Talk:September 11 attacks

Proposed Edits

All,

I just wanted to point out that there is a discrepancy in the total number of causalities from the top figure (second paragraph) "In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died..." and then under Casualties-- "There were a total of 2,995..."-- there is a discrepancy of 2 casualties (this is not accounted for by the inclusion or exclusion of hijackers...), but I couldn't hunt the reason for the actual discrepancy down from what I read. Thanks, 69.4.36.98 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear all,

Yesterday I proposed changes to this article in light of research undertaken for the delivery of a university course that I teach. The edits were reversed and it was suggested I posted my reasoning for the changes to the discussion page. I have no affiliation to any 9/11 truth organisation, have been to no meeting in support or against 9/11. I have corresponded with only two people active in posting on the subject (one against conspiracy theories, one in favour of them). My proposed contribution to the article is the result of independent research after reading many reports and articles, and reviewing six documentaries produced in both the US and UK. You can check my credentials at http://www.shu.ac.uk/sbs/research/organisational-development/sp_rory_ridley_duff.html and Marquis's Who's Who in the World 2009.

Below is text (approximate) I added to the talkpage of editors who reversed my changes, or supported the reversal.

"Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I give to doctoral students (i.e. those studying for a PhD) to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject.

The current Wikipedia article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. It falls outside Wikipedia's own guidelines for neutrality and censors views that have been accepted into parts of the academic community, and networks of people who have conducted extensive research into 9/11 issues. One of my concerns is that 'facts' are accepted on the basis of news reports, while other contributions based on peer-reviewed journal articles (albeit not of the highest quality), and good quality documentaries from the BBC and independent documentary makers, are rejected.........

One criticism of my contribution is that the views expressed in the article are already 'mainstream', and that the proposed additions would be controversial. I refute both these claims as detailed below. By 2006, at least 1/3 of the US population believed the US government played a conscious role in the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/12137). Worldwide, there are countries in which almost one-third of the population believe that either Israel or the US government were as likely, or more likely, than Al Quaida to have perpetrated the attacks (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35417520080910). For Wikipedia to be 'balanced', it must include these views in any article on the September 11th attacks and acknowledge international views and research into this matter.

The proposed changes, therefore, counter obvious bias in the September 11th Attack article and ensure that the opinions of large numbers or people, including many credible engineers, physicists, academics, politicians and eye-witnesses, are represented. The proposed changes did not remove any existing material to ensure that the views already expressed remain (there was no attempt to censor others points of view, only an attempt to provide the necessary balance to the article overall). The counter perspectives are well-documented and supported by evidence (including two court cases). Other claims are based on active debates amongst academics. These debates are likely to be closer to the 'truth' that bulletins from news channels and should be included in the article.

There is no 'bias' or 'controversy' in reporting that there are ongoing court cases, mass movements and academic debates that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding of the subject to omit these facts from the article. It gives the impression that the statements in the article are uncontested. This is clearly untrue so the omission breaches Wikipedia guidelines to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). I added no judgement as to which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply balanced the debate."

To the above, I would like to add the follow. In the university sector we discuss the use of Wikipedia by students often. The main weakness of Wikipedia (as viewed by universities) is that its editors are insufficiently schooled in both philosophy and research skills. As a consequence, many struggle to differentiate between issues of editing and censorship. The result is many Wikipedia articles are based on popular prejudices (or popular opinion) rather than evidence-based research. For this reason, many lecturers ban the use of Wikipedia. I'm not one of these lecturers - I make relevant contributions on matters that I have researched or regular give lectures at post-graduate level. I encourage students to use Wikipedia, but also to check out the quality of the sources on which the articles are based. I support the Wikipedia project but do worry about the level of censorship when matters move outside 'popular prejudice' and enter the realm of academic debate.

Providing contributions are backed by credible evidence, editors should always seek to include them and provide guidance to ensure the overall article is balanced. An awareness of 'credible' show encompass knowledge created using varied scientific traditions. This means checking out the sources behind contributions before removing them (too often they are removed instantly without checking the credibility of the sources). It also means that editors need to ensure that debates and controversies are managed not excluded.

At present, this article is heavily biased towards one politicised view rooted in a narrow section of US/UK opinion. At present, this brings Wikipedia itself into international disrepute. The claims made in the article are not backed by a standard of evidence that would warrant their inclusion as 'fact'. For this reason, the article should reflect the alleged nature of matters where they have not been conclusively proved one way or the other (or where there is no consensus). Key issues of academic debate and contested issues in the legal domain are not currently addressed.

