Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about September 11 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

archive 38

Archive 38 has a few pieces which are still relevant for the active discussion. I am listing them here.

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

passport issue (2)

Following apparant consensus, I inserted the text:

A passport of one of the hijackers was reported found intact near the WTC.^[1] Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble discovered the passport, belonging to one of the suspected hijackers, a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.^[2]; a passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.^[3]

 Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel - Please stop with this. There is no consensus for the change to include the factoid about the hijacker's passport. This article is a summary of the many subarticles relating to 9/11. The detail about the passport is too detailed and too specific for this article. It seems there is something mysterious about how a passport could survive the crash and end up a few blocks away? Here, here, here, here, and here are pictures showing the various debris (much of it pieces of paper) that ended up on the streets after Flight 11 crashed. Landing gear from the plane was also found blocks away. That a passport also ended up blocks away isn't particularly important detail for the main article. --Aude (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely...it's a tidbid of info often cited by the CT crowd to make their fantasy story more plausible.--MONGO 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it was reported all over the world on September 16. The section I'm inserting it in is very small, it can be a little bigger. This fact is important to people. It should not be burried in some sub-article. If you're blocking edits, would you please engage in the disussion here on how to mend the neutrality of this article. PS I do not see any pictures of passenger belongings, these are just papers that were in the offices.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the bank card belonging to Waleed J. Iskandar, a passenger on Flight 11. The bank card was found in the Ground Zero debris. We don't need factoids about passports or other specific items of debris in the main article. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This one fact in the light of what happened that day does not seem notable enough for here, especially considering that it is given adequate mention in an article with a more detailed focus on the subject. This particular article serves as the overall summary, after all. On another note, I don't see how this factoid aids the c/t crowd, anyway. It's not inconceivable that objects in the cockpit could have made it through the building intact -- jet fuel is stored in the wings, behind the cockpit. The velocity of the plane was sufficient (if only for a second or so) for some items to be carried through and out before they would have been incinerated in the following explosion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, by the point where you proposed this Xiutwel, you had (as noted in that section) already created 22 separate subsections. I'm not surprised there were no further replies, what with how convoluted this talk page has become it was inevitable something would get lost in the fray. For future reference, don't take lack of response as a sign of consensus, especially when a discussion has become as confused as this one. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It might have been your edit regarding 22 subsections directly below my question, which misled me...  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that according to Ms. Susan Ginsburg, who directed part of the investigation, before the 911 Commission, the passport was found before the towers collapsed.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? New York is home to a lot of people, and that leaves a timeframe of several hours following the crash in which the passport may have been found before the tower collapsed. Now, if it had been found before the crash, you would definitely have a case, but this alone means nothing. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Burke's pictures (linked above) were taken before the towers collapsed and before Flight 175 crashed into the second tower. There was quite a lot of debris on the ground from the first crash. That a passerby found the passport amongst all the debris, picked it up and gave it to a police officer, is not surprising. --Aude (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what you or I think about it; it is significant to a lot of people. A lot of hits in google. Why is it so important to you to block this info? And please, engage in the neutrality debate above. I want to know whether you think this article is neutral.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Who finds it significant? And is this the most significant thing not in the article? How does it improve the article? Why should we include this fact above thousands of other facts that are not in the article? RxS (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suqami passport - 46 hits in the Google News archive, compared to other details, such as Atta's last will and testament - 3,520 hits on Google News. Suqami's passport is more of a minor detail, one not worth including here. We don't have space for everything in a summary article. As for other threads on this talk page, I'm not interested in repeating myself here, when you can read the talk page archives to see my previous comments. Nor do I have the time to keep up with all the new threads. --Aude (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are counting google hits in NEWS, you are following hits in RS to establish notability of a fact. This is exactly what I mean by Narrative based Fact Selection, #NFSM, which leads to a-neutrality.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

repeated question: Who finds it significant? And is this the most significant thing not in the article? How does it improve the article? Why should we include this fact above thousands of other facts that are not in the article? RxS (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, RxS. If one does not google in NEWS but in plain google[1], you find a lot of conspiracy sites. So, these people have not forgotten this little fact, and do not deem it an insignificant chance coincidence. They may be looney in doing so, but Commons sense tells us it is likely relevant to view B, and therefore it helps in making the article a bit more neutral. If other wikipedians would want to balance this (dis)info with statements such as above, that is also possible. I predict the biggest hurdle will be for us to determine: what is: "balanced"? When is this balance achieved? (And yes, I know that a google search is not a RS to warrent a statement, it is OR.)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurdle. You are merely fundamentally ignorant of our policies. There is no "view B" to be discussed here. We have one view: The view that is supported by reliable sources. We simply do not make distinctions between viewpoints by any other standard. If anything, the term "view B" signifies any view unsupported by reliable sources, and asking us to give it creedence it would violate half of our policies, not the least of which: WP:NPOV. The passport information is not relevant to this article, and your Google test, which does not determine notability, is mistaken. If you simply type hijacker passport you will receive every page that has those two words in any combination. Adding quotation marks around a specific phrase will narrow it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you are counting google hits in NEWS, you are following hits in RS to establish notability of a fact. This is exactly what I mean by Narrative based Fact Selection, #NFSM, which leads to a-neutrality."

This is the crux of the problem that we have with the alterations you are trying to make to this article. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. It's one of the founding policies of the entire project. If reliable sources do not exist for the content you are trying to add, then it simply cannot be added. What more is there to say about this? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy that the passport issue is at least in a subarticle of this main article. However, information in subarticles does not balance this article. We need more issues to add to this article to make it less POV, suggestions? (Or, we might remove all the not-agreed-upon material from this article, but that would not be my preference.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose to include a trimmed down version of this, a single sentence, into the Responsibility paragraph. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At best, it shows an individual was at the crime scene (along with 50 000 others). Peter Grey (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

was --> might have been. It also shows that it might make sense to have a paper black box on board every plane, because there are instances where the black box is not recovered (4x) and a passport is. Seriously though: I think you should not judge everything whether it is important in your view of the world. There are other views, I would like it when you respected that. Or, is there only 1 WP:TRUTH in your perception?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I re-added the tag - obvious dispute in the talk page.--Striver - talk 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One person does not a dispute make; nor does a dispute with Wikipedia's fundamental guidelines make an article non-neutral. An argument on the talk page does not indicate that an article is non-neutral, especially when the argument being made for changes violates our fundamental guidelines and policies. There is a lot of sound and fury here, but no substance; please do not add the tag. It's disruptive. --Haemo (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, I would like to go back to our discussion on WP:SYNTH. Just below "#good editing" before, you made a claim that what I proposed would by in violation of that guideline, quoting the guideline partially. I then provided a more full quote, and you did not comment on that further, and you put the section into archived mode. (I am assuming good faith, it is a complex discussion with a lot of participants who each defend narrative A in their own way.) So, would you please explain why you would think that: -

when I were to add a RS-based fact which appears to weaken narrative A in my eyes, but not in yours, without drawing conclusions, it would be SYNTH? The essence of the guideline here is: "when put together". I am not synthesizing facts or implicit conclusions, I am just adding facts on one big heap to make it neutral.
the sources cited are related directly to the article, agree?
you wrote: there [should be] reliable sources asserting which facts "narrative B" in this situation uses, or their relevance. Without reliable sources, the determination of which facts fall into this category is original research. I agree that, when claiming in the article that narrative B uses fact X, I should have a RS to demonstrate it. To include fact X, however, wikipedians can use their own judgement. The RS are not committed to being WP:NEUTRAL, but we are.
I am not aware of wanting to violate any guideline. If you disagree, could you provide a quote of mine and a quote of a guideline which it conflicts with?
adding bias to a neutral article makes it biased. Adding bias to a biased article is inevitable in making it neutral.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you're adding facts which do not appear to have any significance or relevance to the topic — . Indeed, you've explicitly endorsed adding facts which no reliable source ties to the event, or gives them any significance. In other words, you're taking sources which report something, but which do not tie them to this event in any meaningful or significant way, and trying to include them because you think they're relevant. Relevance does not come from my opinion, or your opinion, and it doesn't come from whether or not I think they undermine anything. Synthesis is explicitly "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article" — if you are citing sources which include facts, but are not directly related to the subject of the article, you are engaging in original research. Wikipedia is not a fact grab bag, where we go about (as you say "use [our] own judgment") to decide which facts are, or are not relevant to an issue on our own. I might think it's super-freaking relevant to the terrorist attacks that on September 10th 2001 a crazy guy went on a shooting rampage; however, no reliable sources would back up that relevance, so it shouldn't be included. The same goes for the POV you are trying to push here — you don't seem to understand that Wikipedians are not supposed to be deciding what, and is not, relevant to an article's subject. That's what researchers in the field do — historians, experts, journalists, etc. We are a tertiary source, and thus defer to them — accepting relevance if (and only if) they assert it first.

Again, I ask that you think about what you're arguing — you have a very strong POV on this issue, and are explicitly trying to bias the article. You say as much above. Think about applying your argument, and what you seek to do here, anywhere else — it opens the door for everyone with a theory and some facts which they can source to reliable sources to add whackjobs of unrelated facts to any article? Think the Sun is inhabited by an ancient race of Machine-Gods? Well, start adding facts about how certain alloys can survive near the suns surface, how "anomalous readings" have been held by some to indicate life, how some futurists have speculated about an inhabited sun, or whatever else you want. Perhaps this is why it's prohibited by our guidelines? I explicitly gave you an argument earlier which was exactly the same, but for Hitler's death and vegetarianism — you rejected your own suggestions when the issue was something you did not believe strongly about. That should tell you something about its validity, and your motivations here. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how you think your example of veggy Hitler to be the same, or even similar.
The sun machine gods would not be against policy, when this view was nontiny.
For 9/11, there exists a notable, 9/11-B view. Its existence is backed by RS. Its merit is not (to the contrary). B is nontiny. Thus it should be included fairly in a neutral article.
Let's distinguish 2 concepts: related means: connected, the same subject. relevant means the same, but stronger: additionally it also means: significant or important. SYNTH mentions related, not relevant or significant, sou could you please explain how adding facts would violate SYNTH?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the intensifier "directly". The semantic difference between a source being "directly related" to a subject, and the facts outlined in the source being "relevant" to a subject is nil. This is Wikilawyering in the extreme. If you look at the Hitler argument, it has exactly the same structure as your argument — yet you opposed it! You also seem to misunderstand, or are confused about the Sun example I gave — suppose it was not "tiny" in your terms. You claim adding all of those facts to the article would be acceptable — however, at no point are any of the source give "directly related" or "relevant" to the article! It's textbook synthesis — you just explicitly endorsed synthesis, again, as you have been repeatedly doing so. --Haemo (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, there are two kinds of notability, and you are mistaking them. If a large portion of the population believes in the sun machine gods, there can be an article about the social movement of believing in them. The article about the sun will not mention the possibility of machine sun gods living there or select otherwise unimportant facts to hint at their existence. Likewise, we have an article about the social phenomenon of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but for the same reason, we do not balance the conspiracy theories with the actual account, which is based on available reliable sources, in this article. I do not know how many times you need to be given this information for it to sink in. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie, we can have an article about the phenomenon of a social movement which has some belief that most of us don't share. I agree. And there should be an article on the 9/11 Truth Movement as such. But, when such a social group is nontiny, it is therefore a group we must consider. Perhaps the first question is: are we talking about a tiny, or a significant minority? When we agree on that, I will think about the synthesis bit, because now I must go and catch my train. Thx  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I am thinking about the synthesis bit, and I am not sure I get what you are saying. On Hitler: one could add the vegetarian bit in "death of..." if and only if there is a significant minority view which (acc. to RS) claims that the two are related. And, that claim should be made explicit, and attributed to some holder of that view. In the machine god example: I must apologize for not thinking it thru. I concentrated on the facts, not on which article you wanted to put it in. The article of the Sun should i.m.o. then have a single line saying that some believe it is inhabited, and the rest goes in a seperate article. Whether the Sun is inhabited or not has little bearing on its other properties, like heat, rotation etc. Likewise, I wouldn't dream of adding the "passport issue" to United States.
In retrospect, I think your hypothetical examples are creative, but are only confusing in the end. There is no good parallel between them and the reality of Wikipedia at hand. For instance, the passport: the 9/11 article is supposed to be a summary of its subarticles. The 911/Responsibility article has the passport bit. Therefore it could be in the main article. It's a WP:WEIGHT issue, then. It makes sense the event/fact is related to the guilt of the perpetrators. The fact can be (and is) interpreted in two main ways: (a) it is a plausible coincidence that it survived and was found, and it proves the hijacker was on board; (b) it is an unlikely event that it could have survived, and therefore "indicates" it was planted. The fact in itself is rather neutral. I am amazed at the strong objections, since it was originally promoted by the White House as proof for Al Qaida's involvement. Would you please answer me one question:
would you agree to calling adherents to
the "view", that: from the facts around 9/11 a LIHOP-scenario is likely, or at least well possible and nees further investigation
— would you agree to calling them a significant minority?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reference the Global Warming example. Are we to group the individual scientists who oppose the IPCC consensus as if they were a single movement when their opinions are varied and often contradictory? The same is the case here. In my talk, you yourself said that the only constant among the conspiracy theorists is the belief that "A cannot be true": who, how, when, why, and to what extent the government had a role are all points of contention among them. Is this general assertion alone binding enough to warrant treating "group B" as if it were a consolidated movement? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, it makes no difference how big the group is. If what they believe is not supported by reliable sources, it cannot be included. Prevalence of the belief does not translate to plausibility of the belief. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, as your logic violates nearly every point on this list. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie, would you please specify/explain what you mean by "supported"? It is ambiguous: it could mean that RS are saying a belief is or might be true; it might mean that RS are stating that some people have such a belief.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jc-S0CO: Any individual is unique. Whether two individuals are in the same group, depends on the criterium we choose. If we choose "supporters of a specific view B_x", then no doubt there will be many tiny minorities, and only a few significant minorities. (We could go and do that, when necessary, but it would be a hell of a job.) If we chose "opposers of view A, in the sense that they hold possible a government LIHOP scenario", then we would have a clearly defined subset, for which I have no doubt they have a lot of prominent adherents. I think we do not need to assume a consolidated movement to define a view B this way. How do you feel about that?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As an Arab Muslim, I find this article very bias. In order to make it a neutral point of view, they must have some sort of evidence that an Arab Muslim hijacked the aircraft. No evidence exists. If someone knows of any evidence explicitly proving that an Arab Muslim did in fact hijack each aircraft please post the sources on this article. Until then, please remove the "Al Queda" references which only further the misconception that terrorists are Arab Muslims and vice versa. There were no Arabs on Flight 77 or 11 according to multiple passenger lists: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This point has been raised (and answered) before. Those are not passenger lists, but victim lists - the difference being that they do not include the names of the hijackers. Contrary to what the above poster implies, the sources merely state that there were no Arab Muslim victims on the flights in question. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It still feels strange to me that the names of the hijackers were not mentioned in these articles. They were not victims, but they were passengers before they became hijackers. Also, how can we be so certain they did this? I would still like to see the original passenger lists, including their names; anyone?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree (with user Xiutwel): However, I think it is important that anyone exploring the addition of this information ensure that a credible reliable source is used... I find it highly unlikely that the names of the passenger will be published somewhere... but who knows? --CyclePat (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."

Am I the only one that finds the strongly one-sided opening statement of this article f*cking ridiculous? Excuse my French, but this is clearly a biased article. There's no proof or factual evidence relating Al-Qaeda or any terrorist group to 9/11 past what the super foolproof "official" 9/11 Commission Report claims. The problem I have with this is that when people look up 9/11 on say, Google, the very first result is the wiki article. Then, when they continue on to this article, the first thing they read is a "this is what happened and we're totally sure of it" statement. Honestly, it's very irritating. I'm not trying to stir up conspiracy talk here, even though what the press, media, and commission report tells us happened clearly didn't, but that opening line is just too... full of itself. I find it misleading at best, and really want something to be done about it, whether it be removed, changed, or made much less biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominatrixdave (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one who finds this statement biased. But in stead of making, in your indignation, biased claims to the contrary is not the best you can do in creating consensus. So, if you have a good, neutral suggestion, I would welcome it !  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim that you are not pushing conspiracy talk, then go on to assert that "what the press, media, and commission report tells us happened clearly didn't." I find this lack of subtlety amusing... ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The opening of the article is the result of many long discussions. You might want to skim through the archives. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only thing full of itself is Dominatrixdave. Timneu22 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[nonpolite bit deleted /Xiutwel] ... who locked it from edit? BBC.com says 7 of the supposed hi-jackers are alive and well! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.25.221 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-locked, you can edit it when you register an account. The article you quote is very old, I am not sure anno 2008 the supposed hijackers are still believed to be identical to living persons. If you have recent verifiable information on this, I would welcome it !  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree no nondisputable evidence proves the attacks were performed by arab muslims. Of the 19 official FBI alleged hijackers (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm), several are still alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all allegations should be removed from the lead, or made explicit, saying "the US government stated as fact that the hijackings were done by 19 Al Qaeda hijackers." or something like that.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Administrations handling of 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and everything else, how can we trust their list alleged hijackers/institutions? Its still arguable whether or not Al Qaeda is funded by the US government simply because the CIA will not release records disproving their financing of Osama Bin Laden since before the Gulf War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To be in your shoes...

The following discussion 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.

disclaimer: I am going to make a good faith effort to voice the debate from the other side as best as I can. Please assume no demagogous or rethoric intentions. —Xiutwel

" If were to have a certain view, and I would feel confident and sure it was correct, I would expect this view to be in line with what I would find in any encyclopedia. If there were to exist some little sect Church then, which held a view completely opposed to my view, I would not want their view to be in Wikipedia. Now, if some prominent film stars and celabrities were to become member of this church, it might gain a lot of media attention. Who cares... even a lot of the general population might be infected by the philospohies of such a church. Something does not get more true because more people believe it. I should not have to argue that the Earth might be flat because such a church claims so, and has notable supporters. I would become a member of what I, for brevities sake, would like to respectfully call: "The A-team". Saying: the earth is round, and it is anyone's right to believe otherwise, but we need not include such nonsense in our article about the Earth. Just a single mention to the historical flat Earth believe is appropriate and suffices.

I can imagine any editor believing this to be right and just, and the purpose of wikipedia. We can respect their view, allow them to have it, but we need not honor their view. No need to be neutral, because the argument is silly.

But, should I not take a step back when 10% of the world population would have the view that the Earth is flat (view B)? It's alright for me to know that the Earth is NOT flat, but they do not know that. Should we then change the Earth article, making it say: a majority believes it is round, and a minority believes it is flat? I would feel very, very awkward about that. Because I bloody KNOW it is round, don't I?

And if some notable Professor were to adhere this view B, and perform experiments: place a floater device on the surface of a calm Sea, and note that the floater does not move sideways "as one would expect when the Earth was round", would I want to allow this experiment in the "Earth" article? And all the other crazy arguments which exist? This debate should belong in a seperate article! "

I repeat I am not trying to use some cheap trick here, I genuinely see the problem. I hope we can now jointly work to a decision for this, a hypothetical matter: what course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority)?

It is hard.

