Talk:September 11 attacks

Animated gif

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

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

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

As I do not know how to deal with the copyright issue, I have not uploaded the animation to Wkimedia Commons yet, if indeed that is where it belongs. I would assume that the provisions of Fair Use would apply but being unfamiliar with these issues, I would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would help me with this matter. In the meantime, I will redirect to the page where I found a reasonably good version of the animation. It is about halfway down the page at this address: [2].

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

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

WP:COATRACK paragraph

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

I tagged the following paragraph as a WP:COATRACK:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you joking? That paragraph advocates the following positions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, let's sort out who stands where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stratesec

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

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

a campaign by the name of "War on Terrorism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources for calling it a war on terror? You're kidding right, there's thousands of them.[3]. You're not even close yet. RxS (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for vote in in favor of original wording

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

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

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

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

But, since you want it. [4] There is your source. Quoting Rklawton, "there is doubt regarding common acceptance of this term". Therefore, the previous phrasing assumes POV and must be changed. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

Malik have these in mind: Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion

What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been explained, but you're choosing not to acknowledge it..[5][6] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I just want to add that since "war on terrorism" is used as a name, it is typical to place it inside quotation marks, as seen here: [7],[8],[9]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Proposal to add sentence into "Motivation" section

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

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

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

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

Taboo's, thoughtcrimes and inquisition

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

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

To illustrate:

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

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

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

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

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

Coleen Rowley - 'crucified for doing unthinkable' thoughtcrime.

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

or

French professor sacked over 9/11 conspiracy theory

...and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outdated and incorrect information regarding World Trade Center 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing archive link

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

Botched Investigation / Conspiracy Theory Section Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Conspiracy theories Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only is this article an opinion piece, it is written by Cinnamon Stillwell, who is not an independent observer, but an active participant in the controversy. In particular, she is the "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum" [10].  Cs32en Talk to me  13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Praxidikai

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmidinejad says 9/11 an inside job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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