Talk:September 11 attacks

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

---

Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11 Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Template:Todo priority

WTC insurance(sp?)

I think there should be an point in the article that stated the owner of the WTC made a insurance especifically against terrorist attacks a week or so before (this was in the New York times or some other famous US magazine, sorry but I don't have the images here, think I lost it) I, for once belive in the conpiracy teory (to some degree), but since we should be unparcial and only state the facts, that IS a fact. Daniel Parreira, Portugal

The number of U.s military deaths in iraq is equal to death in 11 sept

Pl add this also to the article as now the no of US death in iraq are now equal to 11 sept victims.Yousaf465

Not relevant. --Golbez 07:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it does matter a little it should be include in trivia. User talk:Yousaf465

It might be noteworthy with respect to the Iraq War, but not the September 11 attacks. Peter Grey 06:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But see the contrast america has scarificied more of it's Soldier to fight "Terrorism".User talk:Yousaf465

Brilliant...I got one for you...More Americans died after it entered WWII than died during Pearl Harbor also...amazing isn't it? TheFog 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Another important point relating to 9/11 is that many people believe that the Bush Administration colud not possibly be behind the September 11th attacks on their own US citizens. After all, it is asked, why would the nation's leaders let 3,000 of their own citizens die just for the enrichment of their family and friends and their own consolidation of power? However, the Iraq war proves that they would willing to kill 3,000 US citizens for that very reason. I think this is the main reason people find this fact so ccompelling. --WhatAGoodBoy 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't deny that it is an interesting bit of information, but I simply think it doesn't belong in this article, unless it is under trivia JLAF 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a connection with this article, because the Iraq War was not a consequence of any of the events of that day. It possibly could be justified under the Iraq War article, working backward to the Iraq-Al Qaeda mythology that was fabricated before the invasion. Peter Grey 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be misleading to include mention of the number of U.S. military deaths in iraq, that should not be included here at all, not in the article and not in triva. Powerful interests have tried to link Iraq and 9/11, there is no reason that wikipedia should be misleading the public the way MSM has.

• The Continuing BS from AP and the MSM about Iraq and 9/11 (Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq 9/11 Part 1)
• Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq 9/11 and US support of Israel (Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq 9/11 Part 2)

Minor rewords

I am rewording the phrase "2,833 applications were received from the families of those massacred", as the term massacre does not belong here. I feel "killed" tells the same story, without lending any POV. On the other hand, I'll note that I'm not removing the phrase There were a number of reports from callers aboard the hijacked aircraft that suggest the hijackers murdered several people aboard the planes before impact as I feel the more "up close and personal" killings may make more of a claim for murder...though I accept that others may dispute this, and I am simply reserving judgment on the wording in that particular case. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is making a judgement at all; using the word 'killed' conveys the fact of what happened in a neutral fashion. Damburger 13:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, as I said - both "Murdered" and "Massacred" are POV words - but I just felt that they were different degrees. I don't support "murdered", especially in the case of individual airline passengers who were singled out for being killed, but I don't oppose it quite as strongly as I oppose "massacred"...so I'm leaving that rewording to someone else, like you ;) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I went for "killed" as being more encyclopedic. I also reread the whole reference. Heart-rending stuff. --Guinnog 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support "murdered" in certain places but not in others (hence my recent revert) - but "massacred", "slaughtered", "terminated", and whatever else would be flagrant coloration. Good for creative fiction, horrible for an encyclopedia. In some encyclopedic cases, though, "murdered" has a better ring to it than "killed", which can be a bit simplistic. Used sparingly, at least. --Action Jackson IV 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify - I think saying that Youseff P. Hijacker "murdered" the captain by stabbing him with a box cutter is okay - but Youseff P. Hijacker "killed" the people on board by crashing the plane. --Action Jackson IV 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just go with "killed" throughout in all cases except any where there has been legal action officially accusing someone of murder, or a direct quotation is being used (and even there it'd better be a worthwhile quotation and not simply a method to introduce the word "murder"). Barring those, let's just stay neutral and with what is certain. JDoorjam Talk 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'm wrong. Good re-revert. --Action Jackson IV 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the term 'murder' has a specific and relevant meaning, and that if one of the hijackers were somehow bought to be trial they would be charged and swiftly found guilty - but that is still nonetheless a slight POV: The POV of those who would put the hijacker on trial. Yes, this may be nitpicking but I think that because this is a very prominent page about a very sensitive issue, it pays to be careful. Damburger 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The hijackers are all dead, since they committed suicide as they murdered thousands of people. Their act was premeditated and designed to kill, so they are indeed, murderers. Twisting that around is POV. However, for the flow of the article, using "killed" in some sentences simply reads better.--MONGO 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be the POV of those who think mass murder is a bad thing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is an emotional issue for both of you, but try to be objective. Every instance where a human being is slain by another is 'killing' but not every instance is 'murdering'. Killing is classified as murder based on your point of view, but it is always killing. That is why we should use the neutral term. If you can't detatch yourself enough to see that I am right about this, I suggest that neither of you continue contributing to this article. Damburger 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the suicide hijackers did indeed premeditate their action and in the course of carrying out that action, they murdered almost 3,000 people. A person can be "killed" by an innocent action, and the 9/11 attacks were hardly innocent. I therefore, do not see you as "right" on this matter, anymore than your previous attempts to not want to see the word "terrorist" used here...which even the UN and every major source has called these attacks.--MONGO 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh Damburger, you were doing so great until that last sentence. Let's not make this "I'm right, you're wrong and biased." We're actually having dialogue on the issue without making it personal; let's continue in that direction. I agree with all but Damburger's last sentence: "kill" is simply more neutral, which we should strive for. The magnitude of the terrorists' actions is not lessened by using the more neutral term, but neutrality is gained. JDoorjam Talk 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are places where 'killed' is appropriate, and places where 'murdered' might be better. Neutrality is determined by the balance of reliable sources, not by editorial consensus. "If you can't detatch yourself enough to see that I am right about this, I suggest that neither of you continue contributing to this article" is one for the archives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree completely. Nobody here is saying it was anything other than murder by terrorists; I just don't think we need to labour the point by using the term constantly. Nobody reading the article will have any doubts about what kind of actions these were, but overdoing the statement of what is a technical legal term looks clunky to me aesthetically, and seems to slightly insult the intelligence of our readers. "Kill" is fine, as long as the rest of the article makes clear what happened and why, and I'd say it does. --Guinnog 05:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between killing and murder is not trivial. In the case of a conflict, what one side describes as murder (emotive word, bad thing) is often described by the other as a legitimate act of warfare. Murder, an emotive word, is a word to avoid on such acts. "X says Y is murder", yes. We, ourselves, should be wary to describe it without that format. "Killing" or "death of" are neutral wordings. We can let the reader decide what more he/she wishes to categorize them as and what view to take. So in this case, I strongly support a view that says, the word "murder" should not be used outside a "described as murder by X, Y and Z" format. For our own voice, use a more neutral word. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have a notable source who says the attacks were a legitimate act of warfare, let's have have a look at it. Maybe we can quote him in context in a sub-section on world reaction. Rejoice, Death to America, or something. The section mentioning jubilant celebration in Palestine is kind of short and could use some quotes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sparking off a nasty debate, what about that guy who called the people in the WTC 'little Eichmanns'? I can't remember his name but I'm sure somebody else mustve heard of that. If you need a counter source, that could be it. Damburger 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Ward Churchill, of Little Eichmann, Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy, and Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. Some might say we have enough coverage of the man, but maybe we can include him here as well, subject to notability and WP:BLP. Death to America redirects to Great Satan; we might be able to find a quote from someone there. I don't know if George Galloway has said anything about the attacks, or Omar Bakri Muhammad. No doubt there are others, but it depends on what exactly they said. Being objective and sophisticated intellectuals, some of their remarks were probably carefully nuanced. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your obvious sarcasm, these people should probably be mentioned briefly in the article, but thats another issue. You don't need a source to let you use neutral language such as 'kill'. It doesn't matter how many people consider the killing to be murder - its not encylcopedic in tone. Can't the reader decide for themselves if its murder after reading an objective factual account? Damburger 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What for...were they involved in the attacks...this articles is about the attacks on 9/11, not "Opinions about the attacks on 9/11".--MONGO 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, depending on the edit you are proposing, we may be arguing a moot point. But again, we get neutrality by giving due weight to the reliable sources, not by triangulation between my views and Noam Chomsky's. If substantially all the reliable sources say it was a murderous atrocity then that's what we ought to say, mentioning as appropriate that minority and fringe opinion say it was a legitimate military target, or the Jews did it, or that 9/11 never really happened (I don't expect that one to show up for a few years yet). There are murders, massacres, genocides, maniacs, and terrorism. If we are going to have pages about them, we have to say so. Otherwise what? Disputed conflict at Wounded Knee? The eruption of hostilities along the German/Polish border in 1939? Rwandan systematic killings? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It DOES NOT MATTER how many people think 9/11 was A Bad Thing. Citations are irrelevant for deciding what language to use in the articles own voice.

