Talk:September 11 attacks

Osama bin Laden is quite possibly dead

There is a considerable section on Osama's videos since 911 - but no apparent mention that huge numbers of people believe him dead - most likely in Dec 2001, 3 or 3.5 months after 911. This would totally invalidate the section on videos, and needs adding. Something like this, or at least a cut down version of it:
Vague reports of the death of bin Laden started circulating in Dec 2001 eg the Pakistan Observer quoted an unnamed Taliban official claiming that he had died of natural causes and was buried in an unmarked grave in Tora Bora on December 15. The Egyptian newspaper AlWafd - Daily reported a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban stated that Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13: A videotape was released on December 27 showing a gaunt, unwell Bin Laden, prompting an unnamed White House aide to comment that it could have been made shortly before his death. On CNN, Dr Sanjay Gupta commented that Bin Laden's left arm never moved during the video, suggesting a recent stroke and possibly a symptom of kidney failure. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, Bin Laden required two dialysis machines, which also suggests kidney failure. "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a... kidney patient," Musharraf said. If Bin Laden suffered kidney failure, he would require a sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists, Gupta said. FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson and President Karzai of Afghanistan also expressed the opinion that Bin Laden probably died at this time. In late 2005 the CIA disbanded "Alec Station", the unit dedicated to Bin Laden.
On 23 September 2006, the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, DGSE) stating that Osama bin Laden had died in Pakistan on 23 August 2006, after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs. According to the newspaper, Saudi security services first heard of bin Laden's alleged death on 4 September 2006. though French President Jacques Chirac declared that bin Laden's death had not been confirmed. American authorities also cannot confirm reports of bin Laden's death, In an essay published in The American Spectator in March 2009, international relations professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University argued that Osama bin Laden had been dead for many years. In April 2009 Pakistan's intelligence agencies were said to believe Osama bin Laden may be dead. and on the 8th anniversary of 911 the UK's Daily Mail said that the theory that Bin Laden died in 2001 "is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts" and notes that the mounting evidence that supports the claim makes the theory "worthy of examination".
1.^ a b David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, pp. 3–5.
2.^ "Report: Bin Laden Already Dead", Fox, 2001-12-26.
3.^ a b Reid, Sue (September 11, 2009). "Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?". Daily Mail. Retrieved October 25, 2009.
4.^ a b "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis", CNN, 2002-01-21.
5.^ a b "Musharraf: bin Laden likely dead", CNN, 2002-01-19.
6.^ "Bin Laden 'probably' dead", BBC, 2002-07-18.
7.^ "Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead", CNN, 2002-10-07.
8.^ "C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden.". New York Times. 2006-07-04. Retrieved 2007-08-21. "The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said."
9.^ "Officials, friends can't confirm Bin Laden death report". CNN. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
10.^ "23T075358Z_01_L23801953_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BINLADEN-FRANCE.xml French paper says bin Laden died in Pakistan". Reuters. 2006-09-23.
11.^ Sammari, Laïd (2006-09-23). "Oussama Ben Laden serait mort" (in French). L'Est Républicain. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
12.^ "Chirac says no evidence bin Laden has died". MSNBC.com/AP. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
13.^ "Information sur la mort de ben Laden: Washington ne confirme pas" (in French). Le Monde/Agence France-Presse. 2006-09-23.
14.^ Anna Willard and David Morgan (2006-09-23). "France, US, unable to confirm report bin Laden dead". Reuters.
15.^ "Osama bin Elvis". Retrieved 2009-03-15.
16.^ "Pakistan's President says Osama bin Laden could be dead", Telegraph, 2009-04-27.
