. Or try google. We even have Islamic toilet etiquette.

Though I guess this is as much original research as the left handed conspiracy theory is in the first place? 88.114.125.67 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sources could make a good addition to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, assuming that it questions Bin Laden writing with his right hand. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

warning template at the top of the page?