I don't hold out much hope you will listen to me as you have not in the past, I'm writing purely to other readers. Damburger 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I read what you write, think about it, and reply. We just disagree about some things. We do agree, I hope, that argument by repetition is not useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001

Can someone clarify what the difference is between this page and the September 11, 2001 page is? They are near mirrors of each other. --Daysleeper47 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. It should redirect to this page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperative Research 911 Timeline Problems

The Cooperative Research 911 timeline link no longer links to a timeline, but a donation appeal. [1] This on its face seems to violate Wikipedia:Not An Advertisement. I also object to the inclusion of the Cooperative Research 911 timeline because I believe it violates Wikipedia:NPOV or Wikipedia:CITE in the following passages [2] :

Passage: Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a warning from “my security people at the airport,” advising him to be cautious in traveling...The source of the warning, and why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: The conspiratorial spin given the passage is part of the Cooperative Research editorial, not the original sources.

Source does state that its unknown who gave the warning and why. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone is the problem. It implies the government knew about the attacks, and warned Brown. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt say the government at all. So I am not sure how the tone implies its the government that knew ... --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: An editorial in the Washington Post published hours before the 9/11 attacks reads, “When it comes to foreign policy, we have a tongue-tied administration.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: Cooperative Research is using an op-ed as fact.

Permitted, even Wikipedia states that OP-Ed's in WP:RS sources are taken to have come from a reliable source and treated as such. Its believed that the OP-ED would still have to go through proper editorial standards and as such is accepted as any other article. So even Wikipedia does it and understands this as acceptable standard. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If a timeline were made of op-ed's, reality would appear differently, as it does in this timeline. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, its permitted, your personal opinion doesnt trump policy. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Strangely, when stills from the surveillance camera are later publicly released, they show two time stamps, one of 5:45 and another of 5:53.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: Conspiratorial tone from the editor at Cooperative Research. The original sources do not use this tone, or even note that it is strange.

No they do not, but isnt it? --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my point exactly. A conspiratorial tone is used, as Nuclear just confirmed. Abe Froman

1 in 30, but the image does show 2, which is odd. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Two Hours Before Attacks, Israeli Company Employees Receive Warnings

Wikipedia:CITE problem: The citations in this passage give the newspaper name and date. No byline, author, or section. It is unverifiable.

Citation is given, Dror, Yuval. 2001. "Odigo Says Workers Were Warned Of Attack." Ha'aretz. 26 September. & Washington Post. 2001. "Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack." 27 September. & Fallis, David S. and Ariana Eunjung Cha. 2001. 'Agents Following Suspect's Lenghty Electronic Trail; Web of Connections Used to Plan Attack." Washington Post. 4 October. There are more given. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information? It is not linked in the timeline. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is, you highlite the newspaper name and date and it pops up, why do I have to keep telling you that you are not doing it right. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Hijackers Drop Duffle Bag in Front of Mosque... No answers are given and the contents of the duffle bag are unknown.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: Conspiratorial tone from the editor at Cooperative Research.

Citation is listed Downey, Sarah and Michael Hirsh. 2002. "A Safe Haven?" Newsweek, 30 September. Its a direct quote, so its not a tone from Cooperative Research editor. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No answers are given and the contents of the duffle bag are unknown. Was that in the article? If not, it is more conspiratorial tone from the editor at Cooperative Research. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In every way I can read this sentence it still sounds like any usual statement about facts (or rather lack of them). No tone detected. SalvNaut 03:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in the article, go get the article and read it, its a direct quote. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Some question whether this was an assassination attempt modeled on the one used on Afghan leader Ahmed Massoud two days earlier

Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:CITE problem: The editor at Cooperative Research alleges an assassination attempt against George W Bush, not the sources. The sources themselves give no pages numbers, authors, bylines or sections.

This is admitted, he doesnt say who some are, however the assassination attempt is cited to Times and is correct. Time. 2002. "Blown Chances, Missed Clues: While White House officials debated going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, 19 terrorists prepared for an attack that would shake a nation." 4 August. [3] Also Time is the one that makes it part of the 9/11 timeline by mentioning it really. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We agree, an assassination attempt is implied. More conspiratorial tone from Cooperative research. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No Time made the connection in its timeline, further the local paper makes the same connection by asking is it a coincidence and 2 terrorists on XYZ, did you even read the article? --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also we have in that same section the further citations Sullivan, Shay. 2001. "Possible Longboat Terrorist Incident: Is it a clue or is it a coincidence?" Longboat Observer. 26 September & Sullivan, Shay. 2001. 'Two Hijackers on Longboat?" Longboat Observer. 21 November. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: At the security checkpoint, all five would pass through a walk-through metal detector, and an X-ray machine would screen their carry-on luggage. But Logan Airport has no video surveillance of its checkpoints (see 1991-2000), so there is no documentary evidence of exactly when they go through, or how they are processed. Jennifer Gore, the young supervisor overseeing the checkpoint, is later unable to recall seeing any of them.

Wikipedia:CITE problem: The citation given for this statement is self-referential, linking to the same 911 timeline published by Cooperative Research.

Citation points you to the section on Logan Airport specifically which contains the citation. Brelis, Matthew and Matt Carroll. 2001. "FAA finds Logan security among worst in US." Boston Globe. 26 September Link here --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not linked in the timeline, so where is the citation coming from? Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, again for the 3rd time, you highlite the link and it shows the article authors and titles, that internal link takes you to the section on the airport where the citations are, sorry again you are wrong. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: ...that a passenger located in seat 10B [Satam Al Suqami] shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B [Daniel Lewin] at 9:20 am.

Wikipedia:CITE problem: The name, date, and retrieval method of the FAA memo used as a citation for this claim is not given.

Link was moved on Worldnetdaily, to prove this, here is the article [4]. Seems you just needed to read past the next sentence ... Or before to read what the source actually directly is since it states it. That article also contains the link to the FAA memo first draft so you can verify that as well, however its already stated that it is the memo first draft written by american airlines on 9/11 regarding activities on the plane, since the memo doesnt have a name that is pretty descriptive citation. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Sayeret Matkal is a deep-penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations, the theft of foreign signals-intelligence materials, and the theft and destruction of foreign nuclear weaponry

Wikipedia:CITE problem: No citation is offered for Sayeret Matkal's activities. We must take it on faith that Cooperative Research has their Sayeret Matkal information correct.

Source provided Hersh, Seymour M. 2001. "Watching the warheads: The Risks To Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal." New Yorker. 29 October. [5], direct link to text by me so you can verify, though its not required. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation is good, but where did it come from? It is not linked in the timeline Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is, again you highlite the link then the information comes up. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: However, according to victims’ relatives who later hear this recording, the two managers at headquarters immediately begin discussing a cover-up of the hijacking details. They say, “don’t spread this around. Keep it close,” “Keep it quiet,” and “Let’s keep this among ourselves. What else can we find out from our own sources about what’s going on?

Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:CITE problem: The anecdotal allegation that American Airlines hushed up family members of the victims lacks even a citation, and is conspiratorial in tone.