Overall, it is my view the article must be amended to stay within Wikipedia's own editing guidelines.

I will leave it one day before restoring the contributions suggested to the article and sincerely hope that editors will ensure the changes remain.

Best wishes

User:Roryridleyduff Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At least one of the "on-going court cases" was dismissed and withdrawn by the plaintiff; apparently the attorney filed the case without getting the plaintiff's consent. I don't think there are any present court cases, but I could easily be wrong.

Your "1/3" above refers to those who think the US government is not telling the whole truth, not those who think the US government was involved in the attack or a cover-up. Read the polls.

Your comment about "research", international or otherwise, appears (I was going to select a milder word, but none adequately coveys the facts) bogus.

It's possible that some of your proposed additions are notable and adequately sourced, but much of your rant above is not accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not checking the source I've given. Other polls put the numbers thinking people are not telling the whole truth at 80%. In the quoted article, those believing the US government was in some way complicit was 36% (the question is clear - read the report). I am, therefore, not 'ranting' as you put it - I'm trying to provide properly sources and balanced reports of this matter.

The court cases, incidentally, are ongoing - I checked with a source directly involved in reporting the cases before posting this information.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above edit) This article is written according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't like these policies and guidelines you can try to get them changed, but you can't do that here, and if you are going to edit you will have to abide by them. The view of September 11 given in this article is supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, and as such (per WP:UNDUE, please read that link, it is actually part of the NPOV policy) it is the perspective given by the article. The number of Americans (or any other nationality) who accept an idea is irrelevant. As such it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to give conspiracy theories anything other than minimal coverage in this article.

In your edit you added the following claims:

• The "Journal of 9/11 studies" is a reliable academic publication. In fact it is a forum for conspiracy theorists to publish their ideas where they are reviewed by other conspiracy theorists. It has no reputation for accuracy or credible review processes, and so it fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• A reference to two court cases. Contrary to what you said above the court cases in question are not "ongoing", they were both dismissed. [2] The lawsuits alleged that no planes struck the Twin Towers, and that the collapses were in fact caused by "directed energy weapons", an idea that is considered fringe even in the 9/11 Truth movement.
• Claims that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and that the coroner found no bodies. This is simply wrong.[3] --Hut 8.5 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think issuing ultimatums is the best way to get your message across. And, just as a note, there is no academic debate about the attacks. The attacks and damage are pretty well understood and almost universally accepted by those who have studied the issue and by those who have the expert knowledge to speak authoritively about it. There is no controversy among mainstream and reliable sources worldwide. There is no evidence based research by experts working in their fields that support any of the theories. There's a lot of unverified and false claims, bad science and outright lies but nothing that would pass muster in a real scientific environment. RxS (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Response ----

At the time of the above posting I had read one article rejected by the 9/11 journal and one accepted. The accepted article seemed solid, the other did not. Following your comments, I have read other articles published there. While I appreciate that the standard of peer-review (and academic theorisation) is less than I would expect in academic journals to which I've contributed, it still appears to be better than journalistic sources that are not subject to any peer-review.

I do not know the current state of the legal case by Dr Morgan Reynolds other than that the initial case was dismissed. As for the legal case by Dr Judy Wood, I checked with the person who issues her press releases in the UK (who works in the Open Univeristy) whether the case would go forward. The response was that an appeal is being considered now. The legal ruling (available at www.drjudywood.com) gives Judy Wood permission to resubmit the case after revisions that would ensure it complies with Fraud Act. The ground for dismissing the case (officially, at least) are that the claim is not set out in the way the Fraud Act requires - the cases have not yet even got to the point of considering any evidence. While the court expressed a lack of sympathy regarding resubmission, it made clear that a decision on resubmission would be for the District Court. The case, therefore, remains open for the time being.

"As such it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to give conspiracy theories anything other than minimal coverage in this article."

The official Wikipedia NPOV policy requires that 'significant minority point of view' are included in articles. The edits ensure that these 'significant minority' views are added to the article.

On this point, you are making a basic epistemological error. The 'official story' is itself a conspiracy theory (it is a theory - unverified - that a group of people conspired to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon). Even the most basic evidence is contradictory (such as the alleged hijackers names not being on flight manifest, and the fires burned for over a month at temperatures that could not possible be due to jet fuel). It is not 'neutral' to suppress contradictions that are available through published thermal scans of the area, eye-witnesses, scientific reports (including government reports).

