Talk:9/11 intelligence failures

Untitled[edit]

The objective of this page is to bring together material on what is one of the most critical and widely debated issues arising from 9/11, i.e. why did the intelligence services fail. While this is inevitably a finger point process for the partisans there is a much larger number of people interested in identifying failures in order to fix them. This is currently a stub, I hope to fill in more material later --Gorgonzilla 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Even the title is POV, let alone the content. I am minded to put this up for AfD on the basis of WP:NOR... Physchim62 02:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's kind of POV, but not really in the real sense of it. mrholybrain 11:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirected[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. However, the split was between delete outright and redirect without merging, so I will do the redirect myself, after moving the page to the proper spelling (9/11 intelligence failures). Anyone believing there is salvagable content should feel free to Be bold and merge what they can from into 9/11 commission report, per consensus on this page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Intelligence Failures[edit]

This is poorly unified and the information can easily be found elsewhere. (see 9/11 commission report, Summary of 9/11 Commission Report, and Central Intelligence Agency). We don't need another redundant article on a major topic with a POV tag on it forever. Voice of All(MTG) 03:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This should be properly capitalized and redirected to 9/11 commission report. Voice of All(MTG) 03:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I cannot see how an NPOV article could be created under this title. Physchim62 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 9/11 commission report. --Apyule 07:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to proper capitalization (9/11 intelligence failures) before redirecting and delete the incorrectly capitalized version once the history is empty. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I created the article as it became clear that Able Danger is really only one incident in this larger topic. Even if Able Danger is proved entirely false this does not invalidate Ashcrofts assertions about 'the wall', nor does invalidating the wall disprove Able Danger. It is universally accepted in the intelligence community that 9/11 indicates some sort of intelligence failure, possibly multiple failures. Discussing one incident in isolation necessarily leads to a POV article. --Gorgonzilla 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually now I remember the original idea was to find a more neutral location to put an extended discussion of the intelligence issues being raised in the able danger article, however it now appears that the individual raising the issue is actually a paid political consultant who makes similarly bizare POV edits to large numbers of articles involving political controversy so there is no point whatsoever in attempting any form of dialogue.--Gorgonzilla 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge any non-duplicated content into 9/11 commission report or Summary of 9/11 Commission Report. Robert McClenon 00:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with redirect to 9/11 commission report. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:39, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to 9/11 comission report; include section in latter article along the lines of "Alleged failures not included in the report". Was Able Danger in the 9/11 report? In any case, there is a place for this information. Sdedeo 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 9/11 commission report -- WB 21:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - inherently POV. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered better elsewhere. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any non-duplicated material can be merged into other articles. Robert McClenon 00:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pertinent information regarding those events.Kiwidude 17:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Any relavent non-repeasted info can be added to '9/11 commission report'.Voice of All (talk) 18:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.