Citation given: Sheehy, Gail. 2004. "9/11 Tapes Reveal Ground Personnel Muffled Attacks." New York observer. 17 June text can be found here if you want to read it directly. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So far I am only up to the early morning of September 11, 2001 in the timeline. Other editors, feel free to respond to my individual passages, find more, or register assent or dissent from my opinions on the timeline. Abe Froman 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose including this (or any) timeline on this page. I'd remove it, but Thatcher131 said my last removal constituted edit warring. I guess he or someone else can deal with it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the concerns about the passages listed above can be addressed, I think the timeline from Cooperative Research should be removed. I don't think removing it after discussing it in detail on Talk would constitute edit-warring. Abe Froman 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow I am going to remove the Cooperative Research timeline because of the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:CITE problems listed above. If anyone objects, please respond to the individual-passage concerns above. Abe Froman 00:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose removal, seek mediation, I will gladly participate. Per Thatcher131's reccomendation. as for WP:CITE you can actually look the article up online, if it links to the timeline but a different date, it means the citation is there. I think you should review but part of your NPOV issues lie more in the source since its quoting a source directly. So choose your mediation method. Also its not linking to a donation the timeline is there if you scroll down, much like Wikipedia they added a donation thing to the header, would you stop working on Wikipedia because of this? --NuclearZer0 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out your WP:CITE issues are because you do not know how the citations system works, just highlite the item it tells you the author date, article title etc. Also as long as the source = WP:RS then it doesnt matter if its an OPED. --NuclearZer0 01:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation issue is a problem, because the original sources in the timeline do not offer author, byline, or page number. We must take it on faith the Cooperative Research editor has accurately given the contents of an entire day's newspaper. This is a Wikipedia:Verifiability issue, which leads to me labeling it a Wikipedia:CITE issue. The Wikipedia:NPOV issues, highlighted almost a dozen times above, are unresolved as well. Should I take it we agree the editor at Cooperative research uses a conspiratorial editorial tone in the passages listed above? Abe Froman 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated there is no Cite problem other then you not understanding how it works, you hold your mouse over the link and the citation appers, as noted above I presented them so you can read them. Also WP:RS does not state that it has ato be a weblink simply that it has to be a proper citation, directly from the article I have provided above all of the citations that you failed to see, perhaps its the way your browser is setup in some custom manner removing link tags, but the citations are all given. So no I do not agree and wish you didnt ignore me telling you that your Citing issue was wrong. --NuclearZer0 02:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Abe Froman's removal of link for a couple reasons. First, there is clearly no consensus for the links inclusion. Things got heated before, but no consensus was reached and a compromise I suggested wasn't inacted. Secondly, it links to a fund raiser: "Emergency Fundraiser Appeal! Cooperative Research Needs Your Help!" Most importantly though, there is no consensus for this addition. Abe Froman has also summarised the issues clearly. Rx StrangeLove 04:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Right even though the above points were totally negated. If you wish to go this route then lets all participate in mediation as Thatcher131 reccomended, choose the venue and leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. It also does not link to a fundraiser, thats like stating all links to Wikipedia link to a fundraiser, there just happens to be a fundraiser going on. This leads me to believe 1 of two things, either you did not even scroll on the page, or you did not even visit the link and simply jumped on Abe's points as before when your points were negated. Either way, again, pick the venue for mediation and I will gladly take part. Thank you and merry xmas. --NuclearZer0 05:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They were not effectively negated and the fact remains that there is no consensus for the addition of the link. Re: the fundraiser, the difference is clear to anyone who looks. No consensus - no inclusion. Rx StrangeLove 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you reading what I am reading, he said there is no citations because he didnt know you hold the mouse cursor over the link to see the full citation ... Please stop now its starting to look like you arent paying attention to the discussion. --NuclearZer0 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, start the mediation with a third party and let me know the venue, per the intervening admin. Merry Xmas again and have a good day. --NuclearZer0 15:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The link should be removed, for the reasons listed above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Except those reasons have all been negated already, good reason to remove a link ... Since those reasons have been negated, guess that means the link should stay. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: Cooperative Research 911 Timeline

Resolution: The Cooperative Research 911 Timeline is unsuitable for inclusion in the 911 Attacks article because it links to a donation appeal [6], uses a conspiratorial editing tone, and has verifiability problems with its claimed sources. Abe Froman 18:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiratorial tone has been refuted and verifiability problems have as well. Turns out Abe didn't know if you highilite the link of the newspaper name and date, it shows you the article name and author. Also creating straw polls with bias introductions negate the straw poll. --NuclearZer0 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree

• Abe Froman 18:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• --MONGO 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• --Regebro 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Peter Grey 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) : Falls under Links to be avoided: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13.
• Ronabop 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Beyond that, there is a timeline article more appropriate to timeline links. --StuffOfInterest 21:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Peter Grey --rogerd 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rx StrangeLove 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Multiple issues with this link.
• Mmx1 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• --Aude (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree; on another subject: don't people listen to our leader?: it's nucUlar.Dogru144 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree per Peter. Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

• I disagree, because it seems to fit with the EL. See Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#External_Link_to_Cooperative_Research.—Slipgrid 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• "uses a conspiratorial editing tone" - how would you support this claim? Is it your own opinnion? What is conspiratorial editing tone anyway? Have you ever analyzed other journal articles and have tried to find "conspiratorial tone" there? I bet you would find it. Word "conspiratorial" is missused again, or rather used in purpose as a slander word. CR911T provides reports which do not differ from other media reports. Face it, facts point to a conspiracy of some sort. Stop dismissing everything as "conspiracies can't be true". Do you agree that poisoning of Litvinenko involved some sort of conspiracy? Why I don't read this word in news reports about it? "has verifiability problems with its claimed sources" - it provides its sources. Have you ever insisted on verifiability when it comes to other (mainstream) media organizations? "links to a donation appeal" - I consider this to be nitpicking and this should not be an argument here. Wikipedia gives a link to donation, too. SalvNaut 20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree and straw polls do not trump policy, sorry but you guys are going to need to follow Thatcher131's reccomendation and seek formal mediation, I am more then ready for this as well. Straw polls cannot be used to alter policy as well, which Mongo as a former admin knows already. Nice try though. --NuclearZer0 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. Lovelight 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I make no comment at all on the straw poll or its validity, except to say I find the idea of a "conspiratorial editing tone" faintly humorous. Surely this is a rather subjective reason to oppose something? The argument should stand or fall on verifiability alone, not someone's opinion of the tone. This actually weakens the argument I think. --Guinnog 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I don't like the request for funds but wikipedia has one so it's like the pot etc. I also don't like the fact that they are selling a DVD based on their timeline and it's advertised all over the site. However, this link is included in the September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks article so I don't see a problem with using it here. I still think we should just have it included on that page and link from here to the September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks. Hope all of you had a great holiday. --PTR 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Peter Grey, Links to be Avoided:

Peter Grey 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) : Falls under Links to be avoided: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13.

• It does not fall under links to be avoided.

1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

• It has many resources that are not on Wikipedia.

2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

• All the material sites sources.

3 Links mainly intended to promote a website.

• It is not a site made to promote other websites. I look at it, and it shows very few ads when compared to a CNN.com, and it ask for donations, just like Wikipedia.

4 Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

• It doesn't like to sites that primarily exist to sell stuff. It links mostly to news sites, like the Washington Post, MSNBC, and others. It also links to sites like archive.org.

10 Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

• Were does it link to sites like this?

12 Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

• Where does it link to these?