You are making basic epistemological errors by assuming that 'official' (i.e. government) sources are reliable while academic and professional sources are not. In all 'proper' research, it is necessary to remain sceptical of official (managerial) sources: they are not considered reliable much of the time because of the effects of power within organisational cultures and political systems. A reliable source is one that make evidence-based claims after using a reliable methodology for its investigative process. It can also be based on the application of logic or established theory to known 'facts' using a 'correspondence' theory of truth. Much of the controversy derives from a failure of known facts to correspond with known scientific theory. To be balanced, the article must acknowledge the scale of scientific evidence that the official story is contradictory (not 'false' but contradictory - does not accord to known scientific theory and available evidence).

On the issue of evidencing the scale of the 'significant minority' point of view, see http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469. By 2006, it was reported in the New York Times (following a major poll on many issues that I obtained in full) that 81% of the US public question the official story on some level (either withholding or lying). 28% of people (almost 1/3 of the population) believing the government is proactively lying. Only 16% now believe the government is telling the truth.

The Wikipedia guideline require that the views of these significant minorities are included in the article. By omitting them, you are contravening the Wikipedia guidelines. It remains my view - as a neutral academic who is not involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, that the article must be revised to remain within the NPOV guidelines.

The problems in the current article is ones of epistemology (standards and criteria of truth and knowledge), and breach of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you studied Business, not Science or Engineering, I’ll take your evaluations of publications' reliability with a grain of salt. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, original research is not permitted. Peter Grey (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My god this one is wordy. I guess the old saying is true, when you have nothing important to say, say as much as you can and hope people don't notice. This is the same frivolous and pointless dribble we're used to. Nothing new, nothing different, therefor nothing will change. Moving along... --Tarage (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "significant minority view", it's a "tiny minority view", for the reasons noted by RxS above. Academic sources (i.e. proper peer-reviewed journals) are reliable and nobody here has claimed otherwise. The mainstream view is not presented just because it is the view given by the U.S. government. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--- Rebuttal of false information given above ---

I have a PhD in a business related area (organisation cultures / governance practices). These are easily as relevant to the discussion of 9/11 any knowledge of the physical sciences. Nevertheless, I should point out that I previously qualified as a Microsoft Certified Professional (in the field of software engineering) and won a Department of Industry SMART Award in 2002 (for database design). I have therefore, specialist knowledge in more than one area of science. You should not assume to understand a person on the basis of their current occupation and qualifications as this reveal your propensity to be prejudiced.

On the issue at hand, a 'tiny minority view' is not the finding of the New York Times study. By 2006, the 'official' view in this article to have less fullsome support than the 'unofficial' view you seek to censor (16% believe officials are "telling the truth" v 28% believing officials are "mostly lying"). This is a substantial change from 2002, and this article needs updating to reflect shifts in opinion.

I make the comments on this article mainly on the basis of expertise leading a course on research philosophy. This is a course that teaches PhD researchers how to establish valid criteria for claiming scientific 'truth' in their writing. This article does not provide the kind of quality peer-reviewed sources needed to claim the government's conspiracy theory as 'fact'. Nor is there any reflection on the link between various philosophical/political interests and the different theories that have emerged regarding the September 11 Attacks. This can only be added once there is acknowledgment of other credible theories about the events of September 11. The article remains too narrowly defined and heavily biased toward one political/ideological perspective. I presume this is for political reasons, and not reasons of education or enlightenment on the subject at hand. If you were seeking to enlighten, you would review all credible theories.

For the sake of clarify, I state again - to observe the NPOV policy of Wikipedia the article must include all credible and substantial minority theories and explanations regarding the 9/11 Attacks.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The amount of weight to give to views is not calculated based on opinion polls of the general population. There is no academic controversy about the theories you discuss, for the reasons given by RxS above. Hut 8.5 11:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11 folklore is not the subject matter of this article. Peter Grey (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, public opinion is only a measure of what is a majority or minority opinion - this is an issue in Wikipedia guidelines if we can to include 'substantial minority' points of view. If we turn to academic opinion, then the presence and size of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth network must be taken into account alongside the size and scale of the Engineers for 9/11 Truth network. I'm not aware of any academic network in support of the 'official' story, but I would be delighted to learn of one because I've search for one to provide balancing opinions on my courses. There are occasional academic articles refered to in various documentaries. What I do consistently detect, however, is an unstated coalition of government and media interests (within NIST, FEMA, the court system, Fox News, New Corporation sources) who are struggling to maintain control over the 'truth' of events surrounding September 11. People allied to these interests are in a constant battle with academics and professional groups who question their right to control determination of 'truth' regarding these events. This 'battle' (if that is the right word) extent to every sphere, including Wikipedia. As an academic, I naturally want to eliminate censorship of views so they can be debated properly in a sober and systematic way. Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