" I find it difficult to simply assume the neutral position here, on wikipedia, describing this flat Earth debate, because the notion is ridiculous in my eyes. Yet I think wikipedia policy would prescribe me to do so: assume neutrality, and give each side plenty of fair space for their view - where one is the truth and the other, demonstrably, a delusion. Contrary to the neutrality-policy I would be inclined to discard this bit of policy, because it seems silly now. It's more of a disease than a viewpoint to me! Yet also I believe in the wisdom of all the policies combined, being the result of seven years of co-working between thousands of people in perhaps the biggest single collaborative intellectual effort that has ever been undertaken. So, now I am genuinely confused: neither solution seems to be the right one. " I end my role play here. ^{(1) (2)}

(taking time to become me again)

(endulging in a little rant) Looking at all the facts, even when hoping or believing there is a simple explanation for them, is the only thing which has ever advanced science. If a scientific theory is correct, it will stand, regardless of how fiercly it is attacked. If it is flawed, it will be replaced — after a few or after a few thousand years. Access to this complete information can speed up this process. Wikpedia should provide acces to knowledge, neutrally. And that means(!): displaying a lot of nonsense in the process.
In most cases where there exist a view A and a view B, most likely both of them are partly false, and the truth, view T, can be discovered the fastest if enough parties begin to use perspective C: i.e. beholding both views, and their related facts and arguments, from a neutral perspective. I feel relief, having put all this into words. I feel enthousiastic thinking this contribution could turn out to help us reach consensus on how to apply wikipedia policy in this article! — Xiutwel and Sockrates dual 12:33-13:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one sick of Xiutwel saying the same thing over and over again, ignoring everything we've said, and presenting the same 'debate' each time? Can we put an end to this and say "No, Xiutwel, you are wrong based on Wikipedia Principles. Do not bring it up again"? I think this is the ONLY way we are going to move on, since he refuses to understand. --Tarage (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one...? No. Peter Grey (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think at this point that his intent is to ignore us to the point that we stop wasting our breath fighting him, then to interpret the ensuing silence as a green light to add his content. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case(Not saying it is), can we get a moderator or two in here to put an end to this? --Tarage (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that your reaction is one of frustration, in stead of moving forward. I too am working very hard here to improve wikipedia, as are you. True: Perhaps I have not responded to every individual claim raised by others, when (and only when) I thought that the other matters I did address would sufficiently answer and deal with these other points raised. If I am wrong, which you are saying, and there are still claims of yours you want answered, I promise I will. Name them. I am trying to pinpoint the core of our dissensus, not ignoring your points. My opinion is: (a) Articles have to be neutral. (b) There exist two nonsignificant viewpoints on 9/11 responsibility: (c) One of them being the majority view. (d) In such a case, guidelines are instructing to write neutrally, not engaging in this debate. (e) We should have RS for any fact or claim, but (f) notability is not temporary: if RS stop reporting on facts and using them, in their analyses, we need not erase them from Wikipedia afterwards, nor should we be forbidden to include them. They are still valid. (g) It is not OR or SYNTHESIS to include facts which are supportive to view B, and seem unsupportive of view A. On the contrary: it is our task, being neutral, to include them, duely. (h) The only thing open to debate, is the amount of what is due: what do proportionate, and prominence mean? My preference would be to say: ideally, 80% of the article neutral, 15% pro view A, 5% pro view B. (i) Currently, I would say the article is 50% neutral, 49% view A, and the redirect to the conspiracy theories article seems the only treatment of view B (1%). This is too biased for my taste.
Please answer the unanswered questions I raised in previous sections requesting quotations from guidelines, when you disagree with me.
The fastest way to get out of this debate is to find out what it is exacty that we are disagreeing on (which interpretation of which policy); after that we can discuss how to create consensus. I suspect there will be two points: (a) should we still be neutral if we know one of the views to be nonsense? and (b) is it Synthesis to include a fact which is not supportive of a view of any RS? Or need the fact only be supportive of any nontiny view to be relevant enough for inclusion? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I stoped reading at "I too am working very hard here to improve wikipedia". If this were even remotly true, you would have stoped arguing with Wikipedia policy for the past... how many months? Your argument is state, and you don't seem to understand that your problem isn't here, it's with Wikipedia's policy, which I am 99% sure you won't be changing. I get the feeling giving you a long winded explination is moot because you've ignored the rest of the ones above. --Tarage (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you cannot give me any recognition for my efforts. So be it; I consider working for consensus and discussing matters of improving the article to be "working" as well as working directly on the article. You are right that I believe that you are misinterpreting policy, not I. You are also right, that a long winded explanation is probably not what is useful now: so better not give me a new explanation. Simply quoting the things you think I have ignored earlier will do; then we can see if I have overlooked something, ... or that it is you who is doing the overlooking. OK?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment makes it clear that you have no intent to listen to anything we have to say, as you have already come to the unmovable conclusion that as long as we disagree with you we are, irrevocably, wrong. I must admit that your persistence in this discussion is impressive, but although now you claim your motive to be balance and neutrality, this stands in sharp contrast to some of the comments you made at the very beginning.^[2] However you dress it now, through your past actions I still have a very hard time believing that your intent is any other than to post a list of reliably-sourced factoids in a way which synthesizes a conclusion which does not meet the same standards. That was the point of the Ronald Reagan analogy I made before: even reliably-sourced facts can be strung together to form a fallacious conclusion. That is why the policy exists to begin with.

I can barely stomach this debate at this point, but I have to make this one point clear: Achieving consensus and driving away all editors with differing viewpoints through a relentless filibuster are not the same thing. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But he was not replying to someone that was just "disagreeing with him", he was replying to someone that explicitly said that he decided to just ignore what he wrote ("I stoped reading at...").--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pokipsy76 !  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You poor editors. Let him be. You've pointed out the flaws in his contribution and he denies your points. It is not your responsibility to guard WP from misguided editors. If your arguments against his edits are valid, others will come along and improve or remove them. While he may be trying to interject a certain POV, he's also adding at least some information - even if it is only that there are some people who believe some things that are whacked out. Now, on to review his edits for myself! Dscotese (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, someone is always going to have to be on guard with his edits, making sure he doesn't put something in because he takes some comment as consensus. I think it would be FAR more productive to simply give a flat out no and move on. --Tarage (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So this dispute is about whether or not to include the "factoid" that one of the hijacker's passports was found - in the section describing the fact that the hijackers were "well-educated...". Think about this: why would you call it a "factoid" instead of a "fact"? Also, I noted that some editors are concerned that certain "factoids" are being used by "the CT crowd" to promote the conspiracy theories. Oh no! Not evidence that people who disagree with me can use! I am firmly on Xiutwel's side in this debate - at least for that edit.

I resolved this by adding the facts that Xiutwel wished to include to the subpage for "Organizers of the 9/11 attacks" or whatever it's called. It seemed the right place for this information.

Dscotese (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have no problem with this; again it is a reliably sourced factoid which I do not see to particularly benefit either side of this debate. But what Xiutwel was attempting to do was add it here, to the main page. My main opposition to this was that in the full summary context of what happened that day, something like this is really was too minor IMO to include on the main page. Hence the use of the term "factoid". ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral P.O.V. is an oxymoron. Neutral is oblivious to point of view. Facts cannot be edited. Editing is subjective as is point of view. To ignore a fact for any reason, bias, fear of reprisal, is to pick a side, therefore it's not neutral. The whole premise is absurd. Like calling a piece of information a a factoid. Lay out the evidence. Be neutral, nd let readers decide what is real based on the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deminizer13 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lay out the RELIVANT evidence. We don't support synthesis, but you don't seem to understand that. Listing off random facts does NOT help the article at all. The ONLY thing it does is push one POV. Unless you can use RS to put all of these facts together, they don't belong here. THAT is what we have been trying to tell you, and THAT is what you continue to ignore, to the point where I just want to call a moderation and get this argument banned for being frivelous. --Tarage (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

ceasefire? / pledge 2

Because the discussion is going off-topic, and becoming personal, I've explained my motives at my own talk page: User_talk:Xiutwel#my_intentions.

I think the debate is stuck. Other editors accuse me of ignoring their arguments, where I would say I do not ignore them but disagree. When I ask to point to which arguments I would have ignored that need addressing, there comes no response. On the other hand, I've repeatedly asked for quotations of policy. I got one once, but when I replied that that quotation was i.m.o. out of context, and despite repeating my call for quotations, it remained unanswered.
So both sides are accusing the other of not listening, now. I can only conclude that this debate has become stuck, and indeed needs outside help, or just a bit of rest. I will now go and prepare some content to be added, in my userspace. That may take a while.
Another pledge: I will not presume consensus silently. When I want to claim consensus, I promise to announce it on the talk page that I am assuming it, 24 hrs before editing the article accordingly. Because I know how annoying it is when you do not trust a "hostile" editor (mark the quotes) to leave your hard work be. (Remember the cruft deletion campaign?) So, you need not reply to my arguments for fear of me concluding consensus in stealth. Please only reply to help Wikipedia.
I still would like to reach consensus on this topic, and naturally I would still very much like this discussion to continue and develop into consensus. But I would agree with a pause for a couple of days or weeks, and if all agree we can put the above debates in archive-mode, as far as I'm concerned.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an indefinite pause — forever. By all means, please stop introducing proposals that violate policy so blatantly, especially when you’ve been informed of their violations by all experienced editors and administrators who are familiar with policy and involved in this page. In fact, your incessant (often epic poem-length) proposals have driven people away. Many involved in this talk page have simply ignored you the last couple of weeks, and don't expect that to stop if you return with these proposals, your good intentions aside. Unwillingness to adhere to policy is unlikely to garner much respect for your proposals in the future, and may prompt editors to revert such comments based on your pattern of disruptive behavior. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On another note: I, personally, have repeatedly told you of policy violations and advised you to review specific policy pages. Others have done the same at every turn. You have been anything but deprived of opportunity to be made aware of policy. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always reread the policy when you linked to it. However I could not find it supporting your approach. That's why I was asking for quotations. Why didn't you give them?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It has been explained to you more times than I can count. Litterally, over and over. Policy has also been quoted to you directly more than once. Your behavior has become disruptive and you will be reported if you continue. If you truly do not understand policy, ask questions on the pages of the respective policies. First, you may want to re-read the archives to find what other editors have told you about policy. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, thank you for your message on my talk page! I've replied there.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (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.

Note: further additions should be made outside of the archived section. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Norman Mineta testimony issue

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for Comments

{{RFChist| section=Norman Mineta testimony issue !! Should the edit be included to make the article more NPOV, or need RS be given''' themselves agreeing with the (minority) viewpoint''' that the matter has importance before we can include this? !! time= 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC) }} — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please respond all the way at the bottom of the main section: here. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to include a text on Norman Mineta's testimony (below) into the article:

discussion / insertion point

in which subarticle and in which subsection should it go? I would say: Responsibility...
Any amendments?

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For this article at this point it has no place to go. There needs to be a subsection under U.S. Government Response called "Immediate Executive Branch Response". You would need a different cite for this article as a cite from a 9/11 conspiracy website would be greeted quite harshly here. This issue is covered substantially in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The authors contextual arguments should be added to that article Edkollin (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
How about: September 11, 2001 attacks#Immediate national response ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. [moved the rest of my comment, and Xiutwel's reply, to a more pertinent location]

proposed text - open for amendment

~~new article subsection: Immediate Executive Branch Response~~

text version: 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Vice-president Dick Cheney stated^[4] that he was watching the second tower being hit live (9:02:59 a.m. local time). He tells that shortly after, he was evacuated to the underground shelter in the White House, the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Cheney himself testified before the 9-11 Commission that he was not in the Command loop until 9:58 AM, but according to testimony^[5] from his collegue, Norman Mineta, the acting Secretary of Transportation, he was already in the command centre and giving orders when the plane that was to hit the Pentagon at 9:37 AM was still 50 miles out.^[6] Norman Mineta's testimony was not included in the final report of the Commission. Cheney refused to testify under oath, as did the President. They also insisted on testifying together instead of separately, against the Commissioners' request. The reason for this given by George Bush was: "It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."^[7] In december 2001 the President declared^[8] that being in Sarasota, Florida, he had watched the first airplane strike live on television, just prior to entering a classroom to monitor a childrens' reading programme.^[9] After being told about the second plane striking, he and his staff continued the session with the children (estimates for this vary between five and nine minutes), while the third plane was being hijacked and nearing the Pentagon. In fact, some of Bush’s Secret Service agents had watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. ^[10] Bush left the school between 9:30 and 9:35, just a few minutes before the Pentagon was struck.

references preview

please start at nr 4, the rest belongs elsewhere — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21: 01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

further discussion (Norman Mineta testimony issue)

I am on an enforced wiki break but dropped in to say that the only ref in your list that has anything to do with Mineta is the last one which is from a non reliable source. In addition, this information would be OR. There is not a reliable source that has reported on this. It is not relevant that one or the other of two people mixed up the time. - PTR.

Is it OR? Or is it good editing? There are reliable sources for all statements. There are no claims to what the contradiction could mean. When we can find no RS which has tackled this, we cannot conclude even that "one or the other has mixed up the time" - that would be OR. Nor is there a problem with SYNTHESIS, because that deals with making unrelated statements seem related. All here is very closely related: testimony and statements by White House officials on where they were, what they were doing, and how they were feeling. ~~It kinda adds a personal touch to the article, don't you think?~~  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see — you apparently think that a contradiction between two individuals statements about the timing of events is related to the attacks in some meaningful way. Yet, you have no reliable source that connects these two facts, or even establishes them as an important or signifigant contradiction. It's really telling that this is exactly what you proposed earlier, and everyone told you was original research (which you ignored), and that your proposed section says next to nothing about the section title, and instead focuses on a whole bunch of minor details which no reliable source ascribes any importance to and which would probably be inappropriate even on the relevant subpage Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The "personal touch" you are adding to the article is (suprise) laden with your POV on this issue, and is not supported by reliable sources. Nonetheless, I expect this rejoinder to bounce off you like literally all of the other ones, since you don't appear to listen to what people tell you and instead persist in truly novel interpretations of Wikipedia's guidelines which fly of our fundamental policies. --Haemo (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You [who? /Xiut] should note that people saying "this doesn't work in principle" should not lead you to suggest "ah, but perhaps it works in this one application", which is exactly what you're doing here. --Haemo (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, let me address your points one by one: /X

a contradiction/statements ... related ... in some meaningful way. Yes, you are correct, that is what I think. I am not claiming that this meaningfulness is the majority view: it is, in fact, a significant minority viewpoint that this would be meaningful. I am sure we agree on that? I think it would be unappropriate/unnessary to source that meaningfulness in the article text, but I'll be happy to discuss it. /X
have no reliable source that connects these two facts. Well, both facts concern testimony on the whereabouts of President and Vice-President by themselves and their collegues. They are obviously related, and putting them together can in no way lead to any misrepresentation of facts, I believe. /X
establishes them as an important or significant contradiction I make no claim (in the proposed article text) about them being a significant contradiction. Viewing the amount of controversy among editors, and for brevity, I think we best leave it to our readers to decide whether this is significant, or whether one of them was mistaken or lying. As there has been no formal investigation into this, there can be no RS assessing this, and we can only mention that the 9/11 Report ignored the testimony of Mineta. /X
Your objections towards my style are noted, and I am willing to discuss this and other rejoinders you may have, with you on my talk page, if you so wish: but I do not want to confuse the topic here with personal discussions. Hope that is ok for you? /X
I apologize for my remark in answer to PTR above which I'm striking now, it's really not to the point. /X
You claim my edit is laden with POV. The facts are simply facts. When there exists a reliable source that Mineta was mistaken, we should add it. As far as I know, the matter lays unresolved and untreated by reliable sources. These facts are unimportant in one POV, and important in another. Wikipedia should remain neutral, and not take sides here by omitting that half of the facts that the minority POV finds important and that the RS avoid treating. In stead of removing all POV from the article, we may balance it, see: NPOV/FAQ. /X  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The facts are facts — but there are many relevant facts, and many irrelevant facts. Here, you have two irrelevant facts, with only your claim that it is "obvious" they are relevant to the article — when the standard is not what you think is relevant or related, but what reliable sources. You are, once again, trying to insert irrelevant and unimportant facts based solely on your POV that they are in some sense "important". You cannot even find reliable sources which discuss these facts as important to the "minority POV" — all you've got is your own original research and opinions. It's exactly what everyone told you above was wrongheaded, and violates our policies, and here we go again, indeed.--Haemo (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See below.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again... --Tarage (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mineta's timeline has been discussed at length in various places[3], as it contradicts most other peoples' accounts (and occasionally his own recollections, given at different times, contradict each other). Conspiracy theorists ferociously defend his timeline: everyone else is lying and Mineta is a walking atomic clock.

There are also pretty big questions in his recollections. E.g. much of it relies on the plane that was "50 miles out" being the one that hit Pentagon (how did the "young man" who gave the "50 miles out" notification know the destination of the plane?) Others describe a "X miles out" countdown of Flight 93 to Washington. Mineta confusing which plane the "young man" was referring to clears up most of the confusion.

Without reliable sources discussing the possibilities of whose recollection and assumptions are incorrect, making claims about it is WP:OR. Even if two statements are superficially true, putting them next to each other can mislead and make the reader dumber: The moon is yellow. Cheese is yellow. You do the math. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Weregerbil (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Weregerbil! Let me quote some from there, and see if we can use it improve the new section-to-be-included:
CBS: "Within minutes [after crash 2], he was deep under the White House in a secret bunker, joining Vice President Cheney, helping to direct our defense, as the planes kept coming."
9-11 report: At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out.
At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to “engage or “take out” the aircraft.
Mineta, acc. 9-11 hearing 23-5-2003:...aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon...50 miles out ... I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m.
Now, I am confused: crash 4 at Shanksville is estimated between 10:03 and 10:06. This is much later than crash 4. Is there some timezone problem? The suggestion that the dialogues " 80 miles" and "50 miles" are similar and therefore would likely refer to the same event, seems synthesis to me. The whole article you pointed to seems to be a lot of original thought, and synthesis, aimed to arrive at a conclusion. That Mineta witnessed evacuation in progress is not necessarily in contrast with (another?) formal evacuation order at 9:45. We must also consider that any party, including Mineta, could be lying or be mistaken. Has he revoked his testimony? I would really like to include some good RS material into this, but this is just too vague.
I conclude mentioning the testimonies of Mineta and Cheney is not misleading our readers, absent some RS (which then should be added) that Mineta's testimony is false.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As you describe, there appears to be much confusion as to which planes are being talked about at each time. At various times there were even thought to be several more than four hijacked planes. Making claims about them, whether explicitly or by pulling the The moon is yellow. Cheese is yellow. trick, seems pretty clear WP:OR to me. Weregerbil (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We all agree that from those two sentences, it does NOT follow that the moon is made of cheese. (And it would make no sense to put them together, then.)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been saying this to him for literally months. Hopefully you can think of some new, and creative, way to say "this is inappropriate" which will ring some alarm bells. --Haemo (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim I am trying to insert facts which are irrelevant, unimportant, or both. Correct?
Testimony, by members of the White House, on what they were doing on 911, in a paragraph about what was being done, on 911, can hardly be irrelevant. (When you disagree, Haemo, please give a direct guideline quotation for using the average opinion of reliable sources to establish the level of relevance for inclusion into an article.) That leaves the unimportant option. I do not see why this conflicting testimony should be unimportant. It might be. It might be not. So let's include the text. There is a significant minority present who thinks it might be important.
Have you noticed and agreed with the parts about Bush' testimony ?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What important fact are you trying to describe? Weregerbil (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have, repeatedly. "If the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research". If there is a dispute over whether a given fact is related to an article, i.e. if its importance is challenged then it "must be supported by a reliable source". Read your guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first quote appears to be from the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy (you did not mention so). So is your second. You only quote a few words, however, and interpret them wrongly. This is synthesis in interpreting the guidelines, I would say. The whole bit "If there is a dispute over whether a given fact is related to an article" is a fantasy of yours.
Besides that, do you really want me to find a source which says that Norman Mineta's testimony about 911 to the 911 commission is related to 911? It will be difficult for me to find such an exact quote, since most people realise right away that these "might" be related. I must have misunderstood you??  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

hint, you might wanna try this one as well: "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; see below." (same policy)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You might pause to think on this: why might you be yonly one who shares your novel interpretation of guidelines? Numerous people have pointed out why your interpretation is wrong, and why it's contradicted by the guidelines as plainly written — they've even been so kind as to give you examples of the Pandora's Box it would open. The relevance of a fact to a subject can be challenged. Material which is challenged must be supported by reliable sources. You cannot cite sources "directly related to the subject of the article" which support the importance or relevance of the facts listed, ergo, you are engaging in original research.

You have long demonstrated your inability to work within, understand, or interpret Wikipedia's guidelines. Instead, you have attempted to push the same POV on this issue for months on end — attempting many different tacts and arguments to try and get around policies and guidelines. When rebuffed, you have not attempted to understand why you are wrong, or contribute within guidelines. Instead, you go back to the drawing board and try to find another way to circumvent them. This is classic tendentious editing, and it is a waste of time for everyone involved.

So, here's a suggestion for you — all of your suggestions, and arguments, are at odds with policy or guidelines. Do not waste our time with them — go to the relevant policy pages and argue to change the wording there to endorse what you want to do on this article. That is the only way you will gain any traction here, and the only way you can make a suggestion without wasting everyone's time yet again. --Haemo (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish to change any guideline on this. It is WP:COMMON SENSE that we cannot leave out all the arguments from one side when being neutral. The only guideline I am seeking to change in order to be more clear is WP:DUE, because I feel a minimum weight should be more clearly described to avoid debates such as on this page.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I could cite primary sources (for viewpoint B) which cite the Norman Mineta testimony as important (to their view, mind you), and I could cite secondary sources which say the primary sources exist. That more than suffices?
But now this: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (WP:V). So for me to be able to provide the necessary sourcing: would you please define what you are challenging? (more than one is possible, or one I did not think of...)