13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

• As far as I can see, the site is directly related to the 9/11 attacks. Hence the name, "Complete 911 Timeline."—Slipgrid 22:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, a good point-by-point rebuttal to weak ill-described assertion! Good job! Umeboshi 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true and accurate indeed. Nice seasonal gift for Wikipedia. SalvNaut 02:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Straw Polls do not trump policy, I ask everyone follow Thatcher131's reccomendation and we all join a form of mediation over this, Straw polls cannot trump policy like WP:EL and it seems a valid WP:EL arguement has not been made yet. So a straw poll cannot be used and instead I am willing to follow whatever mediation attempt is started. --NuclearZer0 11:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note So it turns out I found out why Tom, MONGO and some others do not like the link, but do not have any arguements. It seems Tom and MONGO just do not like the person who runs the site, voting on the AfD of their article without giving a reason as well. [7] There is MONGO, Tom, Aude and Morton. --NuclearZer0 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Abe Froman 18:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF - No assumptions were made. Just a note, perhaps you should follow your own posts. giggle point narf!--NuclearZer0 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As of December 26th 10:23am EST the straw poll is 10-3 in favor of removal. This is not meant to "trump," the link, merely to show the inclusion of the link is a minority opinion among editors on this page. Abe Froman 15:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated an admin already stated further action should be in the form of mediation, straw polls are not end runs around administrators. Also straw polls do not determine concensus and 10-3 is surely not one, especially one made on xmas weekend and looking to be used as proof of anything 2 days later. So again, I tell you, please pick the form of mediation as stated by Thatcher131 and we can lay out our arguements/points to a neutral 3rd party to examine. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We're looking for consensus for it's addition, and it has nothing close to that at this point. Rx StrangeLove 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated an admin already stated further action should be in the form of mediation, straw polls are not end runs around administrators. Also straw polls do not determine concensus and 10-3 is surely not one, especially one made on xmas weekend and looking to be used as proof of anything 2 days later. So again, I tell you, please pick the form of mediation as stated by Thatcher131 and we can lay out our arguements/points to a neutral 3rd party to examine. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering your points above were dismissed since apparently you did not read the articles used for citations and apparently did not know that you highlite a link to see the full citation, I am not really sure anymore why you object to the site. Can't be because of citations because they are all there, doesnt use WP:RS sources? does. passes WP:EL as noted above. What is the objection? --NuclearZer0 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And not to put too fine a point on it, WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy. It's also part of the manual of style...so judging consensus (however you feel about straw polls and voting in general) is a perfectly acceptable way of deciding issues like this. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No its not, because an admin has already stated further issues regarding the link should goto meditation. So again, pick the form of mediation and I will be glad to lay out my points and arguements and counter your points and arguements. So WP:EL is valid for complaining but when you are refuted then its a guideline that is not as important? please stop. Anyway pick your form of mediation, I am more then happy to participate. --NuclearZer0 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a mistaken belief that straw polls can have no place in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. Straw polls are a waypoint on the way to mediation. Please see the Dispute Resolution page for the scoop. [8] Abe Froman 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct and Thatcher131 has already explained above that we are at the mediation point, not on the way there. So again, pick the mediation venue and I will gladly participate. --NuclearZer0 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Since your arguments for including the link have been refuted, and there is no consensus to include it, the link should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but as Thatcher131 said, seek mediation if this is going to continue, pick the venue and I will be glad to participate. I am not sure why the opposition doesnt want to have a indy 3rd party group examine the points, but that is what will have to happen per Thatcher131, thank you for your understanding and not attempting to make an end around Thatcher131. Again pick your venue I will be more then glad to present my points and debate your WP:EL concerns again. --NuclearZer0 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Where arguments for including the link are refuted? I've seen no good argument for removing it. (no consensus?) SalvNaut 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the venue; you presented your points; a consensus found them unpersuasive, and thinks the link should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry no, again, let me know what venue of mediation you choose, the ball is in the court of those that oppose. I await your choice so I can present my points to an indy third party --NuclearZer0 16:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You can draw up an artcle Rfc, but the timeline is full up cherry-picked references that give it a slant which is deliberately misleading and that should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about what happened. It is never up to the majority to bow to the minority in a consensus situation.--MONGO 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some accusation, care to prove it? Doesnt matter really, we have a mediation started. --NuclearZer0 17:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What accusation are you alluding to? I can't see mediation as a proper venue to settle the case when the consensus to not include the link has already been clearly established here.--MONGO 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see anyone who thinks they have a valid point not be willing to make them to a third party. Your accusation was "the timeline is full up cherry-picked references that give it a slant" Anyway hope to see you in the mediation where you can lay out your points, its already been requested. --NuclearZer0 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Requested for Cooperative Research 911 Timeline

Mediation has been requested. [9] Who is up for a cool-off period? Abe Froman 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Abe I think it will be great for everyone to argue their points now on actual policy/guideline. --NuclearZer0 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Surprised to see Tom refuse mediation, would think since he is such an ardent supporter of his point, that he would feel they had enough validity to be presented to a third party. At least some people feel they have valid points to make. --NuclearZer0 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagreed to mediation (though I was not the first) because policy and consensus are both against the link; and the argument behind that has already been excessive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen a policy discussion yet. Care to actually participate in one? Abe makes points above based on the fact that he doesnt know you highlight a link to see the citation, the points regarding WP:EL have been refuted above, some seem randomly chosen, stating Cooperative Research points to myspace pages ... --NuclearZer0 17:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed here at tedious length, and a consensus has emerged that the link not be included. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

10/3 is not a concensus and straw polls do not close in 2 days, please read the page on straw polls. Also Thatcher131 explained to you to seek mediation if you were going to push this issue, reason your ignoring them? --NuclearZer0 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Polls are bad anyway, but I have yet to see a valid argument for inclusion of the link. I routinely remove it from any article I find it in.--MONGO 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you have a problem with the page totally not based on its relation to this page. Thank you for being adult enough to admit that. --NuclearZer0 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I too believe that concensus has been established, it is obvious that two or three editors will continue to argue the matter regardless. The only way to have it settled once and for all is to go through the motions likely leading to an eventual RfAr. Getting a case accepted will depend on showing attempts at dispute resolution, so I felt it worth a shot if for no other reason than to check off a few more boxes. --StuffOfInterest 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering Lovelight, Jdoorjam, and PTR have not voiced opinions yet, citing a "concensus" is highly premature. Also I still think mediation is best as Tom has yet to present an actual arguement and the same for Mongo, which in a concensus would show. Can't just say you agree, have to give a reason. --NuclearZer0 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have to reply to every comment out there? The reason I gave a reason is in hope of convincing some of the "disagree" votes to change in order to help move this issue to some sort of conclusion. --StuffOfInterest 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In the external link matter, we have steadily progressed through the dispute resolution process: discussion -> outside opinion -> straw poll -> and finally a mediation request. With the mediation request opposed, I am not sure what the next step is. I feel an RfC will be a rehash of the existing discussion; ultimately unhelpful. I find the status quo, with the link remaining, untenable as well. Comments on next steps? Abe Froman 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should pursuade those that agree with you to take the mediation to make their points. An RfC cannot go through without dispute resolution attempts, especially with my being willing and MONGO, Tom and Sam not being willing, same for an RFAr. Though I doubt MONGO wants to see ArbCom anytime soon, and I too do not agree with them. I am not really sure how Sam entered this discussion or some of the others you informed who didnt even voice opinions above yet PTR was not invited or JDoorjam. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Though I doubt MONGO wants to see ArbCom anytime soon"...are you insinuating something here, my friend?--MONGO 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, I teach at that school. --NuclearZer0 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you know what they say; those who can, do; those who can't, teach. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt a literal teach, *giggle*. You get a blue star for trying. --NuclearZer0 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into it. After all, your last experiense with ArbCom was less than pleasant. --StuffOfInterest 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's still confounding. I have no idea why NuclearUmpf is even discussing arbcom...and there has never been even a suggestion from them that I can't edit or comment on articles.--MONGO 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said you couldnt? cup of tea perhaps? --NuclearZer0 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you =) Better it came from a third party. --NuclearZer0 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the link. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Readded, even per Straw Polls page, it says wait a week or longer, also the poll was never agreed on by all participants, another requirement. --NuclearZer0 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"I am not sure what the next step is." The sensible next step is for the minority pushing for the link against all opposition to realise that it is not appropriate and to let it drop. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I give up, its sad you guys do not even know what your appealing, Abe complaining of sources and asking where I magically got them from is a perfect example. I have cleaned up the EL section based on your opinions that we already have a timeline on Wikipedia and that donation appeals on pages make them removed, as well as the other points and well YouTube on the Arbcom decision of DMCVedit (sp?). I will be adding a section soon on the precursor to 9/11 and sourcing in this article, I will call it background. Have a good day and a wonderful holiday weekend. --NuclearZer0 17:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection

The page has been fully protected now. This is by no means an endorsement of the current version of the page, and it is only as a result of a request at WP:RFPP that I came here to protect the page. Hopefully, everything will be settled, and the protection can be lifted in a few days. Nishkid64 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By looking at the history, the edit war was started to remove a link that had consensus. The editors trying to remove the link will not sign up for formal dispute resolution, or make reasonable arguments as to why the link should be removed. The protected page is with the link removed. I request that the full protection be removed, and the link be added, until Tom and MANGO, the ones who keep removing the link, agree to formal dispute resolution. If they don't agree to formal resolution, then they must have a weak argument. You should not allow their vandalism to stand, when they won't back up their changes with a formal ruling.—Slipgrid 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's MONGO, not MANGO and my edits are never vandalism. We are not going to aide that website in their quest for monies for whatever and their cherry-picking of references to POV push their agenda. One wonders what the motivations are of conspiracy theorists, but it is generally always profiteering. Wiki may also be soliciting for financial assistance, but they do so here, on their own website, so there is a difference. Articles that exist to promote profiteering of conspiracy theory books and misinformation as well as those who continuously try to aide and abet those websites and materials that are profit driven should be viewed as misusuing Wikipedia resources.--MONGO 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow just wow. You seriously need a cup of tea today. --NuclearZer0 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Wiki soliciting on their own site is different then CR soliciting on their site ... Or are you advocating the removal of all links to Wikipedia that exist on the web while the donating thing is up? Anyway MONgO I think you need to just chill out a bit today, you seem wiki stressed and hostile. Who is this "we" you talk about, remember you do not speak for Wikipedia, you aren't even an admin anymore. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm done with your personal attacks...whether I am or am not an admin is irrelevent to this situation and indeed, even as an admin, I never had any more say here than any other editor. I don't need a cup of tea, anymore than Sam Blanning does, so I suggest right now you stop making these kinds of comments.--MONGO 19:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to relax MONGO, there is no personal attack there. I am simply stating you should not make "we" statements because you do not speak for Wikipedia. If you choose to or not, have a cup of tea, you really need to relax and stop being so hostile. --NuclearZer0 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong place to make the request. Try over at WP:RFPP. Also, protecting admins don't protect a particular version. They just stop the edting until the dispute is resolved or enough parties loose interest. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I cannot revert to a previous version of the page, unless it is clear vandalism. This is not clear vandalism, so I will not revert to a different version of the page. I'm only doing my job, and I am by no means trying to endorse any version of the page. Also, inserting the link back as an intimidation device is not going to work here. Nishkid64 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, by protecting the page in the middle of a revert war, you are choosing sides. The link was discussed, and was on the page for about two weeks. Then a revert war started on the basis of the straw poll, and the site is now protecting the results of the revert war. You are protecting the changes made by people who will not agree to the formal dispute resolution. For protection to ever be removed from this page, they will have to agree to the dispute resolution, or a disputed tag will have to be placed on the article. The version of the page that is protected should be the version before the revert war started. You should not protect the changes of the people who will not agree to formal mediation.—Slipgrid 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you mean the page was protected in The Wrong Version? Well that's never happened before. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I know! we will hold a straw poll ... you get a red star for this, it was a better attempt then the above. Red stars are good just so you know. --NuclearZer0 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You can make jokes, and they are very funny, but the page shouldn't have to be protected. Protecting the page goes against the very idea of a wiki. You should try to find a way to resolve the dispute.—Slipgrid 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"If they don't agree to formal resolution, then they must have a weak argument." What nonsense. Mediation is not there so you can go through the same arguments again, only in a "formal process", so that those who are already fed up and can't be bothered to go through it all again drop their opposition. Its purpose is to introduce an outside, uninvolved party, in the hope that an environment more conducive to compromise can be reached. Firstly, there is no room for compromise here. Either the link is in or it isn't. Secondly, we've been through all the points at least twice, we've had outside involvement (although someone rather snidely asked what I thought I was doing here; look up WP:OWN when you have a spare moment), and by any stretch of the imagination we've reached consensus. Mediation would not help anything. I was asked whether I supported mediation, and my response was: no, we are not trained seals, and no, we will not jump through more hoops. Every additional breath spent on this issue is one wasted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

O lets stop playing already, you haven't even made an arguement really, WP:EL, then its refuted, citations, then its shown Abe didnt realize he had to hold the mouse over the link, then the conspiracy tone, then its found out that Abe didnt read any of the articles on the page to know that. PS you dramatizing my remark doesnt change my words, I asked why you were informed and not others that actually participated in the above discussion, I think you need a cup of tea and to settle down, you are becoming a bit hostile. Perhaps you should read WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If the arguments you made earlier hold water, then go through the "formal process" so we can resolve this dispute once and for all. If you want to continue to dribble nonsense without a third party to evaluate your claims, then revert the article to the version right before the revert wars started. Right now, we are protecting a disputed version of a disputed page, and you are standing in the way of resolving the dispute.—Slipgrid 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Since mediation didn't work you are always welcome to take this to the next step in dispute resolution, which is WP:RfAr. --StuffOfInterest 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked for ArbCom enforcement a couple weeks ago [10] with regards to Nuclear's, editing here (re:"tendentious editing or edit warring). Though I was turned down at that time, I respectfully disagree with Thatcher13's decision. I feel that his editing here is uncivil and combative and easily falls under the "tendentious editing or edit warring" section of his sanction. I have a hard time believing that this style of editing is acceptable on Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess when you cannot argue your point you attack the person. Maybe not much credit is given to people lodging complaints that also refuse to attempt to resolve the situation. ArbCom rulings are not scarlet letters or items to throw around so you can avoid discussing issues with your fellow editors. This is why one of the main policies here is "Discuss the edit, not the editor". --NuclearZer0 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation is resolved, with consensus (not unanimous but large majority) on not adding that link. Please just respect that. --Aude (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Before half of you chimed in I had already given up, I guess it shows most of the people here are not even reading this talk page before chiming in. Some are appearing because they follow their friends history pages as well, which is the sad part. The voting in Tandem issue. --NuclearZer0 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. I've been on wikibreak and too busy in real life, to follow every single detail in this discussion, and spend much time arguing over something that has no consensus or consensus against it. I've been on this page for well over a year, well aware of the discussions here, and will get more involved as time permits. --Aude (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

AGF? Not sure where the violation is. I am assuming you read the section you voted in, did you not? Its where I stated I gave up. Sorry you are too busy to read the section you voted in, I guess to you knowing the current discussion and what you are voting on wasnt necessary. --NuclearZer0 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Slipgrid, maybe you didn't know, but protection is supposed to be implemented during edit wars. What would the point of it if it wasn't used to stop edit wars? Also, I already said I am not choosing sides. I am only doing my job, and I don't take in account who's been editing the page prior to the protection. I just apply it, and that's all. Nishkid64 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nish, they are just following protocol. While it often leaves the locking admin in a bad position, they are not suppose to revert the page unless its vandalism. --NuclearZer0 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree that the discussion needs a chance to cool off. Peter Grey 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Animated Gif

thumb|left|150px|crash gifI see no reason why this animated gif should not be included within the article somewhere as it originally was included here. The reason given for removing it was cryptically defended as some sort of violation of image policy.

But these other animated gifs (as seen below) are used in other non-controversial wiki articles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jupiter_Great_Red_Spot_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rivertree_thirds_md.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AnimECHECS-Le-coup-du-Berger3.gif

Mactographer 11:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say, given the emotional stake many people have in the attacks, that it might be unsuitable. But I would reject it simply as poor quality. Peter Grey 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree --NuclearZer0 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes me angry, that's for sure. But, I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. —Slipgrid 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It's a copyright violation and should be deleted. You didn't take the video, did you? Compiling video/images that belong to others into an animated gif does not make you the owner of this material, nor give you the right to "release it into public domain".
2. It's incredibly annoying that it keeps looping --I had to adblock it.
3. It's poor quality.
4. It is not recommended to use animated GIFs to display multiple photos. The method is not suitable for printing and also is not user friendly (users can not save individual images and have to wait before being able to view images while other images cycle round). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages
5. Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages. --Aude (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It's a copyright violation and should be deleted. You didn't take the video, did you? Compiling video/images that belong to others into an animated gif does not make you the owner of this material, nor give you the right to "release it into public domain".

• Disagree, I believe it's fair use. It's an event that happened only once, it's of historic nature, and it can't be repeated.