Hmmm. No, I don't think an organization calling themselves "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" needs to be taken into account as an scholarly source without further verification. Perhaps some of them are scholars, perhaps not. There is still at most one scholarly paper in a real peer-reviewed journal (that is, not one where the "peers" are also Truthers, or one where the editorial policy denies the validity of peer review) which questions the NIST findings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to again state that on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if you 'have a PhD in a business related area (organisation cultures / governance practices)' or you are some random monkey pounding his fists into a keyboard. Please cease to fill your statements with needless fluff. Not only does it make what you are trying to say incredibly hard to derive, but it it makes you come across as a fool, especially when you can't even be bothered to sign your posts or spell words like 'organisation' and 'refered' correctly. I'll be as brief as I possibly can: You're arguments are recycled, you have yet to provide a single reliable source outside of polls, and you still refuse to go read these talk page archives to see that not only have other people presented the same flawed POV argument before, but that it has been soundly rejected over and over again, as it will this time. The mountain of reliable sources against you is so staggering that I would not even dare to attempt to climb it. So please, stop wasting your time, my time, and every other editor who visits these article's time. We will not insert your POV, we will not dance around the issue, and we will not tolerate any more mindless dribble. Do you understand? Or am we in store for another round of fluff filled nonsense? --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "Organisation" is correctly spelled according to British English. "Refered" may not be, but then neither is your "You're", Tarage. From this I hope you will gather that it is always better to concentrate on the content of an editor's contributions, rather than the form or making comments that risk showing one's own ignorance. And since your arguments are sound, why not adopt a more collegial tone, to go along with them? --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have seen far too many editors come in here and completely disregard all of the work put in to maintaining and balancing this article, and push their own POV. Call me ignorant, call me rude, but I have had enough of editors who do not even show good faith by ignoring the archives, ignoring the notices, ignoring the consensus, and even ignoring the Wikipedia standards and practices. I refuse to tolerate such blatant disregard of everything we hold dear. If someone has an issue with me, they are welcome to call me a 'meanie' on my talk page. Roryridleyduff is nothing more than a blowhard. He talks a lot, he says a lot, but in the end, his words mean nothing. He isn't a new editor, he isn't confused, he simply isn't willing to show the rest of us the proper respect, so I will not show him said respect either. That is my stance. --Tarage (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarage, you're just being rude. Why? Why such a vitriolic response? Why such an aggressive tone? For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar....me thinks the editor's strong words betray his academic abilities and perhaps rouse his emotive opinions on the matter. Time will tell Tarage, as your editing shows a lack of acceptable balance. Do you really think that when buildings fall don by their own accord, and architects, mathematicians and other academics keep signing up for the 'truthers' side, that you continue to portray a balance. There must be some new usage of the word balance that im not aware of. Your stubborn rebuttals will only fuel the belief there is something to hide....I wish you luck in stopping the tide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.96.180 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Therefore opinion polls are irrelevant. The reason for this should be obvious - there are plenty of polls out there in which large numbers of Americans express support for discredited notions such as geocentricism or astrology. More than 40% of Americans believe in creationism, but this idea is not given serious consideration in science articles here because it has no scientific support. If Wikipedia gave weight to all these ideas it would rapidly become a laughing stock. Proposing a conspiracy of reliable sources to deny recognition to certain opinions is not going to help you either. Hut 8.5 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well stated, Roryridleyduff. As you can see, Wikipedia has a strictly close-minded view on this subject. I'll take credit for the pathetic mention of "conspiracy theories" on the article, as it was my constant pushing that forced them to at least place a mention of the conflicts of opinion as a kiss-off to those interested in the truth. I was told by at least two different mods on this site, literally, that “Wikipedia is not interested in the truth.” It is interested only in following the mainstream perspective. So by its own admission, Wikipedia is a propaganda site and not an informational site. Neurolanis (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Go cry more. --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I said here before that I strongly agree, Dr Rory Ridley-Duff (but Tarage removed my comment as he so *loves* to do.) I think that it is about time that Wikipedia permits evidence and mainstream sources that contradict with its propagandistic slants on reality. Neurolanis (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only propaganda I see here is spread by you and your ilk. InnerParty (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the main article should be edited to include the following information: John Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was the Senior Counsel for the 911 Commission, and was responsible for drafting the original 9/11 Commission report. In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, Farmer states, “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.” Rickoff (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that our section on 9/11 Commission fails to reflect some of the well known and well accepted facts, while those are somewhat summarized in Criticism of the 9/11 Commission, we have failed to provide link to that destination. In my opinion our section here is not as informative as it could be. After giving it some thought, I fail to see why we would object to the inclusion of the information about 'difficulties' of the investigation that constitute 'common knowledge, and which are recognised by the commission members and mainstream media. InnerParty (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to Criticism of the 9/11 Commission on the page, but it is subtle and easily overlooked. The September 11 attacks page received an average of 12,296 views per day during October 2009.(ref) The Criticism of the 9/11 Commission page received an average of 32 views per day during the same time period.(ref) Thus, the vast majority of readers of the September 11 attacks page (99.7%) are probably not seeing any critical review of the 9/11 Commission on Wikipedia. Given that this material is notable and reliably sourced, I think it is legitimate to argue that the September 11 attacks article is imbalanced in its presentation of the issues - the typical reader is not seeing the full spectrum of issues in a balanced manner. Wildbear (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