Clearly, this is not simply a rumour, it's a lot more than a conspiracy theory, and is much more than marginally notable. If true, the whole video section would need re-assessing. In fact, it looks most like something most people recognise but many people are afraid to say. Wikipedia is not censored, some mention of this needs inclusion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that bin laden most likely is dead. But if he is dead or not is irrelevant for this article. The Videos are mentioned because how they indicate bin Ladens involvement. His likely death doesn't change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on Osama bin Laden refers to the "October Surprise" Video of 2004, partly because it's the only real admission from Osama that he carried out 911. There are serious doubts about this tape - it's particularly worrying if it's an invention from whole cloth, with some sources convinced that Osama could not have been involved. Not mentioning the possibility of his death leaves doubts and is bound to lead some readers to imagine there is some form of concealment going on. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The doubts about the video is not that strong, and the authenticity of the 2004 video does not make or break that section. The earlier videos also hints at bin Ladens involvements, although he there doesn't claim that he ordered them. I don't see how this invalidates the section or warrants a long discussion about his possible death, which continues to be mostly irrelevant to this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with OpenFuture. The doubts about the videos are much stronger than what is being claimed. For instance, both Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and Francesco Cossiga, the former Prime Minister and President of Italy, have publicly stated that Ben Laden was dead. It is even mentioned, on Wikipedia's own page on Cossiga, that in an interview with the reputable newspaper Corriere della Sera, he claimed that the Bin Laden tapes were produced in some of Silvio Berlusconi's TV studios in Milan. In fact, the only video that everyone agrees was made by Bin Laden himself is the one of September 16, where Osama stresses that he was not involved in the attacks of 9/11. Therefore, I strongly support Malcolm MacDonald's efforts to bring some objectivity to this article. Oclupak (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Up until you claimed the video was made at a Berlusconi studio I took you seriously. Let's keep out of cuckoo-land in this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not claim that the videos were made in Berlusconi's studios. Francesco Cossiga does. I take this opportunity to correct a mistake I made: the September 16 declaration by Bin Laden was not a video but a statement which was broadcast by Al Jazeera. Oclupak (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You take that claim seriously. That maes it hard to take your viewpoint seriously. Discussions need to stay in the real world. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Francesco Cossiga was Prime Minister of Italy (1979-1980), President of the Senate (1983-1985), President of the Republic (1985-1992) and has been Senator for life since 1992. If you do not take him seriously, please let me know what are your criteria for reliability "in the real world". Oclupak (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mostly not who says something, but what they say that is relevant. And referring to Zionist world conspiracies is not reliable. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to deal with facts. You cannot dismiss facts for the sole reason that they are contrary to your point of vue. The point of view of an article should be neutral. As it stands, the article is one gigantic soapbox for the official version, which is, in itself, a conspiracy theory. As you are aware, the official dogma is challenged by a increasingly large percentage of the world population, if not the majority. You are clearly out of line with your systematic obstruction to any edit that would bring some equilibrium to the subjet. MalcolmMcDonald obviously did some extensive research before proposing his revision of the Videos section and he deserves to be treated with respect. Oclupak (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no fact in what you have written so far, merely speculation. You appear to have a history of pushing fringe POV, though. 78.49.80.209 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Oclupak, you are completely correct. Wikipedia should be fact-based, and NPOV. And that is exactly why you should ignore crazy paranoid fantasies with absolutely no factual basis. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians should not insult each other. Your characterization of opposing views as "crazy paranoid fantasies" is undignified and contrary to basic rules of Wikipedia as well as basic rules of human behaviour. The question here is whether the Bin Laden videos are authentic or not. Obviously, if Bin Laden has been dead since December 2001, all ensuing audio and video recordings attributed to him are necessarily fakes. That is what MalcolmMcDonald has painstakingly documented and I feel he should be given an opportunity to enlighten us with his reserach which is based on what seems to be reliable sources. Oclupak (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Iif you feel that the requirements of factual basis and NPOV standpoints are somehow insulting to you, then I suggest you probably have come to the wrong Wiki. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I worry there is a political element creeping in here. Many "important" people and entire nations believe bin Laden to be dead. Any mention of him must include that fact.