2. It's incredibly annoying that it keeps looping --I had to adblock it.

• That's just your point of view. You didn't have to do anything.

3. It's poor quality.

• Yeah, but only because it's so small.

4. It is not recommended to use animated GIFs to display multiple photos. The method is not suitable for printing and also is not user friendly (users can not save individual images and have to wait before being able to view images while other images cycle round). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages

• You also say you can't use animated gifs to display multiple photos. Now, an animation or a video is a collection of photos. It is a motion picture, or moving picture, which is made up of many pictures of the same event taken in sequence. I believe an example of displaying multiple photos in one gif (using your words), is much different. An example of that would be showing a picture of bombs going off at the WTC for a second, followed by a picture of the lawn at the Pentagon for a second, followed by a picture of the 15 by 20 ft cut in the grass in Shanksville for a second, followed by a photo of the moon landing, followed by a photo of chemtrails, followed by a Bilderberg Group photo. Now, that would be annoying, and violate the photo montage policy, because each of those would deserve it's own animated gif.

5. Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages. --Aude (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think your fair use argument is a little weak. It's not a photo montage, but a video. It's a fair use video in a converted video format. He could have used a Flash version, but that's not as friendly to the web browsers. You have to have Flash software, or Window software, or QuickTime software to watch most videos on the web, but most any browser can view an animated gif. Please, don't be so quick to give Wikipeida's rights away, and mine ta boot. —Slipgrid 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Great points, Slipgrid. And just for the record. I had nothing to do with creating this video, uploading or adding it to Wiki. I simply found it edited OUT of a previous version of: United Airlines Flight 175. I think it merits inclusion into BOTH this article and the United Airlines Flight 175 listing. Mactographer 07:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view: I do not comment on the fair use of the image. But I disagree with placing it in the article because it is disturbing to watch over & over again. I have no problem linking to it. Pictures of dismembered corpses do not adorn the Jack the Ripper article, and likewise movies of exploding buildings full of people shouldn't adorn this one. Readers can click through a link on the page if they are curious. Abe Froman 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of dismembered corpses do not adorn the Jack the Ripper article

• Why is that? Maybe not corpses, but a corpse might be fitting. I have an Encyclopædia Britannica set at home, and I'm sure it has a nasty picture in it. Not a dismembered corpse, but I believe a dismembered womens breast sitting on a table. Anyway, it really makes a point. This isn't Mickey Mouses Playland here. In many respects, it's a very sick world, and it's not incorrect for an encyclopedia to reflect that. If you look at this article and want to lose your lunch, then you might be closer to understanding what happened that day. If instead you feel like rallying around the flag and fighting brown people, then this isn't really doing what it should.—Slipgrid 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...if people are forced to watch that gif enough times, then that might be more motivation to go and fight a war. Images are useful only for the sake of clarification and documentation and I can't see how that gif adds much to the article. The quality is very poor and it doesn't even register on my puke meter...but I was there so seeing a gif like that can hardly come close to actually seeing the devastation first hand. A link to the gif is more than sufficient.--MONGO 13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that reasoning. I think there many more important things that need to be shown about this day, though that is a fairly big part of the story. I just didn't agree with most of the other reasons given on this page. Now, I mentioned the Jack the Ripper image in another Encyclopedia, and it serves two purposes. It shows the crimes were brutal to a degree that you couldn't believe without seeing and they were also sexual in nature.—Slipgrid 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is currently a copyright violation (says it's released to the public domain, but uploader have no power to do so). It also does not identify the actual copyright holder and if we are going to call it fair use there needs to be a fair use rationale present on the image page. Unless those points are adressed fairly soon the image will be deleted regardles of wether or not you agree to put it in the article or not... --Sherool (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic?

Shouldn't the opening paragraph refer to the terrorists as Islamist and not Islamic? They are subtly different words that mean very different things. The first meaning extremists of the religion while the later refers to the religion as a whole.-Jeff ^(talk) 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree if it's verifiable, but unfortunately the hijackers never spelled out their motives. It does already call them extremists. Peter Grey 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moussaoui info should be given its own sub-header in the "other potential hijackers" segment

Due to the notable case brought against Moussaoui the segment entitled "Other potential hijackers" should be subdivided with his info first and then everyone else listed later in the segment. It is ridiculous that his name does not appear in the contents table, and you have to go out and Google around until you can get the right spelling and then come back and do a page search to find him in this article. Because he was found guilty you don't automaticlly realize that he might be included in "potential hijackers" (though once you find him there it seems a logical placement). It would aid the reader looking for his information to sub-divided the segment so they can click on his name from the contents table.--Wowaconia 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:

1 The attacks

...

1.5 Other potential hijackers

1.5.1 Zacarias Moussaoui

1.5.2 Others mentioned as likely conspirators

Please change this, the article is currently locked against editing or I'd do it myself.--Wowaconia 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

Why does it say terrorists im sure many people do not see these men as terrorists it should be changed to something neutral as well as any phrases that are not NPOV (LeoniDb 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

What source do you want to add? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Label them as hijackers (76.1.33.197 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Use of the word 'terrorist' invalidates the article by turning it into an opinion piece rather than an encyclopaedic article. 'Suicide attacks by Islamic militant hijackers' pretty much captures it all without using this meaningless Newspeak so beloved of public speakers appealing to emotions. The article cannot be made neutral due to a consensus to retain a GWOT POV by US editors. Academic published sources such as [11] cover the contrary opinion but are not ibncluded due to WP:BIAS. 9/11 is the start of US public consciousness of terrorism and is of course viewed by nearly all Americans as a terrorist attack but this POV is not held in other countries. Curtains99 14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is opendemocracy.net a reliable source? And what do you want to say with it? That lots of Palestinians danced in the streets when 3000 New Yorkers were murdered, and praised bin Laden as a great holy warrior, while claiming that the CIA and the Mossad were really behind it? That Arafat realized how that looked, and then staged a photo opportunity of him giving blood? If so, there might be a better source for that, and a better article to put it in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He wants to say they are hijackers, where you got the rest from the simply statement is its own mystery. You would probably be better served addressing the statement instead of attempting to decipher an editors deeper meaning. --NuclearZer0 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with hijackers, its the least POV statement it seems. --NuclearZer0 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize I'm probably stumbling into a minefield, but I'd like to help with this article and get it off protected status. I think "terrorist" is a very POV word, and I agree with the reasons outlined above. Sparsefarce 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! What kind of an idiot thinks that the event of 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorism? I am stupified by the stupidity of such a thought process. I also see that this is another article that cannot be edited. Is there anyone out there that can get the stupid copnspiracy theory junk out of this article? Please help me get this lunacy out of these articles!--Beguiled 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of our policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, all decisions are policy based, not based on personal opinions. Thanks! Moscatanix 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so the anti-US statement made by the fellow above is to be tolerated? Who runs the show around here anyway? Where is the editorial oversight here?--Beguiled 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'same sort of idiot' who claims that abortion clinic bombers aren't terrorists or that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's civil or not, but I for one am disgusted that anyone would attempt to mitigate the magnitude of the terrorist attack of 9/11. ~~Disgusted2:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that abortion clinic bombers and Tim McVeigh are/is terrorists. The fit the definition just as much as the 19 terrorists hijackers do.--Beguiled 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of us together are the editorial oversight. In fact a lot of decisions are based on personal opinion, in the form of editorial judgement and consensus. As far as calling terrorism terrorism, we have been through this a few times now. I see nothing new here. Since it was terrorism, and virtually all reliable sources call it terrorism, we should call it terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But all content matters are subject to policy, which trumps personal opinion. Moscatanix 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to take this too far into philosophy, but by what mechanism does policy do that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just mean from a philosphical standpoint and from what RS is. This guy I see after looking at his contributions wants to excise sourced material, which isn't done as it's all notable. Sounds like his personal distaste for it is overriding common sense and respect for the principles of the encyclopedia. And in general, people can't do whatever they want, regardless of anything that isn't policy. I can't add a line that the number of collapsed world trade centers has tripled in recent years for example, unless I source it. Conversely you can't remove a sourced piece of information here if it meets RS and fits the article. 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well sure; you can't triple the numbers because you would be reverted, and blocked if you persisted. We all decide by consensus whether or not a fact is notable and reliably sourced, and if it fits on this page or another. You or I or anyone else can remove reliably sourced information whenever we want. If a consensus supports removing it, it will stay removed. If consensus is against me but I keep removing it, I will get blocked. I think maybe in practice we don't disagree, we just express our understanding in different ways. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's all the same destination, we just see the road differently. Moscatanix 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is an emotionally charged term, but it can also be used objectively and neutrally - that's the difficulty with the word. Nonetheless, the 11 September attacks were undeniably terrorism (attacking highly symbolic and sentimental targets, and murdering non-combattants in the process), therefore the perpetrators were terrorists. However, it would be worth mentioning (where verifiable) that some consider them first as freedom fighters or crusaders or whatever, and as terrorists incidentally. (They don't stop being terrorists, of course, but the viewpoint deserves a mention, no matter how distasteful.) Peter Grey 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How can the word "terrorist" be used objectively and neutrally when there is no agreed definition for the term? To me "terrorism" means violence carried out without moral justification. As such the term can never be used neutrally when people operate by different moral codes. We may as well say that the 9/11 attacks were immoral and unjustified, cowardly and unfair. Published opinion of the 9/11 attacks shows that a majority of residents of some countries did not view the attacks as terrorist but rather as justified retaliation for US intervention in the Middle East. To quote from wp:npov :