hijackers included?

Why are the deaths of the hijackers included? Does the gov. count their deaths as well?Jlujan69 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't they die? -Jordgette (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just read on CNN.com: 3031 deaths... than which one is true? pls answer on my talk page --Mdönci (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Al quida hijackers that the United States intelligents "claims" crashed the airplaines into the twin towers have been found alive. Bringing the validity of these intelligent reports along with the whole official story into question 24.10.121.82 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another false statement. Perhaps more accurate (but still irrelevant to this article) would be that people have been identified as (some of the) 19 hijackers were discovered later. Those identifications have not been substantiated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Al Qaeda terrorists should not be included in the number dead; rather, there should be a separate column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.132.3 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

see also

is this relevant Operation Northwoods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.164.168 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. --Tarage (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

u r right, i posted this in wrong article, should have been in conspiracy theories one. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough of this, user has been blocked -- InnerParty (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Where is the evidence

What is this based on?

I find it insulting, that im expected to believe this.

how much evidence would be required to have this article updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.237.182 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article's sources are fairly transparent, as are wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you find the article insulting, work on improving it with RS. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. --Tarage (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is transparent is your misdemeanor. I would like to know for how long we'll have to bare this hegemony of few… I'll stay polite. ManComesAround (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to "bare" it only as long as it takes you provide better sources than are already present. So, what have you got? Rockpocket 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We have record breaking archive here with whole plethora of pretty good sources, let me ask, why we lack section about unanswered questions and calls for new investigation?

We have well referenced article about 9/11: Press for Truth, who and for what end made a decision to omit this historical call from this article? What would be the reasoning behind such decision? ManComesAround (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming that there are some facts in 9/11: Press for Truth. Our article is neutral on that issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming assumptions... and that will lead us nowhere. We are not here to determine factual accuracy, obviously so. If there is notable call for new investigation then there's a notable call for independent investigation - WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ManComesAround (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. So, I misspoke. You're assuming there's a notable call for an investigation in 9/11: Press for Truth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are able to assume good faith as you contribute to the project, perhaps I'm wrong? Let me repeat that question. Why we lack section about unanswered questions and calls for new investigation? ManComesAround (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of them belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Those few calls for a new investigation which do not presuppose a conspiracy theory could possibly be here. I believe 9/11: Press for Truth should be noted somewhere, but in which subarticle? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You knocked me off my feet Arthur, let's discuss these possibilities, do you think that futile take of NY Coalition for Accountability meets the merit? Or rather, before we move on, could you kindly give a few arguments of why to exclude the Press for Truth? Have you read our article about it, there is no conspiracy to be found, not a single world, nothing but questions there. ManComesAround (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite delusional if you believe what you are asking for is NPOV. I'm getting sock puppet vibes. I think I may request a check user... --Tarage (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I was right. Carry on. --Tarage (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about replying to the WP:DUCK. Still, it seems to me that if there were any non-conspiracy-theory requests for reinvestigation, there should be some note about it in one of the related articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we had enough of this inane gibberish, someone should close this ridiculous exchange. InnerParty (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Last paragraph in Memorials section?