"Norman Mineta gave the above mentioned testimony"
"his testimony related to 911"
"his testimony is possibly relevant to the whereabouts of Cheney on 911"
"his testimony is correct and true"

I did no research on this myself at all, I just copied the notable research of proponents of view B, which is fully supported by RS. I hope you are not WP:Wikilawyering here? Since you dislike mine, I am rather curious what your approach would be to make the article balanced, giving view B due treatment.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see — I challenge that his testimony has any direct or established relevance or importance to the 9/11 attacks. It is barely a footnote, not more or less important than any of the other millions of footnotes established about that day. You cannot provide any reliable sources which establish it as important to anyone — not even conspiracy theorists. All you have is your original research that it's significant to a sizable minority of people. You claim you "don't want to change any guidelines" and instead argue that common sense supports your edits. It should be clear that when you're the only one arguing for your interpretation, it's not common sense, and you need to get the guidelines changed instead. Also — don't censor my comments. Your conduct on this talk page is directly relevant to this discussion — I am not alone in telling you this, yet you do not heed our warnings. Perhaps you should? --Haemo (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We have one member of government contradicting another on the timeline which is crucial to the matter of why the planes were not intercepted, which could have saved at least 125 Pentagon employees. Not important? You are using WP:LAWYER to deny adding that information, claiming it is not important. You claim that contradicting witness reports are not important: without having yourself a RS for that claim, but asserting I must provide a RS saying, speaking for itsself, it is important, period, not just "might be important" or "is important according to 911-critics", mentioning e.g. Loose Change which does say so. Just because not much RS are willing to stick their necks out and point at this, we cannot add valuable info? This can never be the intent of the guidelines. And you are accusing me of breaking most of them with this edit: SYNTH, RS, OR, V - the lot. We're stuck then.
I am requesting comments from other users on:
"Should the edit be included to make the article more NPOV, or need RS be given themselves agreeing with the (minority) viewpoint that the matter has importance before we can include this? "

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on editors trying to include information to show that it is relevant or important. You have just admitted that you cannot produce reliable sources to support this. That's all that needs to be said on this matter. --Haemo (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. And I am disputing I would need RS to establish importance for inclusion, the NPOV policy mandates it. And here is what Norman Mineta has to say on this (in June 2007): the conversation he overheard was before American Airlines went into the Pentagon. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha, yeah, right. And I would like to include the fact that on September 11 1999, the price of the Treasury's benchmark 30-year bond rose 6.87 1/2 cents per $1000 invested. I can source that factoid to reliable sources too! Neutral point of view demands that we give equal weight to the opinions of my Federal Reserve theory! --Haemo (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Will you take back this bad analogy, or stand by it? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not an "analogy" it's an example of exactly what you are arguing to include, with exactly the same level and type of support. --Haemo (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There exists a significant minority, with prominent adherents, regarding the view that Mineta's testimony is significant. Can you claim the same for your theory? If you can, and your fact is part of that theory, I believe we can include it? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Provide reliable sources supporting this claim. Oh wait, you can't. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The discrepancy between the Commission's report and the Mineta testimony (and the other evidence supporting it) - see this article in "The Canadian": http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/22/02147.html - is important. Something like two years ago, the New York bureau chief of the Washington Post emailed me back, writing "You're absolutely right, someone should have found Minetta [sic] and tried to figure out how he sees and hears Cheney and why the 9/11 Commission ignored him". He also wrote: "I agree that there are many and important unanswered questions and contradictions hanging out there. And I wish that we, the Post, had looked much more carefully at the NORAD/FAA contradictions early on". That amounts to acknowledging that the RS in question had not done everything it should have done to find out the facts. Well, apparently they still haven't asked Mineta or looked at the contradictions. Perscurator (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this sentence is relevant: "In december 2001 the President declared[8] that being in Sarasota, Florida, he had watched the first airplane strike live on television, just prior to entering a classroom to monitor a childrens' reading programme." Bush probably meant that he saw the first tower burning after the strike. Perscurator (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he said he saw the airplane hit the tower, thought "what a terrible pilot", had no time to think about it, and went into the classroom. Where he learned about the second strike, and waited another 5-10 minutes, 'not wanting to disquiet the children'.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be a case of poor recollection or an imprecise expression. Perhaps he just meant that he saw the first tower on fire on TV after the airpline had struck. Perscurator (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it can be caused by almost anything. The point is, it can also be caused by him lying. I'm not saying he is, I'm saying this needs clearing up. And ignoring it is not helping. Someone once claimed that the matter had been cleared, without providing a source though. I would like to have that source, than we can mention that next to his account, and let the reader decide where he is lying and where he is telling the truth. /X 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, when a member of government makes a statement that conflicts with that of another member of government, that is automatically significant for inclusion, even when most reliable sources miss it, suspecting no harm. Even the fact that it is ignored in the final report, makes it more relevant to this article, not less. Like the other thing the report ignored: the fact that WTC7 collapsed. "Just forgot to mention that!" I hear nobody argue that we should remove that collapse from this article? (I am not willing to do so just to make a point, but it would make sense to follow the report on both matters in the same fashion.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is another source for it: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html

America's Chaotic Road to War
Bush's Global Strategy Began to Take Shape in First Frantic Hours After Attack
By Dan Balz and Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 27, 2002; Page A01

If this mention in this article does not make clear its significance for the subject of this article, what would?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

and another SPTimes 4-7-4 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
confusing: zero hits 509 hits with nr 1 being the testimony 22.100 hits of which only 1 RS? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
discussion of David Ray Griffin's video — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
diary of Japanese politician — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no objections. I feel we should include the text. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Minetas testimony is well documented and a notable amount of people regard it as important. It needs to be in the article. --Striver - talk 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I dissagree with everything you just said. --Tarage (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This section was archived by Ice Cold Beer diff at 17:06, 21 March 2008 / — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Florida Executive Order No. 01-262

re: September 11, 2001 attacks#Immediate national response

Where can we find Florida Executive Orders? This order is alleged to have declared a state of emergency, which would not have been lifted. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. I have not looked at that issue in a long time but from what I remember those were long standing orders for hurricanes and things like that that had to be resigned periodically to keep them in effect. The resigning four days before 9/11 aroused suspicion of prior knowledge by Jeb Bush. I would do the usual Google and 9/11 conspiracy websites like 9/11truth.org prisonplanet.com etc. Edkollin (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is probably nothing, but it might be that 01-161 was a general one, and 01-162 was related to 911? So if anyone knows whether these are published on the web...?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda?

Shouldn't we be saying that it's believed that Al Qaeda were responsible, not that they ARE? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 01:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, no. AQ claimed credit and no one else has. No reasonable argument has been made otherwise, only wild conjecture. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should say "it's believed" rather than that they ARE. In fact, every fact in WP which is disputed should be reported that way. It's really up to the people that believe one story or the other to insist that WP represent their beliefs as FACT rather than belief, if they feel that it is helpful to readers. But really, who, besides BQZip01, believes that doing that encourages people to educate themselves? So change it. I'll support you. Where is the spirit of sticking it to the man, guys? Dscotese (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on "sticking it to the man", it is based on reliable sources who report the responsibility of Al Qaeda as fact. --Haemo (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources report the responsibility of Al Qaeda as fact. However there is no undisputed evidence of responsibility. What takes precedence? RS or facts? Wayne (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no indisputed evidence that the moon is not made of cheese. Verifiability, not truth. --Haemo (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We use RS for sourcing OUR statements. For sourcing facts, and for sourcing opinions. Not for presenting their opinion as a fact. (That's how I see it, but perhaps not the other editors on this page.)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So is it Osama bin Ladin's opinion that he was behind it? --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversial claims should always be attributed, so you are absolutely right. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is al-Qaida's responsibility for the attacks really such a controversial claim? Only in the sense that proponents of fringe beliefs assert that the mainstream view is controversial. Fortunately, the question is moot: there is already a reference in the article for it. Currently it's reference #2, and it's in the second sentence of the lead. I'm surprised no-one noticed it before now. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a controversial claim, it's just a CLAIM, and not a FACT as far as I can tell. Many people CLAIM to have seen elvis recently, many people CLAIM to have killed JFK. None of them however have provided proof, and that is exactly what seems to be lacking in this case. It has nothing to do with "fringe beliefs", it's just a wording issue. The reference doesn't prove anything, it just supports my initial question. Maybe they did do it, maybe they didn't, I don't really give a damn, I'm just trying to support wikipedia by bringing possible errors to the editors' attention. If someone can show that it's been proven they were responsible then fine, keep it how it is, if not then lets change it. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that while you'll be hard-pressed to find reliable sources asserting that Elvis is still alive, we have scads of sources discussing al-Qaeda's involvement. The belief that the 19 hijackers were in fact not responsible for the collapse of the towers is indeed a fringe theory, and is treated as such. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"the question is moot: there is already a reference" (Sheffield, above) The point is not whether or not the claim is made, the point is whether it is an 'undisputed fact' or a 'claim'. A RS which treats it as "undisputed fact" does not make it one. When large parts of the world, even in America, even former ministers of G8 countries, doubt it, it is logically a (disputable) claim. So the starter of this topic, Badharlick, is right. And the article needs fixing. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can show a significant quorum of reliable sources supporting the view that it is not a fact, then your point has some merit. Otherwise, you're just pushing undue weight with an appeal to authority to attempt to shore up your argument. --Haemo (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: Are you now making the statement that there is no significant minority?
By the way, here are some that describe the debate without asserting it is a fact: (I guess it is not often that RS would explicitely state that something is not a fact but disputed, more implicitely. The most vocal was the Zembla documentairy.)
1. Trouw 31-7-2006 (Dutch)
2. NOS 20-5-5 (Dutch)
3. Volkskrant, gepubliceerd op 07 juni 2006 15:34, bijgewerkt op 31 augustus 2006 16:49 (Dutch)
4. Zembla 09-2006 (Dutch)
5. RTL 2006 (Dutch)
6. Telegraaf 25-6-2006 (Dutch)
7. Over 40% doubts who was behind 911 (Flemish)
8. 21 augustus 2007 (Flemish)
Here is Google translate: click.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some foreign language sources which you must rely on machine translation to read. Oh, they don't dispute the mainstream opinion — they just don't explicitly say it is a fact. Sounds good to me! --Haemo (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ZEMBLA asserted that Danny Jowenko, a leading demolition expert, had no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished. They went on to provide no evidence or suggestion that or why or how he might be mistaken in this opinion. They suggested he was right. Is this not the same as expressing doubt at the official version implicitely?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, if a news source says "So and so claims X" without immediately refuting X, the news source is reporting that they endorse or believe X. I think even you can see the problem with that. --Haemo (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not hold against you that you cannot follow me here, since you are no Dutch speaker, and cannot check the nuances of tone yourself.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just note that if you have to rely on "tone" to get an endorsement, you're probably stretching. --Haemo (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Trouw article: Maker Kees Schaap maakte onlangs in deze krant duidelijk dat hij de samenzweringstheorieën niet zonder meer afwijst.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat and not for the first time^{attempted consensus point 4 / Stop this. The list you have made has nothing to do...} my question above:
Question: Are you now making the statement that there is no significant minority? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me handle that, no....there is no significant minority. You haven't shown one, and repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it so. A short list of sources you read meaning into does not a significant minority make. RxS (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating that, RxS. But I would like to know Haemo's opinion. (You're not his PR spokesperson, are you?)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I wrote a FAQ to answer this one... --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not, please answer my question in the Andreas von Bülow issue section related to this, thanks. RxS (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, can someone show me the proof that they were responsible?▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) And by the way, I believe that moon rocks have proven that the moon is not made entirely of cheese. ;) ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of proving things, we report what reliable sources say, and they are pretty unanimous on this point. RxS (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you leave out the parts they report and of which you think they think it is not important. The RS are assuming the mainstream account, not proving it, and it should be attributed. If they had proved it, they would have dealt extensively with Osama bin Laden writing with the wrong hand, Mineta contradicting Cheney, 3 ministers questioning the account, etc. They assume and thus we should attribute.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources report...."Proof" or "Truth" doesn't enter into it. If you think reliable sources are leaving things out you need to take it up with them. Perhaps that's the source of your confusion. RxS (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We have to correctly report all that they report, and attribute it as they often do. We mustn't copy the editorials which, for brevity alone, would take the mainstream account for granted.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: You think we landed on the moon?! --Haemo (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda's claim to responsibility should be mentioned as just that (Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks). What is the problem with saying it in that fashion? There are similar terrorists attacks (e.g. Ahvaz bombings in Iran), in which dozens of terrorist organizations took claim for those attacks. Certainly we can't PROVE which one actually was responsible, but the most noteworthy case should be given its proper weight per WP:POV. Wikipedia does not give undue weight to fringe theories. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks" ... well, even that is debated, since they also denied it, and there are confession video's around in which bin Laden writes with the wrong hand.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the links?

Why are there no links to discussion of the conspiracy theories in the Conspiracy Theory section? They're all listed (I think) under 9/11 Truth Movement. I'll add that link. Dscotese (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The very first link in that section is to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. --Haemo (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"not including the 19 hijackers"

A line currently says "There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board of the hijacked aircrafts survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon." Wouldn't it be better to say that "There were 2,993 fatalities: 265 on the four planes (including the 19 hijackers. No one on board of the hijacked aircrafts survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon."

Were the hijackers not fatalities and did they not die on the aircraft? What is the point if exluding them from the list of deaths? JayKeaton (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. But we would always mention them separetely in either case, to be clear to the reader whether we were counting them.
The present wording is justified because according to the widely believed official versions, the hijackers intended to die for their cause. In any army clash, you would name casualties on both sides separately, not together. (Which is a shame, in a sense, because they were all human lives, also the alleged hijackers. And since some of the pilots among the hijackers could hardly fly, it is not impossible that they themselves too might have been hijacked and killed innocently.) But to be realistic, I think it can stay like it is, for the time being.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe those weren't even planes. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Several of the official FBI hijackers* are still alive so they should not be added to the death toll:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa Why include them in the death toll if they are still slive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

DUDE. Give it a freakin' rest, and try to keep up. Here's a more recent roundup on that and many 9/11 issues by the same BBC as who released that report within the first two weeks after the attacks: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html Your information is old, out of date, and it doesn't belong here. --75.178.92.119 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know the BBC was under (some) intelligence oversight?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Andreas von Bülow issue

proposed insertion point: conspiracy theories section
proposed text (amend, please)

proposal, version 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Andreas von Bülow, arguing in his book that the US government mounted the September 11 attacks in a plot to win global domination, has gone further than Michael Meacher, Tony Blair's former environment minister, who was widely criticised for claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. Von Bülow, a former research minister in the German government, believes that September 11, when more than 3,000 people died, was staged to justify the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.^[1]

references preview (only the last one counts)

^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/20/wbulo20.xml Telegraph, 20 Nov 2003

note: still to do

add the French minister of Housing and her opinion. Any comments? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not add this to 9/11 conspiracy theories instead? --Haemo (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because WP:NPOV says this article should be balanced. Of course, it can/should also be included over there.

Yukihisa Fujita, a member of Japan's second largest political party, questions the Japanese efforts in the War on Terror because of the many questions that remain about the September 11 attacks.[4] [5]

Let's see. Perhaps you can tell why this material is inappropriate for the article? I'm sure you can but don't care — after all, undue weight is just a pesky sidenote which have decided you can ignore. --Haemo (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to troll ... it's not befitting an admin.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a vain attempt to stop myself from going insane by repeating myself over and over again. --Haemo (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is what a former German research minister (whatever that is) said 4 years ago relevant here? RxS (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this same question first in the section below, and answered it there. You may copy your question and answer to here, if you prefer.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph article also includes this text:-

“

In more than 271 speculative pages, full of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes", the lawyer weaves his own version of the world-changing events. In it the Arab hijackers were creations of the CIA and were not even told that the planes were to be used as weapons.

The World Trade Centre collapsed due to explosives, not the impact of the Boeings; no planes flew into the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania; and mobile phone calls made by those on the latter flight were simulated by the CIA.

”

If you're going to quote a source, it's important to fairly represent what the source says, and the tone it takes. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, I was not arguing that the telegraph supported his view, only that it noted his view. If you think the criticism of his work by this Kate Connolly in Bonn needs to be in the article, feel free. Unless someone has a RS that he has left his viewpoint (which he has not) we should include his view and Meachers in the article, just for balance' sake. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph portrays his views as being distinctly non-mainstream - one could almost say, on the fringe. But that is beside the point. His views fall squarely into the "conspiracy theory" category, and as such should be included (assuming WP:V and WP:N are demonstrated) in that article, not this. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of POV tags - again

Dear friends, fellow wikipedians,

you can wikilawyer all you like: removing this sourced material (#Andreas von Bülow issue) makes the article even more extreme POV. I also object to the removing of the POV tags.

The text which was removed before I placed the tags did not begin to balance this article. What do you want with this article? A total fantasy, copying the fantasies we read in the newspapers, who omit all the facts they themselves had once painstakingly dug up, and then conveniently forgotten? Do you want to just repeat what authority says, stifeling dissent as in the USSR or in China? With editors such as you, we need not fear any government dictatorship. You, the people, are the proletarian dictatorship already. It is sad that you think you are upholding policy this way. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

guideline quote

Shortcut

WP:SYN

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. [...]

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one wikilawyering is you. Numerous people have told why your insertion of this material is wrong. You have ignored this. But, feel free to rant some more about about we're "suppressing dissent" and become a dictatorship akin to China or the USSR. It might surprise you to realize that policy is not designed to support your crusade, and relies on reliable sources — no matter how much you think they are biased and suppress the facts. --Haemo (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy has a purpose. Omitting half of the relevant evidence can never be the purpose in a scientific process which writing an encyclopia is. And numerous people stating the same agreed upon misinterpretation of policy is not policy. It's noise.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, what's noise is the hundreds of thousands of bytes of policy-violations you have tried to pass off as a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines — which plain English, and numerous other editors have told is wrong. You take the facile, and telling, opinion that if there are two viewpoints on an issue, that both have "half the relevant evidence" and should be given equal weight — once again merely demonstrating that you still don't understand what undue weight means. But, then again, you've never balked before at displaying classically tendentious editing practices. In the light of this, you might reflect on the notion that purpose of policy is to prevent people from pushing their POV on Wikipedia — which might explain why you're having such problems inserting the Truth™ into articles. --Haemo (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

pushing their POV... Maybe this is an appropriate time to ask you what the POV of the current article is, and whether you believe that to be NPOV compliant?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you know my answer to that. --Haemo (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not ask if I knew. So: is the POV a) neutral b) that the government account is true c) that there was an inside job (obviously not) or d) something else. And question 2: how do you reconcile (b) with NPOV, if that is your answer.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be (a). --Haemo (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I correctly interpret that as "the article is WP:NPOV representing, fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." ? If so, at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that what Xiutwel meant by "half the relevant evidence" was that it is unacceptable to completely ignore one side of a controversy. This does not necessarily mean that both sides should get equal weight. You have misrepresented what he said.

That knowledge, as it is disseminated by whomever constitute "reliable sources" in a given society, is partly shaped by political considerations should not come as a surprise to people who think deeply about questions of fairness in these matters. In fact, by way of example, I have just been reading Karl Popper on how Hegel, in his opinion, was a charlatan who only became influential because his writings served the interests of the Prussian state. Interestingly, this was in the same book as Popper's rejection of the "conspiracy theory of society" which is cited in the conspiracy theory article to support the argument that "conspiracy theories" are automatically invalid. Michel Foucault took this further and said, in effect, that power is truth. Foucault's critique has been one of the most influential elements of postmodern thought and should therefore be taken very seriously. Constitutionally of course, Wikipedia has difficulty dealing with the politicisation of thought and knowledge because of the problems it brings up about how to balance articles. Nevertheless there would be absolutely nothing wrong in at least being willing to acknowledge and discuss the issue with a view to seeing what can be done to address this dilemma. The fact that you and so many other editors are completely unwilling to do this suggests very strongly that it is you who are POV pushing at least as much as those others you so liberally accuse of trying to push their own agenda. ireneshusband (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there really isn't a controversy. No political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. There's one here of course, but that doesn't count.

Your comments about fairness, politics and power as regards to Wikipedia belong in a more general discussion space, the Village Pump or the mailing list maybe. RxS (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A national poll taken during the summer found that 16 percent of Americans believed hidden explosives aided the collapse of the buildings. More than a third believed the U.S. government instigated the attacks or decided not to stop them.

That's why scientist Thomas W. Eagar, initially reticent, is willing to do interviews now.

"I've told people that if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate," said Eagar, a materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It is getting more mainstream, and Steve Jones is responsible for that."[6]

Your friend Haemo seems to think very highly of Thomas Eagar's credentials as a reliable source, so no doubt you do too. Obviously Eagar seems to think there is a controversy involving, among other things, a difference of opinion between himself and another academic. Therefore please do not repeat yet again your absurd claim that there is "no controversy at all" among "reliable sources" or "relevant academic community". The world and his dog know that this is untrue and it is shameful that I should ever have had to produce a "reliable source" to prove something so obvious.

As for what you say about my comments regarding power: No, they do not belong elsewhere. Wikipedia policy already has some provisions for dealing with such issues in the way that I have suggested. They are Common sense and Ignore all rules. If you have good reason to think that common sense has no place here, then please explain yourself. ireneshusband (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"My Friend Haemo"? If you can't keep the snark out of this conversation you should withdraw. You claim there is controversy among reliable sources but you don't produce any evidence (not debunking). What is a shame is how uncivil you insist this debate is. I'll repeat: There isn't a controversy. No political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. Bottom line, no significant amount of reliable sources (political, academic, or scientific) take any of the conspiracy theories seriously enough to debate amongst themselves whether there is any truth behind them. There is no controversy here, no matter how many times you assert there is.