Many other people are on a man-hunt for Osama (not the CIA, who wound up their team in 2005) - giving them reason to want to censor articles and conceal the fact they're on a wild goose chase. Wikipedia is not censored and (provided we comply with WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS etc) then, by WP:NPOV we must include the fact that some people believe him dead. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about the political element, but I can guarantee you that there is no political element to this from my side.

No, every mention of Bin Laden does not have to include a statement that many people (including me) believes that he is dead. It only needs to be mentioned when it's relevant. It is not relevant for this article. Bin Laden has his own article, and that's the place to bring up theories about his eventual death. Many of the videos have their own articles as well, and that's the place to discuss their authenticity. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Every mention of what bin Laden did after December 2001 must note (with link?) that some serious sources believe him to have died in that month. Otherwise, we're deliberately misleading people, leading them to think that bin Laden really did support John Kerry, for instance. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

May I sugest that you take this up with the bin Laden article itself? --Tarage (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Osama bin Laden article correctly reports, in quite some detail, that many people and nations think he's dead. The section is entitled "Conflicting reports of his death vs: his survival since 9/11" and (correctly, in my view) puts reports of his death above the reports of his survival. That's where I got the information I first posted in here, above. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we're fine. As OpenFuture pointed out, not every mention of Osama bin Laden needs to contain information about the speculation of his death. It's linked to in this article, and people who are interested can investigate further in his article. Anything further than that would be undue weight. --Tarage (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear (if the writings above are complete, and I have no reason to think otherwise) that all Middle Eastern leaders and nations who've commented consider Osama bin Laden to be dead, along with many Asians, Africans and some Europeans. The leader of France seems to be the only person prepared to say he's alive. Parts of the USG claims to be still looking for him but can't confirm or deny the possibility of his being dead and parts tasked with finding him abandoned the effort years ago. Under such circumstances a confession of 2004 treated as definitive risks being very misleading. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, take it up with the appropriate article. Not here. --Tarage (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to say that the confession of the alleged perpetrator is contested, and go further. There is a deal of RS to say OLB was dead 3 years earlier, and no RS (?) that says he's still alive (some sources say they're still going after him, but not that he's still alive). The reading public doesn't need more Rumsfeld saying "We know where the WMD are" when he didn't. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely that bin Laden is still alive and that most of the videos and tapes produced since 9/11 were fakes, or hoaxes. I therefore reiterate my support for MalcolmMcDonald's proposal to modify the article accordingly. Oclupak (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article takes up the videos as part of the section dealing with Bin Ladens involvement. The videos are linked, and discussions on their authenticity exists on these pages. Discussion on Bin Ladens eventual death is done in his article. The currently article does *not* claim that Bin Laden is a "perpetrator" or that he "confessed" to anything. Therefore, MalcolmMcDonalds wish to have the article not appear as Bin Laden has confessed to be the perpetrator was granted even before he asked for a change. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) A general note concerning the User Oclupak, I'd like to point out that he has a history of unconstructive edits and criticism in topics concerning 9/11 (or conspiracy theories, for that matter). But what I really find disturbing are his accusations towards other editors as "thugs", "gatekeepers" and "moronic" as he does here ([[2]]) and here. He has (repeatedly) been advised on his tone, to no avail. 95.157.3.4 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And who, may I ask, are you, 95.157.3.4? As far as I can tell your existence on Wikipedia does not go further than an hour or two ago and it seems you have spent your entire time on Wikipedia doing absolutely nothing but to respond to my posts. I find that a little bit bizarre. My aim is to bring some accuracy to this article. What is yours? Oclupak (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (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 soapboxing. Tarage (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

This is not at all NPOV

I am baffled by the editors' attitude all through the discussion section. Not only do you remain clearly oblivious to any but your own account of the facts, but the general tone is bullish and alarmingly disrespectful. I would suggest any reading of this article to remain seriously skeptical about the contents being presented, since only one side of an on-going and important debate has weight in the events being described. The editors should bear in mind that they never bother to answer issues being raised with arguments, just dismiss them in a fully self-satisfied way: to any neutral reader, these editors come across as hooligans, sorry to say. You can erase my comment as I am sure you will, but that does not make you any better wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkyardmusic (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:NPOV; we give opinions weight according to their real-world weights. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe, and should be treated as such in this article, although they do have their own articles and are mentioned here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can´t agree with that. There are full controversies that put very reasonable question marks on a lot of aspects of the whole issue. I am not saying whether you should believe them or not, but giving the scope of the official story which as some argued is in itself a "conspiracy theory" with total disregard to the controversies arised by this view is in itself wanting in impartiality: just providing a link to "9/11 conspiracy theories" is not enough. You should account for the controversies, give an account of them when they are credible -and many are- and quit acting as an un-oficial loudspeakers to a one sided account of the story. it is your duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.1.140 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that all alternative explanations of the damage and deaths are nonsense. There is no reason to think explosives were used as well as aircraft. Even the 911 A&E petition (architects and engineers) looks less and less credible when you examine it.

There are some problems, the article should be treating the "conspiracy theories" better, no matter how ridiculous. More mention of Building 7 would be valuable, for sure I'm not the first person to do a search and only find it under "Notes". There's a really big hole treating bin Laden as alive when, by RS, bin Laden is most likely dead.