If American society at large payed their tributes by erecting memorials that showed their sympathy with the victims, the community of creative artists showed differing sensibilities. Although in recent decades art has been politicized, with sociopolitical problems inspiring much artistic activity, the art community was distinctly chary in responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to Commentary, only one significant monumental artistic response to 9/11 was made: Eric Fischl's bronze sculpture Tumbling Woman, which was installed in Rockefeller Center one year later. The figure, however, was stripped of any sense of poignancy or dignity, "showing her landing ridiculously on her head, with all the bathos of an unsightly spill in the tub." The statue gave offense, and it was removed promptly. Most other art that followed 9/11 "suffered from the same moral incoherence". Commentary identifies the reigning political bias among artists as the explanation. It suspects that the lack of noteworthy attempts to humanize the victims may be due to "fear that it might dehumanize their killers".[243]

I don't feel this paragraph fits in with the otherwise high quality of the article. This sounds like the beginnings of a political rant as opposed to reporting verifiable facts.

99.20.251.63 (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point. I wonder how we can modify it to fit better. Perhaps it would be better to remove it all together, as it seems to talk a bit too much about one specific monument. --Tarage (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrap it, we should also remove reference about WTC 7 in Attacks paragraph, it is outdated and worthless. InnerParty (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove both, have to wait for a bit though, WTC 7 is mentioned in damage section, it's more than enough. InnerParty (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And since we're working on improvements, I'd suggest we remove reference about Donald Rumsfeld from Military operations following the attacks paragraph, it looks outlandish, I'm not sure why is it there in the first place, President Bush clearly rejected any link between Iraq and 9/11 attacks, it looks like some POV pushing to me. InnerParty (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Act swiftly

User: The Original Wildbear, reverted my edit made on solid grounds and implied that Mr. Rumsfeld is a pig [4]. I think he should be dealt with swiftly. InnerParty (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lipstick on a pig is a well-known expression and does not typically imply that the subject is a pig. TOW restored well-sourced material. Please propose controversial changes on the talk page first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm certain editor wasn't implying a thing there. What's this about controversial changes? What is the purpose of that quote? It looks like someone stick it there out of the blue. No explanation, nothing, someone just smacked it there, for what reason? I'm certain there are better places where editors can provide more insightful opinions about 'things related or not'. I'm saying that Mr. Rumsfeld's quote is redundant to this article which is easy to read and easy to understand, at least until that point. InnerParty (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This particular well-sourced material is especially informative and interesting, as it evidences, just hours after the attacks, a mindset which seemed to guide the Bush administration through most of its major policies and actions in the months and years which followed. Wildbear (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't find it informative at all, if anything, it's a quote without context. Look at it as if you would see it without knowing any of the 'evidences' you allege here. See, it means nothing and it says nothing, it should be removed. InnerParty (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

numbers discrepancy

In the opening paragraph, death toll is mentioned as 2993. In the table immediately to the right, it's stated as 2995. Which one's correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.237.172 (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Italic text

Gaming the system

At the top of this page we have a notice about 2008 arbitration case, upon reviewing the statements and learning about deeper context I would like to note that decorum has been broken by the two editors who have previously shown continuous tenacious approach to this article. These two editors are clearly a part of the wider group which is Gaming the system and whose interests have nothing to do with guidelines and principles established by Wikipedia Community. In line with their previous efforts, these editors have shown disregard to the editorial process while removing and/or omitting publicly known, notable and well referenced material from the article. There is no doubt that their refusal to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge' has no valid or logical foundation and that their actions hurt the project, fuel unnecessary vandalism and unwelcome behaviour. Since this is historically repeating occurrence that is well know within and outside of Wikipedia, I would at this time ask for swift and appropriate action of the administrate. InnerParty (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, that if I were to ignore WP:AGF, I would be forced to assume that you were one of the two editors. However, "refusing to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge'" but does not appear in any reliable sources is exactly what should be done.