As far as Thomas Eagar goes, one voice does not make it a controversy. Polls don't make a controversy. We report what reliable sources and the relevant academic community reports, not what the man on the street thinks. RxS (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not one man, it's thousands of prominent people. That does not prove them right, ofcourse, I agree. Then, can you answer these two questions for me:

Where in policy does it say that, for us to give it adequate treatment, a significant minority view must be held by an academic community, where so simple a thing as the integrity of a government is concerned? All I read in policy is that an opinion is significant when it's easy to name prominent adherents.
Where does it say we may not use primary sources, once independent reliable sources have acknowledged the existence of a minority viewpoint?

For what purpose are you fighting us? We only want to give fair, not even equal, treatment to a minority view. As policy prescribes.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

details in the conspiracy theories section, yes or no?

How come, Haemo, you allow sourced details pro debunking but you do not allow sourced details pro conspiracy theories? Is that not against NPOV ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a debunking, it explains the relevant opinions on the theories. Summary style encourages this explicitly. --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is the difference with mentioning two former ministers who oppose their view? Are their opinions not relevant? And the anonymous experts nobody ever heard of are relevant? Can you explain?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Read summary style. The section is supposed to summarize the subarticle, and (as the lead does on the article) it includes the important objections to these theories. The views of the majority of engineers are explicitly mentioned in the lead of the subarticle. The two former ministers are not. --Haemo (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The views of the majority of engineers are NOT explicitly mentioned. The text says "the structural engineering literature" and refers to Bazant's article, which is the view of a single structural engineer and does not address the opinions of others, but only that of the paper's authors. I have tried to address this problem in the past, but someone has reverted it. Dscotese (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Haemo, for drawing our attention to WP:SUMMARY. It says,

Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.

which means that the tiny little paragraph assigned to "conspiracy theories" in the main article, as opposed to the much lengthier treatment given to other aspects of the topic, is completely inadequate and unacceptable. So now that that is clear, which is it going to be? Do we beef up "conspiracy theories" into a decently sized, self-standing subsection? Or do we cut the rest of the article to bits and farm it out into lots more subarticles, leaving the main article as little more than a collection of empty stubs? ireneshusband (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's coverage is about right, as I keep saying there is no debate among reliable sources nor is there an academic or public/political controversy. It's coverage on this page is about right. No one has shown that it justifies any more coverage, and I'm sure they would have if they could have. Your appeal to WP:SUMMARY is unfounded. RxS (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that that is not true. There are plenty of reliable sources. You yourself are in the middle of an argument concerning Andreas von Bülow, a former German government minister under Helmut Schmidt with experience in both defense and intelligence who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Therefore you clearly know of at least one reliable source. You are also well aware of the controversy concerning Steve Jones. There are countless other examples. I can even point you to articles in the Daily Mail, of all things, that take alternative accounts of 9/11 seriously. Please do not repeat this ridiculous claim again. ireneshusband (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are sources that report on this as a cultural phenomena and that a tiny number of government employees believe this stuff doesn't mean there's a significant debate among RS, experts working in their field or in political or journalistic circles. When you find someone from the mainstream you really hang on for dear life. But in any case I'm done with your incivil attitude... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 05:45, 8 March 2008

I have the impression, RxS, that you feel that our guidelines require there to be a significant minority of experts, and that a general group of people would not suffice to have a significant minority in the sense of WP:NPOV. Am I correct? If so, can you quote a sentence or so from a guideline where you base this idea on, or not? And in any case, my impression is that there are plenty of experts who raise questions from their expertise.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate. RxS (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh.. ok, I will go and add the edit in the subarticle first, then. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
done. So can we now agree to include both or delete both from the Summery style section ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, why is the 4 year old opinion of a former research minister relevant? RxS (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, this wasn't a rhetorical question, thanks. RxS (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? He still holds the opinion. (I met him in 2006 in fact. Where he also admitted, he would never have said anything about it whilst in office.) A counter question: a thought experiment. Suppose the President came forward and admitted advanced knowledge. Suppose the press reported that, litterally in all the newspapers. And suppose then, after that, no member of Congres, no journalist ever asked him another question about it. Just business as usual. Would this article be allowed to mention that fact, without the RS to support its ongoing significance?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant speculation: this scenario you just described has not taken place, and any analysis of it would be pure conjecture which varied from person to person. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what a thought experiment is. Something more abstract, less political, then: suppose the Geological Society issues a press release in January 2009 that the Earth is flat. And suppose no one ever mentions that again in any RS, after the first reporting. Would Wikipedia be allowed to include this fact, or no?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Private conversations don't have any meaning here, so...why is the 4 year old opinion of a former research minister relevant? RxS (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is there a Wikipedia policy only you know about that says we can only cite the opinions of people if they have publicly reaffirmed the opinion in question within the last year or so? Would this rule apply to the opinions of people who are dead? ireneshusband (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 parts to the question, what is an opinion of a former research minister relevant relevant? And is it still relevant after 4 years in an article about the current situation. So, stated another way, is the 4 year old opinion of a minor government official relevant? RxS (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A former minister is a prominent person, that's why it's relevant. It's not some ultra wing politician or attic conspiracy writer. I believe he was also in the department of defense, and in a Parliamentary commission on the Intelligence agencies of East and West Germany, so he is also an expert in related fields. /X
He is still a prominent adherent of the sig-min-view. He is quoted. The is interviewed. The fact that he is an old man and not very active such as Alex Jones does not make his opinion less relevant. /X

Does my answer satisfy your question? I am not saying he makes no mistakes, just that his existence is important for readers to make up their mind about what these theories are all about.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, von Bülow is a former minister-secretary for defense and a member of the committee that deals with intelligence. He is therefore very well-qualified to comment on the plausibility of the official 9/11 story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireneshusband (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he wasn't a defense minister. He worked in the defense ministry. Not sure what a "minister-secretary" is. And why is his opinion more important than the 192 defense ministers who haven't written a crackpot book? --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that function is just below minister; in responsibility re defense it is almost the same, there are just some meetings you are not going to be part of.
And about the 192 ministers that did not write a book: what about the 5.999.999.999 people besides Von Bülow that never wrote his book? Your argument seems to have no merit, unless state that he voices a minority opinion, on which we were already in agreement?
You have every right to reagard his book as "crackpot" personally, but I hope you agree that Wikipedia should not call his book crackpot; citing people who call it crackpot is all we could do. OK?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...conspiracy theories section / arbitrary talksection break

What I find really strange is that in a so tiny section about "conspiracy theories" about 30% of the space is given to the alleged opinion of the community of the ingeneer about a particular specific theory that is even not cited at all!! I mean: it is correct to not cite this specific theory alone because it is not a relevant or prominent theory and if we cite it we should also cite other more relevant ones. But if we have correctly decided not to mention that theory it makes no sense to cite opinions about it.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, that's one of the reasons I thought is should be balanced or removed. It is a rebuttal of a censored theory, really.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed unless we decide to have a more detailed section mentioning that particular theory and therefore all the other claims that are more relevant.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is now protected, we'll need a consensus on whether or not to include the POV tags that Xiutwel added and which were removed by Haemo, Strangelove, Mongo, and some others. So who feels that NPOV is not disputed in the Conspiracy Theories and Immediate National Response section. If you feel that it is not disputed, please explain away my own and Xiutwel's contention that those sections do not have a neutral enough POV to be left without the tag. Dscotese (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because when you say "those sections do not have a neutral enough POV", what you really mean is that they don't have enough CT content. For that to be true, there would have to be a genuine controversy about it within reliable sources. There isn't. To repeat myself: There isn't a controversy. No political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. So there is no need for POV tags. To add them would be (and is) POV pushing. RxS (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they have enough CT content. Missing are facts that are not explained by the mainstream account. The minority viewpoint can generally be characterized as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which holds some conspiracy theories, so I can see how you make the connection. However, whether you consider mention of unexplained facts as "CT content" or "Mysteries of the 9/11 attacks" doesn't matter. The POV dispute is that there are two conflicting viewpoints (mainstream is right vs mainstream is incomplete/wrong) and one of them is not represented as well as it should be. I suppose that finding a consensus about that means getting around those whose POV is the better represented one. Dscotese (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But the only dispute we'd recognize is one reported by reliable sources. That's why I keep pointing out there is no dispute of that nature. If this was about Health care or the war in Iraq then there would be debate to report on. But in this case there isn't. There isn't a "mainstream is right vs mainstream is incomplete/wrong" dichotomy, because it doesn't exist among reliable sources...not in academia, public/political debate, not among experts working in their fields. If they don't report it, we don't report it. No matter how much you think the mainstream is wrong about something...that's not why we're here. We report the "POV" of mainstream reliable sources (including significant minority positions). CT is not a significant minority position because minority positions show up in public/political debate, in reliable sources or the relevant academic communities. There is no CT debate in any of those areas. RxS (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy, if you look closely at the Conspiracy Theories section, you will see the following: "Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories" and if you click on the latter portion, you will be taken to the article covering that topic. There's no need to worry about us not including enough material on conspiracy theories. It's all in that article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not worrying about including enough material: I was disagreeing about how the few material in this page about the topic was choosen. It clearly makes no sense (from a nattarive point of view) to cite the objections to a particular (not necessarily relevant) theory without citing the theory itself. Don't you agree about this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The material that's here is the first and last paragraph of the lead of the CT article. As it stands, that's a good approach to providing a summary of another article. However, I see your point about controlled demolition. I think the solution is to remove the phrase "rather than controlled demolition" from the summary paragraph. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is completely meaningless to attach the first and last phrase without considering the relevance of them in the context. And your suggestion to remove the phrase "rather than controlled demolition" would make things even worse: not only we are citing a phrase debunking a particular theory (that seems also to be reciving undue weight in this summary) but we *completely* erase any possible reference to the theory!! I can't imagine anything worse than that: that phrase would seem to be completely pointless in that context.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) OK, how about this? Taking the lead of the 911CT article, and trying to provide a concise and fair summary, I get this: "Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. Some claim that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately not shot down, or that it did not crash into the Pentagon. The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers." Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this at least makes sense!! :)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed new wording.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

reverse method

May be we can reverse the process: in stead of making some balanced text, and arguing over the validity of its sources, let's turn it around. We have this documentary of Dutch TV txt NL which interview Meacher and Von Bülow. English subtitles are provided. We could then attribute all the claims that are made in it directly to the speakers, and then include the summery of this video into the article. How would that be? This solves WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOR - did I miss any? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response from those that opposed the previous two issues... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Or this one:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.

http://securingamerica.com/node/692

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been out of commission with work the last few days, and have lost track of your comments. This seems to be related to other recent proposals that are still under discussion above. Inserting so many proposals simultaneously, or very close together, and in so many subsections is really confusing and probably limits the number of responders you will get, and the number of people who will understand fully what you are asking. You should probably consider revising your delivery method. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're on that subect, you might also try to reduce the number of horizonal breaks. They can confuse people further. Thanks, Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, I was referring to the inclusions of these texts, especially the final one:

#passport issue (2)
#Norman Mineta testimony issue
#Andreas von Bülow issue

 Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't Comspiracy Theories section link to the 9/11 Truth Movement?

The beginning of the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article says this at the beginning of the second paragraph:

Many of the conspiracy theories have been voiced by members of the "9/11 Truth Movement," a name adopted by organizations and individuals who question the mainstream account of the attacks.

Certainly, the 9/11 Truth Movement should be mentioned and linked to in the summary, no? Since Haemo provided no reason for claiming that my addition gives undue weight, I'm reverting his revert. Haemo, if you'd like to revert for undue weight, please only revert the edits that you feel violate undue weight rather than previous ones that address other issues, such as the removal of POV tags. Dscotese (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't (and can't) speak for everyone who believes in this stuff. It'd be undue weight to single them out, bordering on promotion. RxS (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And why is being able to speak for everyone who believes in this stuff an important qualification for inclusion in the summary but not the main sub-article? Do you think the sub article itself should also not mention or link to the 9/11 Truth Movement? What others are there that could be included in order not to single them out? Dscotese (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the section discusses the theories generally. --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't even be mentioned there. Remind me to fix that, thanks. RxS (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I read it correctly, the 9/11 T.M. article is not on a single organisation, but on the whole phenomenon of all these organisations together. In that sense we should link to that as well. I am not sure whether we should merge the two articles, but that is not a discussion for here. So I would prefer we link to both articles, but more directly. I object to the current version of saying "have emerged" and then linking to the movement: that is confusing to me, and I suppose to other readers. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xiutwel, I had assumed Strangelove was correct about 911TM not speaking for everyone who believes this stuff. Strangelove, please review the article we're talking about and explain, if you still feel that way, how the "movement" cannot be said to speak for everyone who believes it. I mean, is there some group that is questioning the mainstream account and insists that it is not part of the 911 Truth Movement? Dscotese (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that everyone who believes in CT self identifies with 911TM? Because they can't just claim to speak for everyone. RxS (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A movement is a rather vague concept. It's akin to: "conservatives". Would everyone who hold ideas we would call "conservative" call themselves "part of the conservatives"? Certainly not. We should use wording which avoids such confusion, indeed. Good point.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection status, 3 March NPOV revert war

Having had a forced wikibreak, I did not notice the revert war prior to now. We still have 4 days left till March 10 to reach consensus.

I say: we should write balanced articles. That means that significant minority views get fair and proportionate treatment. That means that the debate "outthere" is described fairly, not engaged in. Just prior to the revert war I made some changes which are now not in the frozen version. I feel we need to include them, to make the article a little more balanced, and a little less POV. I disagree with Haemo that it would be neutral now, and I disagree with RxS that there would be no debate (outside wikipedia). I propose to:

include the passport issue, mentioning that it was reported found both before and after the collapse;
include the Norman Mineta, Bush, Cheney testimony issue;
rewrite at least the lead, not stating the guilt lies with Al Qaeda as a fact, but attibuting that allegation;
include further relevant information, such as whistleblower (lawsuits), e.g. Sibel Edmonds, John O'Neill, Anthony Shaffer; FBI statements on Osama's involvement; pools of molten metal; tapes seized or destroyed; etc. etc.

How much of these facts to include, we must discuss here. I say it does no harm to dedicate a paragraph or so per section to the minority view.

All of these facts above are no conspiracy theories^{(neutral meaning intended)}, but they are agreed upon facts, as recorded by reliable sources. They just happen to be ignored by a lot of people, but so is the spin of electrons. Including these facts is not POV pushing, but restoring NPOV; not OR or SYNTHESIS or UNDUE weight, but fair treatment and good editing. I call upon those editors that have an agenda other than upholding the policy and the purpose behind it, to change their ways and only revert non-encyclopedic POV pushing by inexperienced editors. I agree that is indeed needed, and I would never find the time to do so all by myself, so I need your help with that. But you cannot block edits which are improving the article, according to policy.

Haemo, when you state the article is neutral, I am confused; would you please respond to my question "If so, at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view?"

RxS, when you say that there is no debate among all those people that you take seriously, I suppose you are right in that. Next to that, however, is a large minority with prominent adherents. We are bound to give them fair and proportionate treatment.

Especially, we need not rely on reliable sources to make the case on behalf of the minority viewpoint in stead of the prominent spokespersons for the minority viewpoint themselves. Once the RS have named prominent spokespersons, we are allowed to use their own books, video's and websites for their own opinion. We have to accept that there is a systemic bias in the reliable sources, which makes them unsuited for this purpose. Using primary sources is not OR, when secondary sources cannot be found we may use it. And it would only be synthesis when we juxtapose unrelated facts, changing their meaning and/or making them seem related. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are finding this frustrating but we must use reliable sources as written in WP:RS, otherwise anything could be included in the encyclopedia and this would make it more than useless. Reliable sources are those that are known for verification - other sources, such as websites, videos etc., are not. In unverified sources people can write their opinions without having a it verified by fact checkers.
Second, it is difficult to put in two disparate facts without resorting to synthesis. You've done it above with the "Cheney said but Mineta testified" part of the paragraph you want included. This is synthesis, since the second part of the sentence is always going to show as a denial of the first part it gives a wikipedia opinion that Cheney is not to be believed.
Third, a few prominent people have talked about 9/11 (Bulow, Blair, Charlie Sheen, Puten, Bobby Fischer) and their opinions are just their opinions. If we start putting in all 9/11 opinions the article would become overrun with them and would become unreadable - and we would first have to find reliable sources that show that a person's opinion is relevent. Fourth, the Al-Qaeda part of the article is attributed to too many sources to attribute it without writing a four page paragraph so there are references where readers can go to read more.
Finally, this is not the only 9/11 article and the editors here have been trying to keep it to the events of the day with summaries of other articles with links leading to subarticles. Other information has been moved to subarticles to provide more information. This is, of course, just my take on the situation. Others may disagree. Again, sorry for your frustration - now I'm back on enforced wiki-break which I seem to be breaking. - PTR

Good points, PTR, thanks. (a) I believe noone is debating we should have RS for the facts we want to include. Secundary sources are best, but we can use primary sources for such things as opinions where no Secondary source can be found. We should not ofcourse include opinions of people who never made it into the RS in the first place. But at the moment, nobody is using primary sources to include the opinions as text into the article, only to convince other editors that certain bits of text have merit for inclusion.
Synthesis is the joining of seperate text, while altering its meaning. Juxtaposing conflicting testimony is not altering any meaning of any testimony. And, in no way does it follow from the inserted text that Cheney's testimony is the one that's wrong. (Some editors above even believed Mineta was too old to get his facts straight.)
I feel the majority opinion should be attributed, e.g. to the White House, and it would make sense to name the most prominent, most well known advocates of the minority opinion as well. The alternative would be vague sentences such as "there exist people who claim that the officially accepted account may be wrong in some respects."
As for sub-articles are concerned: as long as this article makes statements about the events as factual when they are in fact disputed by a large minority, I will feel the need to balance that. Subarticles cannot balance the main article. You are correct of course that we should not include things in the summary texts which are not in the summarized article.

Thank you for your concern about my frustration, I appreciate that! I'm doing well, even when I would like it when the road to consensus were shorter.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you are only forcing editors to repeat what has been repeated to you many times before. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Heres a couple of reliable sources that do conclude that "Cheney is not to be believed". Scoop The Mineta Testimony: 9/11 Commission Exposed and Opednews Norman Mineta Proves Cheney Lied About 9/11. As for the passports....it is NOTABLE that in an accident where four "indestructible" black boxes and two cockpit voice recorders were presumed destroyed, four and only four passports were recovered from the wreckage of the planes....four crashes and a passport from each, all belonging to hijackers. What it means is anyones guess but it has to be notable. This RS, Uncle Sam's lucky finds, comments that "never in the history of modern warfare has so much (evidence) been found so opportunely" and that the finds "tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism. Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence (regarding the finding of evidence)". This should all be in the article. The problem here is that anything that has been used to support CT's is excluded which is not a valid reason to do so as it only strengthens their position. Truth is it's own defense. Wayne (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources for establishing anything other than the writer's opinion — they're both op-ed columns, the first explicitly written by a 9/11 Truth Movement member. These are only useful as sources for those particular people's opinions, as they explain in their columns. --Haemo (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, in your opinion, what are the best pieces of evidence that can be included in the article which support the contention that the official version of what happened that day is inaccurate? Can you find a reliable source that indicates the presence of molten metal in the rubble heap, days after the towers collapsed? Which of the following two pieces of evidence makes the strongest case that the official version is incomplete or wrong?:

WTC 7 collapsed, but the NIST report does not mention it.
There is a photo of a fireman with a severed support column in the background in which the break is not jagged or torn or deformed, but straight, at a remarkably acute angle.

I suspect that you'd be very good answering any of these questions, but that you won't answer any of them. I don't understand why this would be, but your contribution history seems to back it up. Do you think that these pieces of evidence should be excluded from the article simply because they support various conspiracy theories which you consider to be baseless drivel? Dscotese (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had sources, I would provide them. I don't, and apparently no one else does either. I don't debate theories on this page because that's not what it's here for. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: 'They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. "New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster" (PDF). the structural engineer. 80: 6. September 3, 2002. I can get you others if that would help. Dscotese (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this shows, or why I should care about it. --Haemo (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

DScotese: Can you find a reliable source that indicates the presence of molten metal in the rubble heap, days after the towers collapsed?

Haemo: If I had sources, I would provide them. I don't, and apparently no one else does either.

DScotese: Here you go: 'They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal...