And it is not the fault of the writers of this article that none of the conspiracy theorists have studied who might have wanted Americans to think OBL supported John Kerry. Who could have faked a video to influence an election? If you wanted to do something useful you'd do something useful. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only do you remain clearly oblivious to any but your own account of the facts This is completely false, but I think the statement is based in a misunderstanding A hint of that is in the phrasing "account of the facts". Facts are facts irrespective of "accounts". The problem is figuring out what the facts are, and for that the editors here do not rely on their own accounts at all, but they rely exclusively on other peoples accounts of the facts. But facts do not become facts just because you say them. Facts can generally be verified. It's not a matter of accounts, but of evidence. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts?

Fact is, there are numerous unanswered questions about 9/11 attacks.

Fact is, this articles omits verifiable and reliable information and that is not merely a failure in following our policies, it is omission by definition, to serve as an example, editors here marginalize or omit information about 'Able Danger', deliberately failing to provide 'advance knowledge' section insisting that it is better suited in 'shape shifting reptilians article', editors here marginalize or omit information about peculiarities behind unprecedented fall of WTC 7, failing to notice growing controversy surrounding the collapse. If mainstream outlets recognize the weight and notability of such groups as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it is not acceptable for the editors here to ignore or omit such information. This article deceives while it fails to note deception, or give due weight to '9/11 trials', especially so when it comes to the fact that all of the alleged suspects are 'tainted by torture', as 'defined' by the MSM sources. It completely fails to represent or it simply misrepresents the work, findings and controversy surrounding 9/11 Commission.., one could go on and on, yet what needs to be said and what needs to be dealt with if we are to overcome the 'status quo' imposed here are some disturbing underlying issues. To name a few:

A group of editors here indulges into sticking libellous labels on contributors who are seeking NPOV for the article, it appears that this group of editors has a really hard time discerning between unanswered questions, disturbing facts and conspiracy theories.

It is notorious fact that at least one of the editors whom hijacked this article works for US Department of Homeland Security; 'conflict of interests', by admission, if not by definition.

It is a sad, sad fact that this is the umptieth time the neutrality of this article has come to question, and we have seen for umptieth time that we're not dealing with contributors willing to seek consensus, we're dealing with contributors who are trying very hard to spread propaganda, who are doing their very best while trying to establish 2+2=5 as a fact. We have more than 50 pages of searchable history here, it is throughout this history that the failure to establish NPOV was questioned, yet editors involved wouldn't even let the warning tag stand. They'd rather have this article locked for eternity, to serve as a mockery, a spit in the face of whole humanity. So there you have it, some harsh opinions for sure, along with some easily verifiable, well documented facts, carry on. Praxidikai (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To take just one of those points, the "mainstream outlets" article you refer to above seems to be part of a series on conspiracy theories. Even if it were a news article, as opposed to commentary, it just notes the opinion of 9/11 A&E, and not necessarily favorably. Some of the other points possibly could be considered for inclusion, but mentioning the mistakes about the pre-announcement of the collapse of WTC 7 as a serious indication of controlled demolition is <censored> <censored> absurd. See, for example, BBC denies 9/11 conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point on the claimed USDHS employee editing the article is a bombshell. Thousands of individuals have edited (or attempted to edit) this article. Among all of these editors, this particular person has a larger count of edits to this article than all but two. Effectively, a self-claimed employee of USDHS has been dominating the editing and content of a controversial article which has significant relevance within the topic of United States security issues. This should qualify as a very serious conflict of interest, and it does raise a significant cause for concern about the neutrality of the article. Wildbear (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is this lengthy, ongoing call to recognize our failure to meet NPOV. Would you kindly share your opinion? Do you think that article meets NPOV? That is, if there is a will to move on, editors involved should reach consensus and place appropriate warning at the top of the article. If no such effort is to be made, there is little or no need for further discussion. We can discuss possibilities once we recognize there is a (strong) need for improvement. Praxidikai (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a continuing statement, usually by at most two editors at a time, that the article fails NPOV. WP:CONSENSUS is that it doesn't, and that it's disruption to add the tag. Although consensus can change, you at least need to provide an argument which hasn't been rejected when last discussed, in order to consider adding the tag. It's a lot of work to go through the 50 archives to find which arguments haven't been rejected, but it seems necessary to avoid edit wars.

'Consensus' reached by identifiable group of editors that support each others beliefs is not consensus, see WP:GAME.

Regardless, with hope and inclination of being refreshing and with extraordinary amount of good faith, I'll point out that that the narrative of the article is POV itself.