As an aside, it appears you are being reverted both by editors who lean toward both the "truther" and "mainstream" positions, suggesting that your changes do not meet with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regards, is it so? Perhaps the fact that I've been reverted by both 'twoofez' and 'debunkez' means that I don't care much about 'twoofewizm' and 'debunkewizm' or something as strange as that..? Perhaps not. Either way, I'm glad that you've showed some restraint. I'd appreciate if you'd review the edits made, before you 'divulge' what should and what shouldn't be done. By doing so, you'd see that your allegation is made with.. without foundation, since I've done nothing but provided clear links to notable, well referenced articles that already showed their ability to stand alone and that are not just related, but deeply entangled with topic at hand. As you bare in mind that edits were made after discussion and apparent consensus, I'll most strongly reiterate; if information is available outside of Wikipedia and if it is considered to be (notable and well referenced) 'common knowledge', then our inability to reference such information serves little (as a matter of fact is serves no) purpose, while it does real and tangible harm to this project.

Take that as you will, as for my 'rant', I'm afraid that reputation of certain editors precedes them, and although I'm exercising restraint in WP:AGF manner, I'm ready to 'prove' what's written above while using most basic queries to search engines, queries that 'divulge' real meaning (and incivility) of 'tenacious editing'. Ok? InnerParty (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes...we shall not tolerate tenacious editing or incivility like this one, a "first edit" by you. I checked out those that reverted your edits...they look fine to me, BTW.--MONGO 00:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew you'd like it, after examining the history here I've concluded that rudeness goes a long way on these pages, so I've deployed some and I'm sad to say that results confirm expectations. You know, I agree, everything is fine. I'll move out of your way now, keep up the good fight against those 'trolls, jerks, bigots.. or worse'! InnerParty (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

'I make up stories'

There are two famous statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

'I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z' statement.

And less famous, 'I make up stories,' statement. [5]

I would appreciate some opinions on why would second reference be of lesser value than the first one (POV pushing? How in the world, and omission of 'admission by torture' is… what?). I'd also like to discuss lack of 'torture section'. Although I'm not surprised that information about torture of Kahtani, Zubaydah and others is missing... I'd really like to see some non-conspiratorial and decent work actually being done here, so here is the link to the blogspot article which is, imo, referenced well enough to serve as a good starting point for suggested discussion. InnerParty (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why the "tachyonbursts" article is not (a) completely unreliable (as we define WP:RS) and (b) written by an editor banned from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

a) Could you kindly point out where I've said it was reliable? b) What to hell is a tachyon burst? c) there is really no way we can have a decent discussion here, yes? InnerParty (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

a) If it's not reliable, it can't go in the article. It might be used to find reliable sources, but....

b) User:Tachyonbursts is a banned editor. If that's his blog, then adding information he provides is proxying, and could lead to your being blocked, even if the information were actually of use.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this interpretation of WP:PROXYING. If someone finds information on a website that is presumably being maintained by a banned user, this does not mean that this editor is acting "at the direction of a banned user". In most cases, such websites would not be considered reliable sources anyway. If the website points to a reliable source, then the existence of such a reliable source is a valid reason for the possible inclusion of a piece of information in an article, independent of how the reliable source has been found. The situation is probably different if a banned user would publish templates for WP edits on a webpage, and someone else would use them verbatim to edit WP articles.  Cs32en  00:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring up the hypothesis that InnerParty was already a sock of Tachyonbursts. I was asked to investigate, and declined, on the grounds that my sock identification skills were lacking. If he had responded to the proxying allegation, it might have provided some insight. Oh, well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, referring to an article which is presumably written by a banned user is, umm, a very questionable strategy if you are a sock of that same user. A WP:SPI would be in order, of course, and would be not too difficult, as the potential sock puppeteer is already identified. The potential benefit of tricking some user into revealing more than he or she wants to do does not outweigh the damage that may result if other users are being led to follow a misleading interpretation of actual Wikipedia policies.  Cs32en  01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess this turned out to be discussion about torture after all, there is not much information about expulsion of the subject, was he removed by the USDHS? Well, after this interesting exchange I'll admit I'm deeply concerned for my privacy, therefore I'm definitely done with editing Wikka-wakka, have fun, InnerParty (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's devastating for the project to lose an editor of your caliber. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I even bother with a sock check? I mean honestly, he made it far too easy this time, especially considering this 'new editor' appeared directly after the last sock was blocked. I would say that this "I suddenly agree with everything you guys say" approach was interesting, but really, this is just tedious. I had my doubts from the very first edit. Can someone else put in the request this time? --Tarage (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)