Perhaps you were answering one of my other questions? Dscotese (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you meant why this is relevant, which I remain mystified towards. --Haemo (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no significant minority view within reliable sources regarding this topic. There is no debate that reliable sources takes seriously. Cherry picking "facts" is synthesis. And there is no "large minority" that buys into conspiracy theory. This is becoming slightly silly when you folks bring up 6 year old opinion pieces as your justification for adding factoids. We've been over this...you make the same assertions and ask the same questions, you get the same answers back. And until you show that there is a significant debate among WP:RS about this, or that there is a significant minority in the relevant academic community that takes it seriously you'll always be getting the same answers. Because those are the debates and minorities we report on. RxS (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A fact is not a "view". A fact must be inserted if it is informative in the context and there is a reliable source that certifies its truth. The "notability" of a fact is not decided by reliable sources: reliable sources allow to write things, they don't forbid. Citing WP:SYN is completely inappropriate: it doesn't say that something must not be said if is can *eventually* be used to reach an original conclusion, it just speak about the *way* to present the material, not about *which* material can or cannot be presented in order to avoid possible deductions.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is predicated on minority "views". At the very top you'll find this: That means that significant minority views get fair and proportionate treatment. What's happening here is that people want to included what they claim are facts to "balance" this article (they really mean insert a POV but that's another subject). I don't know what "context" there is in this article that would make anything about passports informative (besides, as I say including something that CT holds up as evidence for some nefarious explanation of events). But that's not even where you're most wrong. When you say a fact "must" be included if it's true by RS and it's informative. Well, you're right about the first. But judging what's informative is where POV sneaks in. No RS thinks the passport issue is informative enough to spend any time on, no RS thinks pools of molten metal is meaningful in any real sense. These are factoids that people want to include to push a POV, not because reliable sources think they mean anything. Bottom line, a single fact may not be a view but a collection of them, picked the right way can absolutely be a view (or promote one in this case). RxS (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What a reliable source thinks to be informative is not our problem. We must not rely on the decision of RS about what is to say and what is not. We use them just to give reference to what we are saying. We have a policy WP:NPOV that says that we must present all the possibly relevant facts in a neutral way. The only objection you can do is about how and where people wants to insert a fact. You don't see any approprate context? Ok, nobody is saying you have to make a suggestion about it, when someone will suggest where and when a fact must be inserted you will be free to argument why that particular context would violate WP:SYN.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RxS, did you know that the revert war on which we are trying to find consensus is in a section of the article called "Conspiracy Theories"? Molten metal in the rubble heap is one of the main reasons for suggesting that the official account of the events is incomplete or inaccurate. You may be hard pressed to find an officially sanctioned RS that points this out, but the Steven Jones article is an excellent source about the conspiracy theory itself, and the molten metal is one of the main topics. Does it make more sense to you now? Dscotese (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it belongs in the conspiracy theories article, which it is. The question here is if it's a notable enough pov to include here which it isn't. The rest is just repetition. RxS (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be explained why these desired facts are notable or important to this article within the context of the official account. And remember, we have to assume the official account is true because there are no reliable sources that explicitly say there is a significant scientific debate over the issue, per WP:OR. Therefore, if the reason for inclusion is to illuminate a "significant minority" or because you think these facts are important since you believe they support an alternate view of 9-11, we cannot include them. Relevance of these facts must be established within the conclusion(s) supported by reliable sources, or including them would be undue weight and WP:OR. That is, unless a reliable source makes the direct statement that there is some scientific consensus regarding the falsity of the official account, all of these attempts violate WP:OR. Furthermore, given the "reliable sources" compiled in this section so far, I would strongly recommend that some editors read thoroughly through WP:RS. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot to say about the above discussion, but let's take one thing at a time. I would like to repeat a question which I've asked several times:
If [the current article is neutral], at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to repeat what has been said to you many times over the months: There is no notable scientific minority view to be represented. To repeat, there is a difference between a minority view where some people believe something and having a reliable source directly stating that there is some consensus within the scientific community that the minority view is correct (see WP:OR). Without that reliable source, the official account has to be treated as the only notable factual account, and the unverified “minority view” is only represented by mentioning that conspiracy theories exist, not balancing those theories with the factual account. The question we should be asking can be found in my above comment. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the "scientific community" have to do with things like passport findings and testimonies? The official account of 9/11 is not a "scientific theory".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For lack of a better word, I was using "science" in a broad definition - experts, etc. The point is, we have to decide if adding a mention of the passport or any other desired fact is notable in the context of the scientifically accepted account. In other words, considering that the official story is true because it's the only one supported by reliable sources, why is it notable to mention that a passport was found? How is that relevant to this article? How are any of these facts useful to this article? I remind you, because there are no reliable sources that show there is even a small consensus in the respected "scientific community" (or among any relevant authorities... see WP:RS and WP:V) that the official account may be wrong, we can't cherrypick facts whose importance lies only in that they may point to the falsity of the official account (see WP:OR). Remember, we can't present any conclusion that is not drawn by the relevant experts and expressed in reliable sources. We don't seek truth, only accepted or plausible views as expressed in reliable sources. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this relates to this article, of course. There are daughter articles that aren't focused on the accepted account of the attacks and their repercussions. Some of these facts may be worth mentioning there. In particular, anything used by conspiracy theorists can be mentioned in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes completely no sense to speak about "scientifically accepted account" of 9/11. You can speak about "scientifically accepted account" just about very specific phenomena happened in 9/11 (like the tower collapse) which have been analyzed by the scientific community. Only a small part of the account of 9/11 can be considered unobjectably settled by "experts" and only a small part the "conspiracy theories" disputes the experts. The remainder of the account is completely open to different hypothesis. You can obvioulsy say that coverup allegations have not been proved true or that you find them unreasonable but you definitely can't say that the falsehood (or unreasonableness) of - say - the LIHOP hypotesis has been settled by any "expert".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To stay closer to the subject of this section: I don't understand which are the "experts" according to whom it would be irrelevant to report the passport findings or the testimony. Not only I don't understand which are personally them, I wonder which kind of "expertise" they embody that makes them an authority about what has to be assumed to be real and relevant in an enciclopedia. Can you clarify this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, for the past month we have deliberated on all kinds of stuff. If you now hold the opinion that there exists no significant minority viewpoint to express, than you could have spared yourself a lot of time you spent on reasoning all the other stuff we talked about, or am I mistaken?
I disagree with you however: in my opinion there does exist a significant minority we should take into account according to WP:NPOV. In the end it comes down to editorial decisions, which we should make together. I'll start a subsection for this question; in the meantime, for those editors who: think the current article is neutral but agree there does exist a significant minority opinion, I would still like it when you could point out to me where in the article this SMV opinion is expressed, outside ofcourse of the section "conspiracy theories".
For me, the bottom line is: we should present all facts which are relevant to the article, and not just those that happen to fit in nicely with the mainstream account of what happened, how it happened, why it happened. And the latter are the facts which, naturally, those RS who agree with the mainstream account keep recycling. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a significant minority view (SMV) exist ?

In my experience of the past debate, we sort of had agreement that a significant minority view (SMV) existed. The problem always seemed to me to be that a lot of editors evaluated this view as "crackpot", and not worth mentioning in wikipedia, really. Now it seemes that some editors feel that there is not even a SMV to take into account. How are your opinions? /X

There is a SMV, and it is easy to name prominent adherents: several retired Generals, 2-3 ministers or former ministers of states of G8 countries, Hollywood actors/filmmakers, scientists of all kind of fields, etc. There is a relatively vast constituency to this SMV, if we look at opinion polls. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't. To quote from myself: There's no political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. No controversy = No significant minority view. RxS (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What RxS just said is true, but there is a "significant minority view," because of how much press this conspiracy theory has gotten and how many silly celebrities have endorsed it.

I'm not going to bother going into the details of the above, but one thing that Xiutwel said that was totally off-the-wall was, "not stating the guilt lies with Al Qaeda as a fact, but attibuting that allegation."

It's common, public knowledge that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. You don't need to source common knowledge on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. Your bizarre assertion that such an obvious claim needs to be "sourced," makes me very suspicious of the rest of your proposals -- a whole string of contentious proposals, being pushed all at once. No, you can't do that. Sorry. Wayne: The sources you cited about aren't reliable. Obscure newspapers of dubious credibility, with low journalistic standards (the second source is called "OpEd News" for pete's sakes), are not reliable sources.

If anyone here would like to continue this behavior of pushing conspiracy theories, it will not be tolerated here and I suggest the wiki at ConspiracyResearch.org. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to this comment) Xiutwel, I am sorry I keep sounding gruff towards you, but I don't understand why you bring up the same proposal over and over. Editors have explained to you why your mindset is at fault here, and I don't understand why it isn't getting through and, frankly, I don't know how to make it sink in. Because some people do not believe the official account does not make it a significant scientific minority. Popular belief does not translate to expert belief, and expert belief is the focus of this article. Also, I am confused by your frequent criticism of reliable sources. It's like criticizing oxygen. Complaining that reliable sources are skewed just doesn't make sense. The reason there aren't reliable sources to back your conspiracy theory is because experts place no validity in it, not because reliable sources are censored. It should be noted that when you first started your crusade, you listed a surplus of "facts" that weren't true or were otherwise unverifiable, and I think you've realized that, because your campaign has shifted to a selection of a few insignificant but verifiable facts that you believe advance your theory, but have no relevance otherwise. Once again, unless you have a good argument to explain why it’s important to mention the passport in this article (other than to represent a view unsupported by reliable sources), you are wasting everyone’s time. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RxS, it seems you define "no controversy" as: all those who disagree with the mainstream view, cease to be part of the general [scientific] community, and therefore there is no controversy in the general community. If that is what you are saying, you are no doubt correct by your own definition, but I claim it makes no sense to assess the existence of debate in this fashion, using this self-referential definition. (Circular reasoning). — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the revert war about?

Inclusion of a link to the 9/11 Truth Movement page in the section titled "Conspiracy theories"
Inclusion of this tag:

in the section titled "Conspiracy theories"

Inclusion of this tag:

in the section titled "U.S. Government response"

I would like to address only the first issue. RxS suggested that "because they don't (and can't) speak for everyone who believes in this stuff," 911TM should be linked to in the summary. This is a decent argument for inclusion of 911TM links anywhere that claims to speak for everyone, but it sidesteps the issue at hand. The question is whether or not such a link should be provided in this subsection of this article. Until it is no longer such an important piece of the subarticle, it makes sense to link to it from the summary here.

If your consideration of linking to it does depend on how representative of "everyone who believes this stuff" the 9/11 Truth Movement is, please consider the following: In its first incarnation, the 9/11 Truth movement Wikipedia page states "The movement is informal, decentralized and fractious..." On Dec. 10, 2006, CBS News released a story in which the "one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen..." are labeled as the "so-called 9/11 Truth Movement". This suggests rather strongly that the term does in fact apply to "everyone who believes in this stuff," not because an organization with that name has "everyone who believes in this stuff" as a member, but because the term is used to refer to ALL of them collectively. Dscotese (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At best, they assert that American proponents of these theories identify as part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Even if we accept that assertion, which is dubious and at odds with the organization our article depicts, we ignore the rest of the world — which is significant, since these theories are most "mainstream" in Arab countries. --Haemo (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue why we could not link to two wikipedia pages on "conspiracy cranks" in the "conspiracy cranks exist and are a social phenomenon" subsection of this article, in stead of only one. (...?) /Xiutwel 09:07, 9 March 2008

See WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, good to see you here again! Would you perhaps respond to my question, in which sentences the article is representing the SigMinView? Or are you now joining RxS in saying there is no debate and no SigMinView ? (I would say that NIST debating the answers to Frequently asked Questions is debate...)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. In which sentences is a given article being neutral? All of them. Neutral does not imply that we apportion an article by sentence to each view. --Haemo (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". If there is no sentence about a significant minority view then NPOV has been violated. So I suppose it makes sense to ask where in the article a POV has been represented.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." A sentence from WP:RS, taken out of context, but it may be an inspiration for us to resolve this dispute. I think we must find a modus vivendi together. I have respect for the wish, voiced by some editors, that Wikipedia not be misused as a propaganda tool for cranky theories, but that wish should not make us waver our WP:NPOV policy and disregard SigMinViews or the undisputed facts these views claim to base themselves on. We are going to have to compromise here. I know this article will never be 100% as I would wish it, and I therefore will not even try. The strength of wikipedia is editors holding different views working together, not dividing articles between different groups of editors (a "walled garden" for each group). — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

molten metal issue

I'm interested in adding a sentence or so about the molten metal which was found in the WTC debries. In order to balance that, and not just report nonmainstream explosives-suspicions, I am looking for RS which explain how this metal could have gotten melted; I've never heard a mainstream explanation for it and perhaps someone here has? E.g. a side effect of the pancake crash or gasboilers exploding?
(I've noticed a lot of talk about it in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, but perhaps there are other spin-off articles as well? Or are the RS I'm looking for already in that article?) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. NIST answer to question 13, from the above wiki article. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four RS that report on the existance of the molten metal, Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md, Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC and WABC-TV footage of the burning South Tower at 9:53 a.m. showing large amounts of white-hot molten metal, (presumably iron and later estimated at around 8 tons), pouring from the 81st floor. Excluding CT's, there is only a single RS that explains what possibly caused the molten metal.

"Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon. Given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can form Thermite and react violently. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building it is entirely possible that this is what happened".- Thomas Eager [is] professor of materials engineering and is the head of the Department of Material Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and sits on the National Research Council Committee for Homeland Security

Wayne (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! I am however puzzled where the oxigen, the rust, should have come from? The fires were oxygen-poor and the steel, we may assume, was not rusted.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thermite does not need Oxygen to burn which explains why metal was still molten under the debris weeks later. Eager did not explain where the rust could come from. Wayne (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. When in-built oxygen is a part of thermite, allowing it to burn itsself fiercly, we need oxygen added in the formation. So either rust or another source of oxygen. When Eager does not explain it, we need another RS which explains it, or else it will be hard for us to even suggest the possibility of sponteneous thermite formation in the debries or in the standing towers.
Please help!  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this section be archived. There's no "molten metal issue." There's nothing to be said beyond the following:

It is likely that a thermite reaction took place.
That's it.

Attributing any significance to the lack of a 100% complete explanation of how this reaction began constitutes a God of the gaps fallacy. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did the rust come from, you reckon? Let's not archive this yet. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. Did you appreciate what I was saying about a "God of the gaps" argument? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, "God of the gaps" eludes me, alas. Perhaps you will explain it in plain, Dutch English? That you are not curious is your decision. I am curious, and as long as this matter is not settled we would provide a service to other people who might be curious. Those who are not curious will not be harmed by reading this information. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. As you well know, this material is covered in the controlled demolition hypothesis page, which is the correct place for it. There's no point discussing this further. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

controlled demolition hypothesis page... speaking of which, let's link to this article then, from the conspiracy theories section. And let's include a short frase on the discovery of the molten metal in the c-t SUMMARY. How about that? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to mention molten metal there, because it is just one of the arguments ~~(and far from the most popular),~~ made in favour of the controlled demolition hypothesis, which is a sub-topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rather than giving your preferred material the maximum prominence, let's instead maintain a logical hierarchy of article contents that matches the hierarchy of subjects. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Popularity is not the issue, the issue is that its occurence is well documented and non-disputed. That's why we can easily incorporate that observable in this article, without risking to err in speculation. By the way, do you have some authoratative RS which lists the conspiracy arguments in order of prominence? I would love to use that source to help my editing. Do you? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You can refer to 9/11 opinion polls to check what people find more likely to be the most true hypothesis. It seems very few people think the controlled demolition theory or the missile on the pentagon theory to be likely, instead the LIHOP hypothesis is considered likely by the majority of the interviewed people.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Molten metal isn't relevant to the lead article. Peter Grey (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. Xiutwel is quite correct that popularity is not the issue. I am striking the distracting and off-topic remark from my statement in the hope that it may become clearer. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

March 10 changes

I'll explain why I think the changes I'm making are improving the article. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy section:
1. The paragraph spoke of the community of civil engineers, but for those who are new to the subject it is not as yet known that there even exist ideas that it may have been blown up in stead of spontaneous collapse.
2. I'm including a see also to the controlled demolition hypothesis article, since that deals most directly with this issue.
3. I'm including a link to the 9/11 Truth Movement article; this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so.
4. I'm adding Andreas Von Bulow and Meacher to show the level of controversy inter and outer the theories.
the testimonies concerning the immediate national response:
1. I've made the text more clear and complete
2. I desperately need a source for the rectification that supposedly has been made. Someone once said that it was on the talk page, but I've not yet found that.
3. issue 1: Cheney and Mineta at odds with the timeline
4. issue 2: Cheney and Bush refusing to testify under oath
5. issue 3: Bush' account he saw the first plane live
- to be added later diff the matter of the bin Laden trade delegation which was allowed to leave. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll postpone the passport issue a bit. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, I've reverted your changes since consensus has not been reached. Why not try to discuss your edits one at a time? -PTR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

disputed edits (diff)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, PTR, that when you object to my edits, the right way to proceed is to remove them and discuss them. So I'll in the meantime add the POV tags, and ask that you voice any of your concerns now which have remained unaddressed. I do not think we should still discuss the edits one at a time, because that stage has past. We now need to discuss what the article should look like as a whole, which is an editorial decision and in my opinion we cannot receive much help from the guidelines, because the edits are guideline-compliant but we might still decide not to make them.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some critics:

Michael Meacher claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks -> this is not a "theory", it is an accusation
the phrase
which subsequently took the lives of another 3,000 American and British soldiers

seems unnecessary and I think against WP:SYN.
"It has been suggested that the WTC buildings...":
- suggested by whom???
- wouldn't it be better to speak about a "hypothesis" rather than a "suggestion" (like in the title of the wikipedia article about the subject)?

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pokipsky76,

I would agree with both versions
I don't really mind removing that, when you object, but I do not think it is SYN because it implies nothing which is unsupported. (Or what do you think it implies which is unsupported?)
OK, and well, to whom should we attribute such a hypothesis, then? A person? A specific group?

 Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok.
Yes, it doesn't imply anything unsupported but it suggests that the war was something bad or wrong. For example if we were saying "the war that allowed to free the population from the talibans" we wouldn't say anything unsupported but we would suggest that the war is good. (maybe it's not a matter of WP:SYN but WP:NPOV).
According to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center the most notable proponents are some member of the 9/11 truth movement. However I don't see why this specific theory (controlled demolition of WTC) should be mentioned in the summary despite other ones. What is special about it?

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, most of your recent additions are linked to your proposals that have been rejected by the community continuously for months. Why did you add them anyway? But thank you respecting PTR's revert. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? I remain unconvinced that the arguments given were valid to warrant omitting this information. After discussing these matters on Wikipedia talk:NPOV my conclusion is that in the end it comes down to editorial insight. The guidelines do not specify which fact to include and which to omit. Something being largly ignored by most RS is not per se a reason for omission on wikipedia, provided for the text to insert RS do exist and when it somehow makes sense to add it. Wikipedia is superior to most RS in several respects: /Xi

Wikipedia has 6,600,000 registered editors; 1500 admins (compare Encyclopædia Britannica: 4400)
We bring expertise from across the spectrum together, we are inter-disciplenary, multi-cultural
We are not bound to any financial supporters for our content. No RS has such latitude, they all have owners, clients/customers, money-supplyers. All we need is donations for the servers.