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Discussion of terrorism should form a large part of this article as this event was certainly the start of the War on Terror and the event was described as terrorist by many international commentators and world leaders. However, Wikipedia cannot neutrally describe any event as terrorist in its narrative voice. Not Hiroshima, not Dresden and not 9/11. While the article remains in its current state, employing judgemental opinion terms in its lead in, the neutrality of the entire article is in question. Curtains99 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What else would we call the terrorists but terrorists? Outrageous.--Beguiled 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We could call them 'Islamic militant suicide hijackers' which tells us a lot more than just calling them baddies or terrorists. I just had a look at Britannica's entry on 9/11 which describes the events as follows:

series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States. The attacks caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism.

Curtains99 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that quote. As mentioned above 'Islamic militant suicide hijackers' is not only less POV but also more descriptive. Sparsefarce 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is used, the reader will imediatly assosiate with terrorism anyways, so it doesn't matter. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so in an effort to improve this article by making it more more neutral, and bearing in mind the Britannica description above, how would other editors feel about changing the lead-in section so that it no longers refers to terrorists in the narrative voice but to "militant Islamist/Islamic suicide hijackers"? At the same time the lead-in paragraph should refer to the agreed fact that the event marked the start of the War on Terrorism. Please suggest a wording. Thanks, Curtains99 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to say at the beginning that this was an act of terrorism, or that the men who did it were terrorists. This is true, and is the terminology used by reliable sources. Calling them something else is not neutrality, it is promoting a political view. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Curtains99. The reliable sources that call it terrorism (mostly in the US and UK) have a vested interest in labeling it as terrorism. Because it is such a subjective term, I agree with the more specific terms mentioned above. There are many people worldwide who would not consider it terrorism and would conversely consider many US actions terrorism. Either way, neither should be labeled that in an encyclopedia. Those promoting the use of the word terrorist need to move beyond personal opinions, worldviews, and emotions and aim for a truly neutral article. Sparsefarce 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but I've been through this with the camped editors here before. They refuse to accept a NPOV, and being just one person I was unable to challenge them on this. I'd also like to add, that it has been suggested some of the editors here work for the US government. Damburger 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant in my comment is, if we change it to "Al Queda militant suicide hijackers" (which I support doing by the way), readers will still identify it as terrorism. Therefore, we are being more NPOV and specific, while still getting the point across. The section "Let the facts speak for themselves" in the article WP:NPOV explains this more clearly. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslims are not responsible for the attacks

This opening only says what the US government claims happened on 911. It is not therefore necessarily what happened. There are many proofs that say the Bush administration knew all about this before it occured, and maybe even was behind it. What the US gov claims should not be referred as a truth in Wikipedia, cause its not. Does the Bush administration have control over this Wikipedia too since its closed for editing?

Think for yourself, question authority.

www.svar911.no —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.86.37 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh, please. ~~Disgusted 3:26 UTC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.188.69.145 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Ugh, the conspiracy theories are started to get REALLY annoying. How could anyone believe the U.S. gov killed off 3000 people to get into a war. First of all, the us gov wouldn't necessarily need the twin towers to fall down to go into war in the middle east because terrorism was around before 9/11, it just wasn't as big as an attack on New York City. Also, what makes you think the Bush administration has control over wikipedia, why would they honestly care about what people write about them on wikipedia? You're just paranoid. Please do not post junk, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that terrorists attacked the twin towers. You could argue the truthness of that all you want, but you could also argue that the world is flat and the government just wants you to believe it.

Calls for independent investigations

A while back we had suggestions about enlisting notable individuals who are well aware of 911 inconsistencies. Apart from famous-Bravo Charlie! interview, in which Sheen send his regards to our fine conspiratorial editors here, pointing clearly what is a civilized perspective on commissioned edits: "It's like they want to pigeonhole all of us into conspiracy nutbags when we're not debating things that are related to UFO's bringing down the towers or Building 7 or the Pentagon and so its feels like there's things in there that we’re not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," or in other words: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets: that feels like a conspiracy theory." We should certainly mention David Lynch who recently also said it decently (& non-conspiratorially) well, while describing 911 as: "event which has many questions, and no answers." Or how about pointing to well placed statements of Barbara Streisand, she had to endure quite a lot of vicious attacks from official conspiracy nuts you know? Same goes for James Brolin who once again pointed that we all know it. Then there's Sean Penn who's recent speech does strike at the heart of the matter. Anyway to avoid further "linkspam", Acebrock already did some excellent work on these and other missing topics, and my only concern with such well intended edit is whether these calls should be addressed in section about conspiracy theories… To clarify, if we backpedal a little, we may recall that in the root of truth movement and probably every other truth related site is (nothing else but a) call for new and independent investigation (so we would finally seize to conspire so ludicrously), yet this call is nowhere to be mentioned? Perhaps we could find a valid and unbiased formulation which will address these notable concerns from notable individuals without making conspiracy circus out of it? Preferably in a new section which would also reflect current public opinions… if you would kindly share your perspectives… Lovelight 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• My suggestion: no additional conspiracy drama is needed on this page. It's as simple as that. Weregerbil 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is trying to confuse two issues: there were legitimate calls for investigations in the face of Little George's inability to provide explanations and accountability. This is a valid part of the story, and perhaps the existing articles could be expanded. Because there has been no accountability, these calls rightfully continue. There is a completely different phenomenon of conspiracy theorists who reject (mostly maliciously) actual truth and propose pursuing a new "truth" suited to their superstitions. Also, "notable individuals" in this context can only mean qualified experts, not simply any notable person, and those making ludicrous speculation have so far not been influenced by reality. Peter Grey 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is about a number of unanswered, not investigated questions (foreknowledge being among easy ones). Who would be "qualified experts" on this issue of unanswered questions? Mainstream media which most of them support goverment on its issues? Those voices mentioned by Lovelight are definitely notable. To the Lovelight's list I would add Gore Vidal, Peter Dale Scott, Robert M. Bowman (who got 44% votes in Florida[12] and new 9/11 investigation is one of his main issues).... more to come. SalvNaut 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A celebrities opinion doesn't carry any more weight then any of us when it comes to conspiracy theories. If Sean Penn's opinion can be added, then I want my opinion added also. If he has something to say about acting or movies that might be a different thing. Rx StrangeLove 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between unanswered questions, and speculation as to the reasons for unanswered questions. Question X remains unanswered raises a valid issue; Question X remains unanswered because any investigation would reveal ridiculously implausible crimes is conspiracy theory nonsense, and hurts good-faith investigation. Peter Grey 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that problem here is whether to include Sean Penn's particular opinion or not but whether a paragraph about unanswered questions, unresting voices from general public and celebrities, has its rudiments. I think that it has, or at least the paragraph about 9/11 conspiracy theories should be enlarged. Now, here, you won't find information about those difficult questions raised, other than short CT paragraph. This is very POV. SalvNaut 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and recognizing that difference would be a step towards valid and unbiased formulation… Emphasis should certainly rest on notable demand for answers. I'm sorry if I've pointed that too vaguely. Lovelight 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There already exists a page for 911 conspiracy theories. No need to litter this page with repeats from that parent. Abe Froman 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards, this is the parent article, hence it should mention breifly however items that are in 9/11 conspiract theories. --NuclearZer0 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Other than a single link to the 911 conspiracy theories saying there are conspiracy theories, I don't see any need whatsoever to add the theories themselves to the parent article. Separation between fact and likely fiction should be maintained. Abe Froman 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Its kinda the norm when it comes to parent articles, the sub articles get minor mentions in it to point people toward the articles that spawned from the parent, see: Iraq War, Operation Gladio, etc. --NuclearZer0 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now who is backwards :-) Abe Froman 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked politely, let's try and avoid any such circus. This discussion has nothing to do with term conspiracy. I'd suggest you drop such link (or spin, if you prefer such terminology). We are talking about demand for independent investigation. Apart from vox populi, we have voices of celebrity and I honestly see no importance whether these are scientists, researchers, politicians, free artists… Perks have no importance here… Once again, valid questions about unanswered questions and calls for independent investigation don’t belong to the realm of conspiracy. Lovelight 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the talk pages have repeatedly asked people to distinguish between unanswered questions and questions certain people don't like the answers to. It shouldn't be hard - the conspiracy theories are not exactly subtle with their suspension of disbelief. Peter Grey 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the demand for indy investigation has lead to the creation of the 9/11 commission its surely ntoable enough to make its own section into the article. Not only did it spawn that but it also spawned an investigation by the New York State Attorney Generals Office, which is another, but on a smaller scale. So I agree, the indy investigation isnt about conspiracy theories, just about a non governmental investigation and its quite notable to have its own section, good job Lovelight. --NuclearZer0 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The 911 commission is linked in the 911 attacks article, already. Abe Froman 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As well it should, as part of a larger section is what people are stating, its also highly notable as I believe there is a study citing over 40% of people wanted a new investigation. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to add what people are stating to the 911 conspiracy theories article, which exists for speculation surrounding the September 11th attacks. Abe Froman 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will start writing the section, thank you for your input however. It just seems like we are not understanding one another. Lovelight, I will try to get somethnig to you this weekend to look over and let me know what you think before I add it. --NuclearZer0 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lovelight 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. You might find these polls useful.[13][14] SalvNaut 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And make sure any additions have consensus! Rx StrangeLove 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So Charlie Sheen thinks that there was some conspiracy? and Sean Peen too? NO surprises here. Are they like some kind of experts or something? Like their opinions are what should be in an encyclopedia? I think I am important enough to alos have my opinion in the article, but I don't think many people here would allow my opinion to be in the article.--Beguiled 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned only two among so many. Isn't your opinion already there? SalvNaut 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism

Please add following reference, as pointed: "Immediately after the September 11 attacks U.S. officials [15] speculated on…". Lovelight 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A blog with a POV slant in its title does not conform to WP:RS or WP:NPOV. The presentation of primary sources in the form of notes is also problematic. WP:RS generally disallows blogs as reliable sources. Is there a media outlet meeting WP:RS that has reported the notes presented in the blog citation? Abe Froman 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The origin of report is confirmed by Pentagon. Here is a qoute from Guardian: "The Pentagon confirmed the notes had been taken by Stephen Cambone, now undersecretary of defence for intelligence and then a senior policy official. "His notes were fulfilling his role as a plans guy," said a spokesman, Greg Hicks." Lovelight 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that might go better in U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, those statements are directly linked to so-called "war on terrorism" with regards to 911 events. There is no more appropriate location than this one. Lovelight 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not War on Terrorism? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've took only brief look at that article, it seems heavily disputed and in somewhat poor condition. The point is, we've got this excellent citation, it's just a reference and I see no reasons for dispute. I've noticed that this was already noted in article about US invasion of Iraq; however, all of this has little to do with 911 link to Iraq, while notes speak of this link before they speak about anything else. As Guardian pointed: "But these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck." Lovelight 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds to me by your own description that it is about the U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and should go in that article (linked in the right-hand template, by the way). Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it sounds like it's a citation of the fact that US officials decided to invade Iraq immediately after attacks. As described right here. I'm not sure why you have impression that we are talking about writing a section in another article, because we are talking about simple reference for this one. Lovelight 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate in the article that is about the same topic as the reference. There is no reason to expand an already long page to add material that should go on a sub-page that could benefit from it. This page should summarize the detailed material presented in the sub-articles, from Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, to Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks, to September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services. Now I'm close to repeating myself, so I'll stop and wait to hear what others think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The link provided by Lovelight is not suitable for this article...haven't we repeatedly stated that this article is primarily about the events on 9/11/2001 and not the Iraq war and related subsequent events? Anyway, if that source does have a place, it is best in the U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Will this be another unnecessary marathon? MONGO, the story goes, once upon a time on September 11th Donald Rumsfeld said: "Go massive… blah, blah, blah." I'd suggest we act rationally and logically. This is a citation about direct link between 911 and invasion of Iraq, which is already (so modestly) recognized in wot section here. It's just a meager, itsy-bitsy reference… so please, you'll need to find another argument and you'll need to be aware of the trends too. I'll certainly be spooked if Illuminoso jumps in… Lovelight 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is Rumsfeld one of the "U.S. officials" referred to, and did he actually make any speculations at the time? The document does not demonstrate any deductive reasoning or speculation. Peter Grey 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering all of this to be common knowledge, after all it was already (invisibly) stated in former secretaries biography. I'm not sure about the other part of your question? He obviously gave very precise speculations on that day. If you take a moment to study whats provided you'll see that: "The actual notes suggest a focus on Saddam. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH at same time - not only UBL [Pentagon shorthand for Usama/Osama bin Laden]," the notes say. "Tasks. Jim Haynes [Pentagon lawyer] to talk with PW [probably Paul Wolfowitz, then Mr Rumsfeld's deputy] for additional support ... connection with UBL." Also note that it was said to the person who was: "responsible for crisis planning, and he was with the secretary in that role that afternoon." It's all incredibly irresponsible if you ask me… Lovelight 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is speculating on action, not responsibility. Common knowledge includes the disconnect between the two. Peter Grey 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-add {{editprotected}} once consensus has been reached about this external link. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak exposition of motives

The Motive section seems to have an odd presentation. It starts with "According to official U.S. government sources..." - weasel words - before explaining the 1998 fatwa, which is the only really comprehensive claim of responsibility. Then the 9/11 Commission findings, which have some special credibility issues, and then Little George's inane "hatred of the freedom" nonsense. The findings of qualified experts appear last. Peter Grey 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to add it and start an edit war, but Osama bin laden answered the 'why' question himself in his often glossed-over letter to the American people. It can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/021120-ubl.htm and as far as I'm aware it isn't on Wikipedia Whoblitzell 08:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Even with sources, do we really know?

Do we really know, even with the sources that American Airlines Flight 77 actually crashed into the pentagon? And do we really know that the phone calls were really those of the people inside the planes? There has been much debate on what actually happened, and I don't think that we should display these events as fact if we're not almost certain that these events took place. I'm not unpatriotic or anything of the sort, but I think that we really don't know that these events occured. Ian Lee 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, among MANY other things, do we know that al Qaeda did these terrible things? I think, again, we should remove the things we don't know for certain (or are at least really sure of). Ian Lee 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really know Yes. Peter Grey 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

Not that I'm unpatriotic, because I am patriotic and I do think the events were terrible, but doesn't the word "terrorist" imply some sort of point of view? I mean, some people do think that the people who did these attacks were heroes. I think it would be more appropriate to replace the word "terrorist" with the word "hijacker". Ian Lee 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It does sound POVish but Wikipedia refers to 9/11 as a terrorist attack in numerous other articles, notably in the Terrorist article itself, so it seems to be in good company. Most definitions of terrorist would easily include an attack thats "calling people to" a religion and encouraging them to stop their spread of "lies" and "debauchery". For more information google Osama bin Laden's letter to the american people. Whoblitzell