Example:

When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, which led to the crumbling of the east penthouse at 5:20 p.m. and to the complete collapse of the building at 5:21 p.m.[25] – we say.

This is simply not a true statement, it is a fallacy; we cannot have such construct, swaying readers into belief we're dealing with well established and undisputed fact. We have whole, substantially sized and well referenced articles that question and dispute such narrative, yet what do we have here? You know, the stunning fact that WTC 7 failed to enter Commission report deserves to be mentioned... To be honest, I'm not sure what some of the editors see, but it is safe to say, what's written in 'our article' is a postulate inaugurated into fact. Instead of controversy and debate surrounding the issue we have – well, we don't have a word about it... and you were asking? Praxidikai (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In the end it's all about if you are a believer or not. Believers are believers and skeptics are skeptics and never will the two understand each other. Ain't nothing we can do about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can, we can stick to the facts. Praxidikai (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we are doing. Read that article I linked to again. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The one about cognitive disorder? Just scroll up, read about the editors who are: 'sticking libelous labels on contributors who are seeking NPOV for the article'. You'll also notice something about reptiles… and few more remarks about the usual conduct here. Now, do tell, is it clairvoyance of a sort? Praxidikai (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, instead of reading about 'cognitive disorders', I'd rather see your opinion on why our article fails to mention any controversy surrounding the collapse of WTC 7? It deserves a section of its own, yet we have - nothing. Why is it so? Praxidikai (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We are sticking to the facts, in spite of OpenFuture's implication of cognitive disorders. There is still enough confusion (mostly spread by the Truthers) that a rational person might not come to the obvious conclusion, that Microsoft is responsible for the attack by encouraging Flight Simulator users to practice crashing into WTC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, now that we've had exemplary game of wits, can we try and stick to the subject too? How about that POV tag and our shameful one-sided and close-minded narrative? Any thoughts? Praxidikai (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the POV issue is already established and clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The "controversy" isn't mentioned, because the article sticks to the facts. And you may also note that the article on "True-Believer Syndrome" clearly states that it is not an established psychological term or generally recognized as a cognitive disorder, so they idea that I claim you have a cognitive disorder is overly paranoid. However, there is absolutely no doubt that there are loads of people which will continue to believe things not only without base, but even after having been thoroughly proven wrong. Who you chose to believe does that is irrelevant. The point is that some people involved in this discussion will not care about facts and not be convinced about facts. Therefore discussing the facts is pointless. You may chose to believe that I'm the one who doesn't care about facts if you want. Doesn't matter. You can't convince me, I can't convince you. And that's it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the POV issue is already established and clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, facts are true by definition. Of course, you can choose not to believe into... let's say Newton's laws of motion, but such beliefs hold no weight whatsoever, a bit like that link you're constantly pointing too. You can also refuse to use such tools as logic, but please, don't impose such irrationality on the rest of our kind. Consensus is being questioned Jamie, again, could you care to explain why we have mockery instead of NPOV with regards to WTC 7? Praxidikai (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my point: People choose to disregard facts, logic and laws of nature. How are we going to convince people like that? Can't be done. Discussing it further is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

People can choose whatever they want; we on the other hand have no such luxury. We record the history, if you will; it is plain to see that this particular record is heavily flawed and one-sided, there is really no excuse.., Praxidikai (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've seen all there was to see here, sad to say, it's same ol', same ol'… I'm signing out, with best wishes to all, as ever. Praxidikai (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have archived this days ago. We all should have. No more soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (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.

Animated gif

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

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

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

As I do not know how to deal with the copyright issue, I have not uploaded the animation to Wkimedia Commons yet, if indeed that is where it belongs. I would assume that the provisions of Fair Use would apply but being unfamiliar with these issues, I would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would help me with this matter. In the meantime, I will redirect to the page where I found a reasonably good version of the animation. It is about halfway down the page at this address: [3].

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

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

WP:COATRACK paragraph

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

I tagged the following paragraph as a WP:COATRACK:

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

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

Stratesec

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

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

a campaign by the name of "War on Terrorism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources for calling it a war on terror? You're kidding right, there's thousands of them.[4]. You're not even close yet. RxS (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for vote in in favor of original wording

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

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

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

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

But, since you want it. [5] There is your source. Quoting Rklawton, "there is doubt regarding common acceptance of this term". Therefore, the previous phrasing assumes POV and must be changed. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

Malik have these in mind: Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion

What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to add sentence into "Motivation" section

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

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

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