That's why in many respects we are unique, and unmatched in a lot of respects. (We have 2,200,000 articles, ten times the amount of Encyclopædia Britannica — even though a lot of topics of lesser importance are covered by wikipedia, being virtually unlimited in available space). That's why it is invalid to say we could go no further than the RS are going. It's just that every fact we report has to be based in RS, but joining related facts from different RS in an article is not SYN, but "good editing" provided we do not alter their meaning or imply unwarrented conclusions. (The current article joines 198 sources.)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you are simply wrong. You are confused about the nature of Wikipedia. Without reliable sources, there is no Wikipedia. Your argument that we can include something despite there being no reliable sources violates every single one of our core policies. Each one of them. It tears at the very foundation of Wikipedia, and if you continue to base your relentless arguments on the premise that Wikipedia's core policies are flawed, you are being disruptive, and I will revert you. Take complaints about policy elsewhere. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems it is you misunderstanding. Nobody was saying that "we can include something despite there being no reliable sources". Actually everything that has been proposed for addition comes from reliable sources.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And you absolutely positively do not get to hold the article hostage with pov tags because you don't get your way in this dispute. You've never had consensus for the additions you want, they've never been part of the article and there's no consensus now. RxS (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say there is no consensus either for how the aticle is treating some issues which are under discussion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The changes all appear to be weak but dishonest hints that the regular account is flawed, using trivial details to create inuendo without improving the article in any way. (Note this is not the same as identifying reasonable criticisms or uncertainties.) Peter Grey (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem which has plagued all of these proposed edits. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why is it a problem?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty in an encyclopedia - this is not a sufficiently self-evident problem? Peter Grey (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I am very glad you also feel this way — partly. Dishonesty is a problem i.m.o., whenever it is there!
You sense dishonesty when
...weak but dishonest hints [are put in] that the regular account is flawed, using trivial details to create inuendo...
I sense dishonesty when
a selective part of the undisputed facts is omitted, because the RS happen to (tacitly!) agree that these facts are unimportant to establishing the true chain of events, whereas it is obvious to anyone that those who hold view B are relying exactly on those facts for their view. No RS are known to us which demonstrate that these facts are irrelevant. All the RS do is ignore them, or quote people who have opinions that these facts would be irrelevant, without quoting the people who have opinions that they would be relevant.
I cry: It's like scientists fixing the statistics and the data on their experiments. That's called scientific fraude. We Wikipedia should not copy that behaviour!! (Am I being to harsh here?)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

because the RS... agree Peter Grey (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If this feeling is due to the fact cited above then you just can't argue on the base of this feeling that the facts must not be reported. If instead this feeling is due to the way of expressing these facts then why don't you suggest alternative ways?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

another textual change

thanks to PTR for spotting this:

Cheney himself testified before the 9-11 Commission that he was not in the Command loop until 9:58 AM, but according to testimony

should become

Cheney himself testified before the 9-11 Commission that he was not in the Command loop until 9:58 AM. This contrasts with testimony

...otherwise the sentence would be suggesting that A is false and B is true. Hadn't realized, thanks. Hope this fixes it. We could i.m.o. also reverse A and B into "B contrasts A", if people prefer that.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved comment from the section below to here) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to clearly identify a genuine, good-faith dispute among competent experts reported by a reliable source. Wishing for a dispute is not the same as identifying an existing one. Peter Grey (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing in the guidelines which makes it mandatory to make sure that competent experts are discussing a fact, before we can put it in. That's our own decision! If you feel otherwise, quote them.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more that you may find helpful from WP:FRINGE:

Since Wikipedia describes in its articles significant opinions, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the significance-validating source for non-significant theories. If another well-known, reliable, and verifiable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to such claims. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks secondary sources that are reliable.
We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus
In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And another quote that might help:
Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work there, Okie! /Xi

Most theories have been discussed by RS - but badly, though. So this one does not apply. Agree? Mineta's testimony is not a theory: it is a fact that he said that, so it needs no discussion. Agree? /Xi
Conspiricy views held by a tiny minority are FRINGE, agree? Conspiracy views held by a SigMin are a SigMinView and deserve fair treatment by wikipedia. Agree? /Xi
How about George Bush saying: "we should never tolerate outragous conspiracy theories?" // Or the Loose Change bashing? Though that was not done very well, it was done seriously, worldwide, and for several weeks. Agree? /Xi
We wouldn't have all these pages about them when we had not already established notability. /Xi
The theories have been commented on by secondary RS. The question is: are we (wikipedia) allowed to voice the SigMinView more fairly than such RS have done? -- I say: yes, provided we have good primary sources, and especially when the SigMinView's claims themselves are verifiable, because they are also based on RS. Agree? /Xi
the Mineta testimony is non-scientific, so this does not apply. Agree? /Xi
This one is very interesting!! A fringe theory is not the same as an observed phenomenon such as molten metal. That leaves:
...not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.
You may have point here, but I do not see that these sentences would demand of us to omit all kinds of RS-based undisputed facts from this article. It says: it is not our intention to do what institutions did not. But does that mean it is prohibited, even when we comply with everything in the five pillars??  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say mandatory, but if the 'dispute' is only in your imagination then the tag does not tell the editors anything helpful. See WP:POINT. Peter Grey (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As you will agree (?) the dispute is not in my imagination, but a lot of competent experts do not engage in it, but some do, and millions of people do, sometimes becoming self-educated in the process, even.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:43, 11 March 2008

March 10 POV tags edit war???

Stupendously lengthy and unproductive debate

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(cur) (last) 02:23, 11 March 2008 Okiefromokla (Talk | contribs) m (120,789 bytes) (revert - there was no consensus for the inclusion.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:04, 11 March 2008 Wowest (Talk | contribs) (120,875 bytes) (Undid revision 197385419 by Rx StrangeLove (talk)No consensus for this reversion) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:51, 11 March 2008 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (120,789 bytes) (Undid revision 197384737 by Xiutwel (talk)no consensus for your changes, you can't hold this article hostage because you don't get y) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:47, 11 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) m (120,875 bytes) (ICB, you were absent this week to help find consensus, and now you rv the flags uncommented? Undid revision 197248536 by Ice Cold Beer) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:39, 10 March 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (120,794 bytes) (rv) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:27, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (120,880 bytes) (restore flags, See Talk:9/11#March 10 changes -- Undid revision 195341323 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:49, 10 March 2008 68.16.134.154 (Talk) (120,794 bytes) (These edits are under discussion on the talk page and consensus has not been reached.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:47, 10 March 2008 68.16.134.154 (Talk) (123,981 bytes) (These edits are still under discussion on the talk page and consensus has not been reached) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:35, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (125,176 bytes) (→Immediate national response: See talk. // 9/11 testimony plus informal accounts of Bush, Cheney, Mineta) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:13, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (121,989 bytes) (→Conspiracy theories: see Talk. // Von Bulow added, and other changes to make the text coherent) (undo)

Listen, folks,

it has been alleged often that I am the only editor who wants such changes, but i.m.o. that is not so. While others may disagree with the exact wording I proposed, there are more editors who would like these texts included. It's not just me. When the edits were blocked in full, in stead of improved, I added the flags. You can't argue that there is no consensus for raising a dispute flag, that's silly. So please: ICB, RxS or Okiefromokla: put those flags back. / On second thought: if you are worried about defacing the article with them, I will agree to postpone the raising of the flags till March 17, so that we can try to reach consensus on whether or not to include the texts (or improve them) in the meantime. But that would ofcourse require that the opposing editors participate in this process, and not sit idly. (I have the impression that we did not take full advantage of the 7 day block of the article, do you?) If you want my support for another 7 day period without flags, let me know here. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

please discuss only PROCEDURE matters here, use the previous section for CONTENT discussion.

Xiutwel - you need to stop with those tags. There is no consensus for the changes you want to make. Also, I'm sure you are aware of the three revert rule. --Aude (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Audevivere! I am aware. I agree there seems no consensus, and then the proper way to proceed would be to raise a flag and discuss it, until we have some consensus, one way or the other. If you see it differently, are you able to direct me to some policy pages which might help me find my way in this?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, isn't this the raison d'être of the flags? Perscurator (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a small group of editors, who think they "own" the article, are trying to suppress and censor information about the controversial nature of the topic. The proper method for addressing controversy is to present a competent argument on each sides. It is a fact that there is a controversy. It is quite obvious. Else, how could there be an edit war? 76.87.151.24 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aude, I would really appreciate help with answering the above question very much... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion [of placing a flag] is that both 1) there is a legitimate, good-faith disagreement among knowledgeable experts in the real world, and 2) the article fails to suitably reflect the dispute in light of WP:Undue weight and other policies. This suggestion is incorrect. Peter Grey (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1. How can "disputed by editors" suggest there is a dispute in the RS-outside world?? // 2. Yes, this is exactly what is disputed by editors. You are assuming your opinion is truth and cannot be wrong, here.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I certainly have a different point of view than the "majority" of "editors" here, which brings me to another point...

2. Many "editors" write as if they have some wierd ALL-encompassing authority. When if fact all it takes to edit a page is spare time and half a brain. With that said none of us has any credentials to show proof that we know anything about anything (I saw the headline at the top of the page and to think any Wikipedia article would be shown to school children saddens me). Our sole ability then must be our skill i.e. presentation of fact, and the only examples I can find in the recent discussion (that which I have taken part) are by Xiutwel who lists concerns and references. Subsequently, two or three other "editors" (In the english speaking world we are the only people editing this page? I find that hard to believe) gang up on Xiutwel using meger refutions that consist of mere rule pointing and vague wierdness WP:SPIDER (see 9/11 by Noam Chomsky for evidence) or else opinion, which brings me to my final point...

3. There are many people who understand that the controlling "government" (United States and elsewhere, NAZI Germany for instance) line is feed through the media and that educated people hold points of view which are not in line with the ABC News. Therefore, A POINT OF VIEW TAG is not only reasonable it is NECESSARY. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

lol...did you get use the Nazis in an argument? Anyway, look...we use reliable sources to guide inclusion and content in Wikipedia from end to end. If the government is using them as mouthpieces and patsys then that's an argument to take to the policy pages. If there are educated people that believe that, there are many many more educated people that it's a paranoid viewpoint. RxS (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-One "many" in your opinion will suffice. Don't like the Nazi's? Me either, and it's wierd that such a horrible regime has been reduced to a platitude. The point is that many governments have used the media as a mouthpiece e.g. Greece before the 1946 Civil War, and a POV TAG should be implemented in this article when the objectivity is questionable e.g. Responsibility section where there is no sentence that percieves the United States government being at fault for repeated aggresion and terrorist acts from Indonesia to Liberia. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I'll tell you right now that you are not helping yourself or your case with this line of debate, Anon. One of Wikipedia's founding principles is the usage of reliable sources, and an individual editor's assertion (or a group, for that matter) that any mainstream source is bound to have been corrupted as a "mouthpiece" is not reason enough to mark the section as POV. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not about the personal opinions, or differences of opinion, of its editors. Peter Grey (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-I, GUAM, repeat that the "Responsibility" section, S0SO, fails to be objective since it does not include a sentence to the effect that the United States government is a responsible party to the 9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Center. There is a well documented history of aggression by the United States in Muslim settled lands, in fact, regardless of religion; the lands connecting west Africa to east Asia...

1. Suharto's 1969 takeover of West Papau. Simpson, Brad. Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by "Free Choice"", National Security Archive, July 9, 2004. the link http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/index.htm

2. The CIA's extortion of Liberian ports to spy on Libya in 1981 in return for support against the Americo-Libirians. Gilbert, Erik & Reynolds, Jonathon T (2004) Africa in World History, From Prehistory to the Present. Pearson Education Canada Ltd pg 357 ISBN-13 9780130929075 67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

Can you tell us specifically what Libya in 1981 and Indonesia in 1969 has to do with this? Have you moved on from the media/Nazis/1946 Civil War thing? RxS (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, United States military campaigns in "Arab" (and this refers to the Arabian Penninsula, eastern Africa and western Asia) lands makes the United States a viable party responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the world trade center, and should be considered as such in the section marked, "Responsibility," after all it is alluded to elsewhere in the atricle and needs to be listed in the, "Responsibility" section. Do You agree, Doc, Peter, S0SO, Xiutwel? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

No, I mean specifically related to the attacks, not to region wide feelings/resentments toward the US (which by the way I don't disagree with). RxS (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-Right, well, bin Laden accepted responsibily for synching the attack and he says he did it because of the history of United States military intervention in the "Muslim world" which is well documented outside of his hateful (justified or not) rhetoric. Shouldn't the U.S. Government be added to "Responsibility," then? Is it a matter of defining Responsibility? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

No. US malfeasance is very far removed from the direct responsibility of the hijackers and those that deployed them. It would be a valid point of background in a sub-article, but utterly inappropriate here. Peter Grey (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-It is important to the objectivity of this article to list the United States as a responsible party because United States military involvement in the region directly motivated the attack. Are we really so illogical to think people killed themselves and thousands of others because they didn't agree with the freedoms we enjoy in the United States? As President George Bush seems to think? I think not. In the words of the perpetraitor (bin Laden), "Each state that does not meddle with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security." http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html The United States Government, military and economic involvement in that region, is the reason that the Pentagon and World Trade Center were attacked on 9/11.- regardless of the banter and mockery below this comment. 67.173.175.232 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

"As President George Bush seems to think?" For future reference, please don't attack fellow editors as "biased" and threaten administrative intervention against them if you plan to display your own prejudices so plainly in the future. WP:ANI does not exist so one can shut down anyone who disagrees with them, and replacing one perceived bias in an article with another does nothing to improve it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility can only mean the hijackers and those who gave them direct tactical support. The motivations of the hijackers, which are largely founded on US oppression and exploitation, are highly relevant and need to be included, but the hijackers made the choice. The origin of their motives is not the same as reponsibility. Peter Grey (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-I see your point, Peter. Why? and Who? are separate questions. My qualm is with the structure of the article then, based on a difference of definition not opinion. Responsibility has many definitions, which gives it vagueness here. Since we are aware that the men listed under "The hijackers" (mentioned at the opening of the article) flew the planes into the buildings, I suggest that the section named "Responsibility" be changed to begin with "The Hijackers" so those men can be considered in depth. The "Motive[s]" section could then be expanded and clarified in concert with the overall structure and clarity of this page in our minds. 24.12.56.220 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I concur. This proposed layout would be reasonable. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the United Kingdom is the one that should be added to the responsibility section. After all, it were the British mandates that separated the mid-east and provided the land to let the Jews back into Palestine, which is why the Islamic extremists don't like the west and why the United States and other nations have been somewhat historically involved in mid-east affairs. Scratch that. The Ottoman Empire is the one who's repsonsible. They dared to oppose the West during World War 1, which led to British occupation of the area. Also, I'm sure China was responsible for the Japanese invading their country in the 1930s because they were occupying land Japan wanted. And the Allies were responsible for World War 2 because they irritated Germany before they attacked. Thanks, 67.165.163.114. You've just rewritten how the world views history. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-I bet You hate John Steinbeck, Okie. 67.173.175.232 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

How do you see the Ottoman Empire as responsible? Clearly, responsibility lies with the Roman empire for dissolving the state of Judea. The subsequent scattering of its populace would eventually be the root cause of the entire Israeli-Palestinian territory dispute. I move that we lay blame where it ought to be, and list Caesar as one of the perpetrators :P ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-This has no place in such a serious issue; administration will be notified of your bias, which, in my opinion, should be basis to exclude you both, Okiefromokla and Jc-S0CO, from further editing of this article. 67.173.175.232 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

(deindent) If you want to do this, the venue is here. But I would ask that you refrain from discussing it on this page, since it has no relevance to this article. --Haemo (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see now that your computer has assumed yet another identity, Guam. Again, registering an account makes it much easier for everyone to communicate. Anyways, as for WP:ANI, that was pretty quick. I think it's time for clarification: What we have here is a strong difference of opinion, but disagreement and obstruction are not the same thing. You posed an issue, and we showed the disruptive doors that this could open if such a precedent were to be set. To summarize our position (perhaps in a more professional manner): if we were to start making inferences to events which took place in 1969 as direct causes of 9/11, where would the road end? The causes and effects for the present state of affairs in the middle east can be traced back for decades and centuries all the way back to parties which no longer exist. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding on this point, but that is all that is being said. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

back to the debate on POV flags

Friends, experience shows there is absolutely no point in trying to convince other editors of "a truth". Wikipedia talk pages are not a WP:FORUM. If you must try to convince someone, please do so on their talk page or in a seperate section. This section was solely intended for the matter:

Should the POV tags be raised as long as there is discussion about including the text-proposals?

“

Thank you, Audevivere! I am aware. I agree there seems no consensus, and then the proper way to proceed would be to raise a flag and discuss it, until we have some consensus, one way or the other. If you see it differently, are you able to direct me to some policy pages which might help me find my way in this? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

”

Quoting the exact relevant sentences would be great! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

...no response yet. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

requesting an independent admin to raise the POV flag

{{editprotected}}

remark: edit refused, "not done", Happy‑melon 19:59, 15 March ... I've asked him for more explanation. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
note: the edit I'm requesting is NOT undisputed, but I think the nature of the dispute warrents examining by editors, and making the edit even in the absense of consensus, because policy is violated in this article and a flag needs to show that. If you deny this, please point me to a place where I can ask for help - (and get it).

I am requesting that the POV flags are put up, while the consensus-making on the article content continues. We have no consensus among editors whether the article complies with WP:NPOV or not. There should be a POV tag on the entire article, really. It is already a compromise that I am only asking for flags in the sections we have been discussing recently. If a POV tag is not warrented here, with a dozen editors on one side, and a handful on another side, when is a POV flag due? Only in case there would be an exact 50-50% split in editor opinion??? I request that this edit be undone. And no, I'm not POV-pushing. My own POV is rather excentric/fringe, and I would not dream of trying to push such a tiny minority view on wikipedia. In stead, I think this article should be balanced in agreed upon facts and significant opinions. It is not.
Despite claims that "we've been telling him [wikipedia policy / our opinion] over and over again" there are a few questions which have systemetically remained unanswered. You may find most of these by searching for "where in " in the text.. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This request is spurious. It amounts to "revert to my preferred version because I am right". --Haemo (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to a protected page should be non-controversial. Seeing how there is no consensus for this edit, no administrator should add the tags back into the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not done Couldn't have put it better myself, Ice Cold Beer. Happy‑melon 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate, the discussion forming below is promising, and I am glad that it appears to be generally civil and constructive. If a clear consensus appears from it, then feel free to re-add the tag; in my opinion, however, there is currently no sufficiently clear consensus. Happy‑melon

Happy-melon, The ultimate goal of our civil and constructive consensus building is to improve the article, not to raise a few flags? Do you think that is the best we can achieve here? Raise the flags? You're a pessimist, despite you name! :) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

questions, questions

Ice Cold Beer, each rule has its exceptions, that's how language works. Where no editor should add the Meacher issue without consensus, adding a flag to show dissensus on the article contents is not something which logically requires to be a consensus edit. (I've asked for insights in this policy matter, but all I got was: your views and Meacher's views don't count.)

Let me draft a list of questions I would still like an answer to:

can you answer these two questions for me:
1. Q: Where in policy does it say that, for us to give it adequate treatment, a significant minority view must be held by an academic community, where so simple a thing as the integrity of a government is concerned? All I read in policy is that an opinion is significant when it's easy to name prominent adherents.
  WP:FRINGE:"Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas" ... "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  I see one scientific issue: the collapse of the WTC debate. Do you see more controversies surrounding 9/11 which you would call scientific terrain? The scientific community has not ignored the demolition hypothesis, it has rebutted. The molten metal issue is not ignored, there is a source somewhere claiming it might have been a sponteneous thermite reaction. We need not go into too much detail here, that is better suited for the 9/11 demolition article, but I would like to mention both the molten metal, the thermite, and the possibility of spontaneous formation. PS your answer did not address the question at all. Do views need to be academic views? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Q: Where does it say we may not use primary sources, once independent reliable sources have acknowledged the existence of a minority viewpoint?
  For what purpose are you fighting us? We only want to give fair, not even equal, treatment to a minority view. As policy prescribes. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  It doesn't. But once again, you are confusing what kind of notability a minority view can have.
  
  I will repeat the above quote: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." The second sentence is the key. WP:UNDUE: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." In this case, the "tiny minority" are the 9/11 conspiracy theories because they have recieved no acceptance by the scientific community documented by reliable sources. Do not confuse scientific viewpoints with popular viewpoints. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  But...9/11 is not a science article? The observation of molten metal is not a theory, it is a fact. We need not discuss the theories at length, but we should inform our readers that the issue exists, so they can research it themselves if they so choose. Omitting the molten metal makes the article less complete. ~~Google shows 600.000 hits for demolition;~~ I am inclined to think this is not a tiny minority view, but a SigMinView. It is held by a lot of people prominent in "view B". — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  Note: the google count seems not to be a good criterion: "flat earth" has more hits though it is less prominent. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute)
Q: I would like to repeat a question which I've asked several times:
If [the current article is neutral], at which points/sentences is the article representing the minority view? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE and above quotes. 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Then, for what kind of SigMinViews do you think WP:NPOV designed? Can you give an example of a non-scientific SigMinView which does deserve coverage in a Wikipedia article other than one devoted to that view, i.e. an article on the topic the view is about? (as Earth relates to Flat Earth) (What more is needed to make a SigMinView than rows and rows of experts, senior officials, politicians, witnesses etc.?) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...where in the article this SMV opinion is expressed, outside ofcourse of the section "conspiracy theories". — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  It's not, because no reliable secondary sources back it up. It is notable in number of believers and some media coverage, and therefore is given its own article and a mention in this article because it is significant as a social phenomenon and reliable secondary sources have not shown it to be accepted by any relevant following in any field. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  I believe this would be the correct approach for a notable TinyMinView, such as the FlatEarth belief. Would you call the 9/11 criticism of the same magnitude as the FlatEarth belief? (I suppose not). What could we compare it with? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Q: Does a significant minority view (SMV) exist ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Only RxS replied directly to this question, negating the existence. (We disagree on this.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  Yes, but not a significant expert or scientific minority view. Popular belief does not equal fact, though it does equal notability on Wikipedia, just not on the same standing as the mainstream scientifically accepted view. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- in which sentences the article is representing the SigMinView? -- 09:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  Again, you assume that a SigMinView needs to be scientific; we are talking here not about any scientific view, but a general political assessment, which the general population is perfectly able to make, of whether there is foul play. Again, have you any idea or ground or precedent why WP:NPOV would be dealing with scientific viewpoints in stead of viewpoints in general? We can have NPOV debates about whether an armed conflict is a War or an Intervention: this is not science, it is just opinions. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
~~See WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla questions? 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)~~
- ~~Which sentence? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)~~
  See above quotes. Read WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This was in fact answered elsewhere !! Apologies. And there this question remains:
- Q: I do not see that these sentences would demand of us to omit all kinds of RS-based undisputed facts from this article. It says: it is not our intention to do what institutions did not. But does that mean it is prohibited, even when we comply with everything in the five pillars?? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  I do not understand this question. It sounds like you have recieved an answer for this; my advice is that you should take policy at its word or try to get it changed in the right place. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  Example. "Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs." Some people might want to "right a wrong" about 9/11 and argue their POV in this article. That is not what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is there to present information relating to a subject in an encyclopedic manner. When someone testifies to the 9/11 Commission, we can mention that. When someone refuses to testify under oath, we can mention that. Would the fact, that in the eyes of some people mentioning this fact might help to right a wrong, prohibit us to mention that? Does this rule forbid to write anything, when good can come of it? There are RS who reported this exact same thing. Do you feel there is any guideline in the way of reporting that someone testified to the 9/11 Commission, but refused to take oath? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The questions seem straightforward enough. I've asked people to respond via their talk pages. Haemo even started to answer one of the questions, stating he did not understand the question, which I appreciated; and when Pokipsky elaborated on it, it dropped quiet again.
This 9/11 POV fortress has to open up. Locking the article, and repeating <<You defend the Truth, Policy is on Your side>> while refusing to quote it ad verbatim: ... it cannot last. The SigMinView was perhaps a Tiny Minority View once, in the first years after 9/11, but those days are gone and past: and that means the article has to change its Viewpoint accordingly in order to remain The neutral point of view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Okiefromokla 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC), below:
Q: How can a wikipedia policy determine whether any particular view is: a) a majority viewpoint, b) a significant majority viewpoint, c) a tiny minority viewpoint? (all as defined in WP:NPOV.)

Because there are no reliable sources that say these views are scientifically accepted, we cannot include them in factual context. We can only talk about them in the appropriate section in this article and again in the conspiracy theories article. This is because reliable sources aknowledge that such conspiracy theories exist, just as they aknowledge that the Flat Earth Society exists. That, however, does not mean the views of the Flat Earth Society should be intermingled with the mainstream accepted account unless their views game scientific acceptance. WP:UNDUE says: "For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." It also says: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." In this context, the "tiny minority" are the 9/11 conspiracy theories because they have recieved no acceptance by the scientific community documented by reliable sources. Do not confuse scientific viewpoints with popular viewpoints. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have another example? Of a view which is widely held, a SigMinView which is not scientific? I agree the SigMinView does not deserve "as much attention as" the majority view. But currently it gets ZERO coverage. And not only is the View omitted; all the observed phenomenons which reinforced the proliferation of that view are absent from the article. This seems to me to distort the picture we are painting in this article. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I had thought we established that "view B (LIHOP/MIHOP)" is a Significant Minority View. I would like to assume good faith, and I'm sure there is some good faith final purpose in all this, but I have the impression that some people are not being completely fair when they now seem to hold the view that we have either a Tiny Minority View, or, a Significant Minority View which happens to be untrue and therefore irrelevant to this article, which in turn is about the 'True Version of Events'.

Not in a scientific minority viewpoint. There are no RS. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the science issue again. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Q: How do you explain we have so much articles on 9/11 conspiracies when it is TinyMin?

"Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the science issue again. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Q: Does a SigMinView need to be true before we can give it respectful treatment?

"Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the science issue again. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The questions are piling, the answers are absent, there are multiple editors agreeing with me that it is the status quo of this article that is violating our shared guidelines, and that my proposed edits would make the article MORE compliant with WP:5, not less.
Q: How can anyone maintain that this is a consensus article? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

10. Eh... is someone busy answering the above 9 questions elsewhere? Am I missing anything? Or are we going to leave all these questions unanswered? It's rather unfair, I would say, to accuse me of tendentious editing, and of not listening to your interpretations of policy, which you have indeed repeated over and over again, by various editors indeed, when at the same time you refuse to answer the questions I ask in order to make clear that these same interpretations may have no base at all in the actual Wikipedia policy. You can type 200.000 bytes of nonsense, or simply get to the point. I have a feeling there is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT syndrome going around here. The Constitution may be a goddamn piece of paper, Wikipedia policy is not to be ignored and we had better all agree on what it means, in stead of each of us having their private interpretation of it. Mine may be wrong as well as yours, but I need those questions answered to determine whether I have been wrong -- or others. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

academic views are the only views that matter?
- see above. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  I fail to see where you answered this. You stated it, perhaps, but you did not show (policy) why this would be so -- or did you? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
only reliable opponents may word someone's view as far as Wikipedia is concerned?
See above, and also WP:V. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Secondary sources are best, but we may use primary sources as well. So, would you be willing to quote specific sentences, since I cannot follow your line of reaoning here. It seems illogical that a hostile RS would be the only allowed source for verifiably presenting someone's opinion. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
in which sentence(s) is the 9/11 article representing the SigMinView?
- See above, and also WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
or is there no existing SigMinView at all?
does policy prohibit to report Verifiable, RS facts when these are supportive of "righting a wrong", which is not wikipedia's purpose of existence, or of a theory which is at odds with the one propagated in an article?
- There has been a plethora of discussion on fact picking and giving undue weight to minor facts in this broad article. I am completely baffled why you keep bringing this up. Here is a quote from WP:OR that has been given to you more times than I can count on two hands: "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research." Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  You are obviously claiming that my edits would be OR, but pls read what you've said, and help me understand:
  
  if you use it out of context (or)
  
  to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source ... Would you be willing to discuss this problem with respect to:
  Michael Meacher claims the US intentionally did not prevent the attacks.
  
  Andreas von Bulow suggests elements within the US may be guilty of LIHOP or MIHOP.
  
  Molten metal was found. Period.
  
  NORAD did not send escort service, (which is standard procedure, regardless of shootdown scenario's). Period.
  
  George Bush refused to testify under oath. Period.
  
  George Bush refused to testify without Cheney. Period.
  
  George Bush claimed to have seen the first attack live on TV, and to have disregarded it.
  
  Norman Mineta testified Cheney was in PEOC shortly after nine. Cheney testified he was there after 09:45. Period.
  
  A passport was found in the rubble. Some sources say before the collapse. Some say after the collapse.
  
  The voicerecorders were, officially, never found. Period.
  
  An audio tape of FAA flight controllers was destroyed. Period.
  
  Video recordings of the Pentagon crash were systematically seized and most of them never released to this date. Most of what was released was only released after FOI lawsuits. Period.
  
  Noam Chomsky wrote a book about 9/11 in October 2001, in which he assumes there is no US complicity, but warns that the US did provoke the attacks by its past behaviour.
  
  In other words: how does mentioning any RS-based, verifiable observable "advance a position" ? I know that reporting half the truth may be misleading, but if any of these is half the truth, we should have RS available to report the other half of it as well, preserving balance and avoiding misleading texts. Does that make sense, you think? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(How can our policies speak about a particular view, i.e. the view B that the official version is most likely wrong) -- They can't. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute)
- See above. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  You wrote: Per WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are fringe theories, and a fringe theory needs to be extensively sourced to prove it has gained scientific acceptance (by secondary sources) so as to prove notability in a scientific context.
  But FRINGE says: In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
  You seem to be paraphrasing FRINGE, and getting it not quite right: if I look for extensively, it does not read "sourced" and it says that one publication suffices. So, what are you claiming and what are you quoting exactly? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If view B is a TinyMinView, why have we so much articles on it?
- Again, WP:FRINGE: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  I see what you mean, and this is the science issue again. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Does any SigMinView need to be TRUE before we can give it the fair treatment which WP:NPOV prescribes?:
- It needs to be verifiable that it is a significant scientific or accepted expert minority view point in this context. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Again, the science issue. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How can we have consensus when 10 editors claim this article is guideline compliant, and 10 editors claim it is not guideline compliant? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS: "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'." Your argument is not in that framework, and we have been trying to show that to you for two years. But not only on this page: different editors were trying to show you that your arguments violate policy as far back as two years ago, when you first began editing wikipedia by arguing for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory on Oklahoma City Bombing. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  You are right that page-consensus cannot overrule guideline-consensus, because much more editors were involved in formulating the guidelines. I would agree that consequently, page-dissensus can also not overturn guidelines. But the issue is, that editors who all believe their own approach is conforming to guidelines are discussing here. How come your interpretation of guidelines is the correct one, and ours is the wrong one? You need to be able to argue this, by quoting from the guidelines. It is possible that you may convince me that the guidelines indeed prescribe using the NFSM, but I have seen no indication of that yet. So, show me, and we can work more effectively together. No one is claiming the guidelines should be put aside. We have different interpretations. Please be open to the possibility that you interpretation may be the wrong one, even if you have repeated it a thousand times. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, your questions have probably gone unanswered because:

1. They have been answered many times before, including by me. We are tired of it.

2. They are intermingled with so much discussion on this page that it's hard to know what to pay attention to. It's just confusing.

3. You've put up so many topics in short periods of time for so long that it frustrates editors because it disrupts the workings and readability of the talk page; see #2.

Now this will add to the confusion and readability greately, but I'll go through and answer your questions for the last time. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I deplore the confusion also. But I did not discuss alone; a lot of editors were involved and especially when going off-topic, the page is getting harder to understand. It was not me who quoted every policy available in order to prove that these edits were "forbidden". I share your concern, we need to keep discussion focussed. From the above, I feel the main issue is: does a SigMinView need to be a scientific view? That word, "scientific", is missing from the core of WP:NPOV. I suspect that is not an oversight, but intent. I propose we now first discuss this main question, and then perhaps the above list of a dozen or so possible edits which may or may not be OR. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

defining consensus (survey among editors)

Regardless of the merit of my proposed edit, the thing expressed by a POV flag is not whether an article is POV, but whether editors dispute the NPOV. Several editors which are content with the current state of the article, also claim that there is consensus that the article is guideline compliant. I (Xiutwel) say it is not compliant: I feel it is POV because it does not give fair and proportionate treatment to the significant minority view, that there might have been complicity outside of those believed to be linked to Al Qaeda. It has been said I am the only editor who feels this way, and a lone nutter does not unmake consensus. I will therefor request endorsements for the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

Please say endorse or reject. Note this is not a vote, it is a survey to see how views are distributed. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments about neutrality should be based in policy, not spurious interpretations of it which have been repeatedly rejected as erroneous and at odds with both the letter and intent of the policies. I don't go around tagging abortion with neutrality disputed tags, because it fails to toe my hardline pro-life POV. That's not what the tags are for, and it's not how they're supposed to be used. The intent is to inform readers of a legitimate debate over whether the article meets our policies — not to blandly act as a "I don't like it" tool for individuals trying to push their fringe POV. --Haemo (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also critics to people alleging violation of pocilices "should be based in policy, not spurious interpretations of it which have been repeatedly rejected as erroneous and at odds with both the letter and intent of the policies":)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not a Request for Comments? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that the edits Xiutwel is trying to push on this article coincidentally happen to agree with his POV on 9/11 should indicate something about the "neutrality" of his suggestions. The bromide "You perceive your biases as neutral" has some currency here. --Haemo (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are a supporter of a minority POV but you think that the article should not give any further space to non mainstream POVs? If it is not the case then the fact that the POV that you are trying to keep coincidentally happen to agree with your POV on 9/11 should indicate something about the "neutrality" of your position about these suggestions. So are you a "conspiracy theorist" or is there a unhappy "coincidence" between your POV and the POV you are trying to keep in the article?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, what's with the pile-on opposition? First of all, this isn't the place to beat Xiutwel about how he's misunderstanding policy, and neither is it the place to talk about his editing patterns. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Take at look at the last, oh, say, 200,000 bytes of discussion. Notice how much has to do with Xiutwel's various attempts to get around policies he doesn't agree with? This is year two of this, and all that's changed is the argument — never the objective. So, in that sense, it does have a lot to do with his "misunderstanding" of policy, and his editing habits. --Haemo (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you speak of your opinion like if it was an indisputable fact. There are lots of people here that are suspectable of trying to "get around policies" but according to WP:AGF I try to speak just about contents and not about people. Why don't you try to do the same?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, the problem is personal. I can assume good faith, and still tell an editor that their approach is wrong — as is the case here. --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

endorse The opinion of 36 percent of the U.S. population that the 9/11 Commission Report needs to be re-investigated is not a "fringe" phenomenon. Neither is the opinion of 80 percent in some Muslim countries that Muslims did not perform these horrid actions. The article reflects both a Northern Hemisphere/Western Hemisphere bias and includes information from one party of a dispute while rejecting the other. Wowest (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... got any sources for that? If you do, that would be great. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

endorse Incidentally, why just Michael Meacher? Italy's former president Francesco Cossiga, who played a part in revealing the infamous operation Gladio, has said that 9/11, too, was a false-flag operation. The view is shared by Robert Bowman, the former head of the "Star Wars" program; Andreas von Bülow, the former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany and former Minister of Research and Technology... The list of respected, high-ranking "9/11 skeptics" from all walks of life is long: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ Perscurator (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To Wowest and Perscurator: No. Per WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are fringe theories, and a fringe theory needs to be extensively sourced to prove it has gained scientific acceptance (by secondary sources) so as to prove notability in a scientific context. However, the notability of these views in a sociological context is already established. Again, until reliable secondary sources can prove that there is some scientific consensus of experts that the official account isn't true, we must treat the official account as unequivocally truthful in the main body of the article. Piecing together a list of adherents and displaying poll results do not prove notability in a scientific context. Per WP:FRINGE, please provide a secondary sources that make this conclusion. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"The list of skeptics is long" — so here's an unreliable source with a bunch of names of it of dubious relevance or authority on the subject. Reminds me of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism; save that actually has some verifiable importance. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

comment This is only a survey among editors, to see whether the status quo of the article enjoys consensus, or is disputed; and in particular whether there is consensus rejection for my proposed edit, or that my edit is disputed among editors. Discussion of whether to include the proposed edits is better placed in the section which belongs to it. I offer to respond to the arguments of Haemo, Okiefromokla, et.al. (just leave a note on my talk), but I would prefer not to let this survey escalate in discussion and crosstalk. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

endorse: I think that the non mainstream POVs (that has not been proven to be fringe) are not adequately covered by this article and not in a neutral way (also because of the name "conspiracy theories" given to the subsection). I've rarely seen summaries shorter than this one in other articles.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not have to prove non-mainstream ideas to be fringe. If there are no reliable secondary sources showing consensus by experts on the idea, it is indeed fringe in this context and a NPOV tag is superfulous. Note that WP:FRINGE supports having articles about notable fringe theories such as this, and we we do indeed have such articles. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

endorse Dscotese (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Xiutwel already said that this survey was not a mere head count, Dsco. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your position? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reject This proposal confuses the editor's POV, WP:NPOV, article quality, and notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

interim result We have 5 editors endorsing inclusion of the Meacher issue. How can anyone maintain there is consensus not to include it? The POV flags should be restored. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Reject WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view ... Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus." Show me a reliable secondary source that shows the desired non-mainstream theories have garnered consensus in any appropriate field, without using WP:OR. Otherwise, there cannot be NPOV tags because we cannot such theories in a factual context, no matter how many people believe them. We can only say that notable conspiracy theories exist, which we do. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. There's no consensus arrived at via discussion...and consensus isn't found by outlasting those who disagree with you in endless debate. RxS (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact the POV tags just say that the neutrality is disputed, not that there is consensus on this disputing.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about the fact that there is also no consensus on the text as it is now?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is in a state that's been stable and accepted for a long time. When the point is reached, changes must be consensual. As far as tags go, you have to show that the article isn't neutral (not just because it doesn't fit your POV). RxS (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that to put the tag "the neutrality is disputed" there must be consensus on disputing the neutrality? According to which policy?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's NPOV policy WP:ASF:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

To put the POV-dispute flag there, there must be a legitimate issue documented in reliable sources which is not reflected in the article. However, failure to give equal weight to fringe views which do not have mainstream acceptance or even receive mainstream attention does not fit that requirement. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please cite the policy when it is written that there must be what you are saying in order to put the flag?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are beginning to delve into the practice of wikilawyering. Protocols do not exist for situations as specific as defining when and where and how a POV tag is to be applied. But if there is no legitimate POV debate to begin with (see my above statement), it follows that the tag cannot be placed. Keep in mind we're arguing in circles about a tag here, not any substance for the article itself. I thought I would throw my two cents in, but I personally think this entire line of debate is ridiculous. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who have to decide if the debate is legitimate? I think it is legitimate and I am not the only one, on what grounds can you say that we are wrong?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. Peter Grey (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Allegation of anomalies in the manistream account are not "fringe theories": "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". There is no "field of study" for 9/11, it's not an academic issue.

2) I know that each POV must have the "due weight" but what I am claiming is that actual wight is too little. And it is a matter of opinion: you can cite no policy to prove that the actual weight is the "due weight".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some allegations are valid, some are outright falsehoods. Remember false dichotomy. Peter Grey (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

endorse --Striver - talk 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not a head count. Consensus is not force through numbers, and endorsement without elaboration means nothing. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times over, the discussion is dead, and the poll is silly. I'm archiving this discussion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

hidden 17:30, 21 March 2008 by SheffieldSteel diff. / — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the official view a scientific theory?

I am indebted to Okiefromokla for diligently discussing the above (hidden) topics. I am sorry you may have missed my counter questions, since they were hidden shortly after I posted them.

A major question from that whole discussion is: is this a scientific subject, and should we apply WP:FRINGE as such?

WP:FRINGE is a guideline, which means: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Okiefromokla, you cited FRINGE quite a lot, and specifically the parts about scientific dissensus. I agree with you there are some scientific subtopics to 9/11, such as controlled demolition, but would you call the entire 9/11 view a scientific view? I would not be able to name the field of study. It seems the domain of intelligence organisations. This presents a problem, since part their job is to spread disinfo in order to confuse the enemy. Spreading disinfo to foreign journalists is official DoD policy; and it seems difficult, in the age of globalisation, to mislead foreign press when all they need do is buy an American copy of a newspaper to know the real deal.

Another thing is that I am not suggesting we write about the theories in this article. We already have several subarticles on several theories. What I am suggesting is we mention the facts, based on RS, even when these facts have (also) contributed to theorising by some people, and even when these facts are irrelevant in the eyes of those who assume the official version is truth-compliant.

In #questions, questions (above, hidden) you speak about:

1.1: theories (I wish to include some "observables", not theories)
1.2: tiny minority (which scientific community, which field of study, are you referring to?)
2: SigMinView is indeed not expressed in this article (where in WP:NPOV does it suggest to disregard a non-scientific minority view because RS are mostly ignoring it? Note: "mostly", not completely)

Would you be willing to tell me: (1) why you think 9/11 should be treated as a scientific view, in stead of just a general "view"? / (2) which field, then? / (3) why this would mean we cannot mention the accompanying observables? / (4) How do you see the balance between the NPOV-policy and the FRINGE guideline? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is a historical event that is scrutinized by academics, historians, scholars, experts on terrorism, government, politics, covert activities, and experts of American government, to name a few examples — In other words, reliable sources that make independent conclusions about the event. No reliable independent sources support the non-mainstream view or show that there is a significant minority of support in any relevant field. There are only such independent sources that tell of a conspiracy theory viewpoint among a few people or in the general population, which means the theories themselves are notable on Wikipeida. However, these views are not supported by a notable following of experts as shown by reliable sources, so we cannot treat them as if they are plausible alternatives to the mainstream view, just like the flat earth theories don't receive such credence in the earth article, among the thousands of viewpoints that aren't supported by relevant experts. That is what WP:FRINGE is about. There needs to be independent reliable sources, Xiutwel, that's what editors have been telling you for 2 years. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, I am grateful because of your answering of my first two questions. I remain in disagreement about that: I think we do not need a RS to agree with a theory, I think we only need it to report on the theory, not agree with it. Spending time discussing a theory, "debunking", is giving it credit. No one is debunking the flat Earth, I presume? The comparison with flat earth beliefs seems invalid to me. I see no way to reach further agreement on this, do you? If you do not, we may beg to differ: I say there are reliable sources which report on the minority views, but not on some of their intricate details, and in that case we should use the primary sources, when needed. You say we should keep the minority views out of the article, disregarding the notability of the adherents; correct? /Xiut

Would you be willing to answer the other two questions, 3 and 4? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, some very prominent academics spend a large portion of their careers debunking theories they believe are flawed. When, and if, reliable sources discuss a theory solely for the purpose of debunking it they are not "giving credit" to it at all — indeed, the "flat earth" theory is very commonly credited in reliable sources as debunked. Are they, therefore, giving it credit? Many reliable sources report on the holes in Creation Science — are they giving it credit? Of course not. There are reliable sources which report in the minority views but not as serious assertions of fact, or as anything other than sociological phenomena based on dubious evidence. Our policies implore us to discuss assertions of factuality in line with neutral point of view — if academic and historical thought discusses a given viewpoint solely as debunked or invalid, we do not accord that any weight in telling readers of our articles about the subject of their viewpoint. --Haemo (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No one wants to remove the mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories; they already have a mention here and an extensive article. Take a look at Olmec and Olmec alternative origin speculations. There is a brief section about the alternative origin theories and an article, but the main article is not written to balance the mainstream view with a collection of alternative origin views that are not supported by experts. Because there are reliable sources that mention the existence of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are notable on wikipedia, yes. But non-expert belief does not require us to balance the mainstream/expert belief. Try to understand, there are alternative ways of thinking about everything, but we cannot function as an encyclopedia if we give prominent creedence to views unsupported by at least a significant minority of experts. As for your questions "3" and "4", it all boils down to reliable sources. We simply can't mention every view that doesn't have relevant support defined in verifiable independent sources. What kind of encyclopedia would we be if we did? Without being supported by experts, there is a serious, serious problem. Constantly asking us to include these theories more prominently does not change policy or alter what is necessary to create a viable encyclopedia. If you opinion on what constitutes a viable encyclopedia is different than Wikipedia's, I wish you the best of luck in which ever alternative wiki project you choose to join. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 9/11

I tried to add it to the film section, but Xiuilel....removed it. Why? 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

I removed it. Xiutwel tried to re-add it, and then I removed it again. The problem I have with adding a wikilink to that film is that it is mostly about the War on Terror; it has very little to do with the attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, two different topics. There's probably a few places it belongs but this isn't one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talk • contribs) whenever

We have a whole paragraph on the War on Terrorism in the article...! You are not trying to limit our readers in accessing certain information, are you?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Xiutwel, your propensity for assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors with differing opinions continues to astonish us all... ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You, SOCO, cannot just take down my link without giving a reason why.67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

OK. The reason I took it down is because there was no consensus to add it in the first place, and considering the multitude of films made about the attacks with a more direct focus on them, consensus must first be reached before we can even consider adding it. I apologize for not including this in my edit summary, but would appreciate if in the future you would assume good faith just as the rest of us are expected to do within reason. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is consensus arrived at in a system such as an equivical three strike rule? I still do not understand what your objection is to Fahrenheit 9/11 being linked on the 9/11 page considering the reasons given to post as opposed to not. Could You explain your position SOCO?67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

I already explained my position. There must be agreement here that this is notable enough to include when weighed against other material on the page. The "three strike" rule is enforced in order to prevent edit warring on this site, which does nothing to improve the article and provokes nonconstructive anger and resentment among editors. Basically, don't try adding material until it's agreed upon and things run much more smoothly around here. It's a system which has been proven to work. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider Okie's comment on the history page. Okie goes so far as to say that Fahrenheit is not a documentary. Obviously this is false because it debutted in the documentary catagory at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. This is why the three strike rule is ineffective. People base reverts on opinions instead of fact. Is there any feasible reason Grey, Okie, or Beer that Fahrenheit should be excluded because Xiutwel and I have given more than enough proof it should be, i.e. Xiutwel's film summary.67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

No, I'm not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! /Xiutwel

The relationship between Fahrenheit 9/11 and 9/11 is apt and undeniable. The documentary precludes, includes, and concludes many of the events of 9/11. It directly speaks to many of the events listed in this article, such as the PATRIOT act, bin Laden family flight, and numerous interviews with members of the Congress and Senate in the wake of 9/11. The fact it was reverted by, Beer, is an example of his own opinion and not fact. I'm sorry Xiutwel!03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

The film is about how the attacks have been exploited, which is a different subject matter. It's not wholly unrelated, but the connection is indirect (though that's true of few other items in the article as well). If the hijackers didn't do it, it's probably something that belongs somewhere else. Peter Grey (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC), Peter Grey (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Xiutwel's indentification of Fahrenheit 9/11 not reasonable enough to grant its inclusion by consensus?67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

-Alone, no. Nor would I alone, if the situation were reversed, or any other editor here. I invite you to please calm down and take a look at the Wikipedia policy on consensus. Mutual agreement, not force of will, is what Wikipedia is built on. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-Xiutwel is not alone because I seconded (or rather Xiutwel seconded my addition). I invite You, SOCO, to please not speculate on something as unidentifiable as emotion and focus on the issue of whether or not Fahrenheit 9/11 should be included. I say "Yes" because of the reasons given by Xiutwel below. Now how does this consensus work does everyone else say "Yea" or "Nay?" :) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.163.114 (talk)

Dear 67.165.163.114, please avoid personal attacks, I was perhaps crossing the boundary above as well, and I'm sorry, ICB. And ICB, let me quote from Fahrenheit_9/11#Content_summary and would you please tell why you feel it's not warrented to link to this article?

election fraud
September 11, 2001 attacks
causes and aftermath ... including the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Bush family, the Bin Laden family, the Saudi Arabian government, and the Taliban
United States Government evacuated up to 24 members of the Bin Laden family on a secret flight shortly after the attacks
(8 paragraphs about other things than 911 follow)

- Even when Iraq is not directly linked to 911, for some reason I will wisely not speak out loud, a lot of Americans thought Saddam was behind 911 and supported the Iraq war because of that.

- I totally agree with you, ICB, that the film is not 100% about 911. But about 20-30% is not bad, that's damn relevant.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize as well for my above comment, Xiutwel; as you may understand, this debate has become increasingly frustrating. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪♫☺♥♪ Accepted.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I never personally attacked anyone, I'm sure, and the point I made is still valid. The only reason, Beer, has given to revert Fahrenheit is because of its irrelevence to 9/11, which has been adequately refuted in the subsequent entry by Xiutwel. I called out SOCO because SOCO deleted Fahrenheit without a reason at all, and in the general understanding of Wikipedia that is preposterous! So if there isn't anything else, Fahrenheit 9/11 should be kept on the page. If Beer should choose to revert it again, I would be concerned with the state of objectivity and fact here. 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)~GUAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.163.114 (talk)

Replied above. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the edit I reverted was by a different IP than you. If you are using a dynamic IP, and that other address indeed was you, it would already put you in violation of WP:3RR. As it is, I would strongly suggest that you sign up for an account before angrily denouncing anyone who wrongs one of the many identities your computer may take on. It makes it easier for other editors to interact with you if we're interacting with the same identity consistently. I posted a similar message on the talk page of the IP you have used most consistently, but thought I would post it here as well in case it does not reach you for that reason. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like this is borderline and doesn't fall into any guideline or policy jurisdiction too clearly. So it's a matter of consensus if we include it or not. I am against it, as the "see also" section should only include articles that would be helpful. If someone was looking up 9/11 in an encyclopedia, would this pseudo-documentary that is mainly about criticizing the bush administration really be helpful? The fact that 9/11 is used in the movie as one factor in Moore’s assertions against Bush is not a good reason for it to be in the see also section. In other words, the movie isn’t “about” 9/11. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is a continual format mess. Anyway, there's controversy about the films factual accuracy, it's only indirectly related to the topic and it's basically a attack/op-ed film. It really adds nothing to the topic. RxS (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Doctor, I don't think that correct. You have given your opinion ("attack/op-ed film") and I disagree. There is, mind You, controversy about the Bush administration's factual accuracy too. Fahrenheit 9/11 certainly has much to do with the 9/11 attacks as illustrated adequately by Xiutwel. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

Re: my opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree, that's the nature of trying to find consensus sometimes. RxS (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a better match for Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks than for this article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the docu is about both topics, it's equally apt there and here. I've added it there.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate in both places. It's clearly about what led up to 9/11, what happened on 9/11 and the results of 9/11. So is the OCT. The two theories simply weigh and emphasize a different set of incidents to emphasize. 76.87.151.24 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seventy Six Point...and Xiutwel. The doc shows evidence that the Bush Administration had ties to the bin Laden family. Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the 9/11 attack and therefore the documentary is valid for inclusion in this article. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

9/11 by Noam Chomsky

9/11 by Noam Chomsky should be added to the book list as it is entirely concerned with the events of 9/11. Consensus?67.165.163.114 (talk)GUAM —Preceding comment was added at 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you let the other discussion thread come to a conclusion before opening up another one. We've seen this happen here before, and it causes a lot of problems. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your apprehensiveness, but the last thread about Fahrenheit was deadlocked, so like any good citizen I bypassed the bureaucracy and suggested an unequivically scholarly book written by a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There should be no objections, thus enhancing the quality and quantity of information in this entry. Consensus?67.165.163.114 (talk)GUAM

I didn't say I was opposed to adding it, but still given the touchiness of the present situation it might be best to put this on hold if it gets reverted. Have you considered registering for a profile? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, does Wikipedia have an article on the book? If so, please provide an inlink for easier review. It has to meet notability requirements to be included in the first place. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that a book have a direct link for its inclusion (the other two books in that section do not, and perhaps we are better off for that. I might add that Wikipedia is not the end all be all, and Professor Chomsky's credentials should be proof enough of its authenticity, notability, and feasibilty for this entry). I didn't suggest You were opposed to adding it, S0CO. To answer your question I have not considered registering for a profile, but you can still talk to me on my number link. Consensus? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

-If there are no objections I will be adding professor Chomsky's book now. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

The article is currently protected, so I don't think that you'll be adding it anytime soon. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That read malevolently, maybe it's me though. This "Assume Good Faith" thing is a trip. Anyway, now or later it's all good. Do You object?

Couple questions, why this book among the thousands that have been published? What does it add to the article? RxS (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question, Doc. Aside from filling in a portion in need of filling, the perspective of an authoritative voice on American military, politics, and foriegn policy for the last fifty years (professor Chomsky) would be an invaluable addition to the scope of the 9/11 attacks. Professor Chomsky thoroughly inspects the terrorist attacks of 9/11, giving numerous citations (domestic and foriegn) along the way. His book is invaluable to this article, but I need not bolster his relevence and superiority. You can read him yourself. The point is that he is an authority. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

I haven't read the book nor am I aware of its contents. What I do know is that the book was published in October 2001. There is no possible way that the Chomsky book can help us, because much has been learned since October 2001. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is one of the rare critics of 911-aftermath which denounces conspiracy theories. It makes sense to include his book. /Xi

-I agree, Xiutwel, with a small exception. I simply think that "9/11-aftermath" may raise illegitimate objections by people who have not read the book. 9/11 by Noam Chomsky (who has more foriegn policy knowledge, I think, than any of us) is more concerned with the events leading to and directly following the 9/11 attacks. Beer pointed out that the work was published in October of 2001. The immediacy of professor Chomsky's book is all the more reason for its inclusion. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

When all this is so problematic, may we should have a special section with "Information which may or may not be relevant"? That would save us a lot of debate here. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-I don't see how professor Chomsky's book is questionable for relevancy sake, and since the only charge against it is its timeliness, as opposed to the facts given by myself and Xiutwel, it should be admitted. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

ZAHN: Professor, let me jump in here, but implicit in that -- aren't you saying that you understand why America was targeted?

CHOMSKY: Do I understand? Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence services, so does all of scholarship. I mean, we can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said is about half true. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state, nor do the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are not obviated by the fact that there are other good things that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/30/ltm.01.html 67.173.175.232 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

March 11 edit war on Fahrenheit 9/11

(this section is not meant to discuss the merits of inclusion of this link, but to reach an understanding on how to proceed without edit warring... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

There is no majority for inclusion of the Fahrenheit link, let alone consensus, which means we can debate it further to reach consensus, or edit war, or forget about it.

I would like to replace the POV tags for the previous issues tomorrow (March 12): since no-one replied at #March 10 POV tags edit war???, I say the POV tags should be in place while we discuss the other issues. That's not "holding a page hostage", it's informing our readers that a wikipedia editor dispute exists, which does exist. No more, no less.

To be able to do that, I need the article unprotected, so maybe, GUAM, will you agree to not violate 3RR? Then we can ask the admin to lift the block, while we discuss the Fahrenheit matter further. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

NPOV is not for every dispute that exists about the subject, it's a statement that the article fails to appropriately describe viewpoints. At the very least clearly identify the problem in the article so that it can be discussed rationally. Peter Grey (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It's nice to see some agreement on something here. 76.87.151.24 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No NPOV tags. Xiutwel, your objections explicitly break policy and guidelines. WP:FRINGE is a good example, and that ties into WP:RS and WP:V and WP:OR. You not being satisfied by policy is not reason for including NPOV tags. Your concerns have been addressed for months and have been dismissed by consensus repeatedly. Because you have been advised by editors and admins to drop this, holding the article hostage in this manner constitutes outright disruption. Stop now. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Okie, a few editors, among which are you, Haemo, Aude, RxS, JC-S0C, Peter, and several others, are jointly interpreting the same guidelines differently than I on the other side am doing (and several other editors are doing). The matter is even further complicated by the fact that you never seem to disagree among yourselves, but at the same time hold interpretations which are mutually exclusive. That makes the discussion almost impossible to understand.
It's an interpretation problem. I am not opposing the guidelines. If I would agree with you that the current existing guidelines say that which you claim they say, I would probably abandon wikipedia altogether, because I think it is impossible to write neutral, high-quality unbiased articles using the #NFSM model.
And you are confusing consensus with a majority, it seems.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And if I may be so bold to suggest Xiutwel is violating WP:SPIDER and Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. How about this. We get the hell out of Dodge...it'll be here when we get back, and let's all go make Sandy Denny a featured article. RxS (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry RxS, I am not a native speaker and I don't understand at all what these essays are driving at.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph. I suppose it's a humorous way of saying WP:DBF. Perhaps if your English isn't up to understanding that page, might it explain your trouble with some of the polices we talk about? It's not complicated really...anyway, just a thought. RxS (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball, Doc? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

Doc? Maybe if he was feeling.....lucky? ;) RxS (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

partial issue: Michael Meacher

Perhaps we can reach consensus on a smaller inclusion. This is the first part of the #Andreas von Bülow issue.

insertion point

conspiracy theories section

text

By example, Michael Meacher, Tony Blair's former environment minister and member of the War Cabinet till June 2003, was widely criticised for claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/20/wbulo20.xml Telegraph, 20 Nov 2003</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/07/nmeach07.xml</ref>

rationale

The opinion of a 2001-2003 member of the British government, which in turn was the closest ally of the Aghanistan/Iraq coalitions, is surely relevant to the allegations of conspiracy.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-Agreed. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

Why is an former environment minister's (at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) opinion relevant? Does he have special knowledge or expertise? Or is it just his personal opinion? RxS (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ministers do not only have their own territory, they are also jointly responsible for the entire government of a country, being part of the government. That means he was in on the whole discussion on WMD being found in Iraq, and the decision to invade, both Afghanistan and Iraq. When such a person breaks the ranks after almost two years, how could it be other than relevant? It is so obvious that I need not give any further deliberation. If you disagree, I really want to see a sentence in policy which says we cannot add sourced facts in the absense of additional sources which verify that the first sources are important to look at for e.g. writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever heard of a scientist not being able to quote another scientist's published work without first another RS asserting that that work is worthwhile?
Quote the policy please when you object.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But he's not a scientist...and has no other obvious expertise on this subject. As a general thing, I suppose any minister can be said to be involved in anything the government does, but I see no evidence he had any other special role, anymore involvement in the decision than hundreds of other people (or more possibly) in Great Britain at the time. Do we include the opinions of every minister (senator, congressman, MP etc)? Why is a former minister "breaking ranks" meaningful? RxS (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ministers are seldom scientists, indeed. Are scientists all that count? (Which discipline, then?)
Do you believe that Britain went to war because the minister of Defense decided so on his own?? Ministers takes such decisions jointly. Even in America, I think, the president does not decide such things by himself?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-Michael Mercher was a member of Blair's War Cabinet during the 9/11 attacks (as this topic clearly states). Therefore, his opinion is valid and should be added. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I believe this should be included. A notable person making statements like this can be used as an example of the conspiracy theories. He doesn't have to have expertise on it; if Bush says, tomorrow, that black people are inferior, that would be a hugely notable thing, even though Bush is by no means an educated genealogist who specializes in racial distinctions. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, maybe if the president of the US said it, but a environment minister? Earl Butz's (Secretary of Agriculture) comments about race isn't in African American. RxS (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The text says that, but none of the refs provided make any mention of it. In fact from [7]

Mr Blair discussed military plans with the team of ministers who will soon become his "war cabinet", who have been meeting at 8.30am every day this week.

The group includes John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister; Gordon Brown, the Chancellor; Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary; David Blunkett, the Home Secretary; Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary; Clare Short, the International Development Secretary and John Reid, chairman of the Labour Party. Also present were Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the heads of the intelligence agencies. At 4pm yesterday Mr Blair held a further meeting with ministers including Mr Straw, Mr Blunkett and Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary.

So the whole thing's completely misleading RxS (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, RxS ! Thanks for researching this. I do not remember where I picked up the "War Cabinet" phrase, it was probably some non-RS website I must have been looking at! My humble apologies. I'll draft a new bit: - It does not make much difference, I think, because the War Cabinet, I persume, is not the one that declares war but only decides on how to wage it. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

new text 3

By example, Michael Meacher, former British environment minister and member of Tony Blair's Cabinet till June 2003, was widely criticised [8] [9] for claiming [10] [11] that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. Meacher had in March voted very strongly for the Iraq war, and had voted weakly against an investigation into it afterward.[12] On the war with Iraq, Mr Meacher is among those who feels he and others in government were misled.[13]

I suppose Meacher is one of the most notable person that can be cited to have made such kind of allegations. Since we are going to have a section called "conspiracy theories" it would be better to have the claims attributed to the most notable people available rathar than attributed to nobody (see WP:WEASEL). If someone thinks there are more notable people then make suggestions.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such piecewise addition of trivia to the "Conspiracy Theories" section. That section needs to be a fair and concise summary of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

- Do you think that the reference to Meacher would make it not concise anymore?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Meacher information is probably not notable enough to go into the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article; even if so, it is surely not important enough to be mentioned in the lead of that article; even if that is the case, I can't see it being included in this article's summary of that lead, which is the section you're proposing to add it to. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, he's nearly irrelevant to this topic. He wasn't among the senior political or military leadership who were involved in the discussions surrounding this topic...he has no special expertise on the subject as the Minister Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He didn't come to these conclusions while serving in that role, he only came to them after he returned to being strictly an MP...one of more than 700 other MP's. His view isn't representative of any political viewpoint on the matter, even his Labour colleagues who opposed the war in Iraq distance themselves from his remarks. RxS (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are saying his view is not notable when there exist 700 other MP's, correct? (Last time it was 198 by the way, but the exact number matters not to me). I believe he was sacked in June 2003, just 3 months after the Blair government decided to go to war. (And therefore, including Meacher.) He "went public" in October 2003, I guess. There are plenty of plausible speculations possible on his behaviour, and of that of his collegues. We're getting nowhere with these, altough I understand your concerns, I think. I see no option but to stick with the facts (RS). So if you are saying that he believes internet gossip despite his "Blair period"-inside-knowledge that there is no cover-up, I think it is best you would provide sources, or stop speculating --at least on this page-- since it clutters the discussion. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So (you both) supposing that we want to deweasel the summary which would be the best people to which attribute allegation of cover-up's or anomalies in your opinion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would probably suggest this:- Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. It is also believed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately not shot down, or that it did not crash into the Pentagon. The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. It has the merit of summing up the lead of the article, without attempting to go into detail as to who believes what. Anyone who is interested in such questions can, should and will click on the link to the main article to read more. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheff, you say it is not necessary. On the other hand, I would argue that it makes sense to give an example which shows that these theories are held not only by computer nerds who surf too much. You may oppose that, thinking it might give UNDUE credibility to the theories.
I like it better to attribute, than to WEASEL these theories or claims or questions into anonymity. (It's bad enough that the mainstream account is not attributed.) Did I guess your concerns correctly? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking Sheff's proposed edits; however, there's a glaring lack of sources. Usually, when you talk about controversy, you'd like some sources to give it a foundation. Of course, I'm guessing that they'd be there in the real-time version. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Sheff's edits as well, because the current summery is way too trimmed down -- provided we replace "was" by "might have been" in each instance: In that way, we cover both those that ask questions and express doubts, plus those who answer the questions they asked for themselves. But Sheff's change does nothing to include the fact about Meacher into the article, which has merit mentioning. This seems the appropriate section for it. Why should this section be kept so vague and abstract? When Bush says "they hate our freedoms" we simply quote him, don't we? We don't go saying "some suggest they might hate our freedoms"? What is the big reason for omitting this information? off-topic: Would you folks rather be discussing the Mineta testimony? I chose this one because I expected to find the least controversry among editors... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

~~SheffieldSteel's summary~~ This is not my summary Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I am not sure if the reader is helped by reading the multitude of theories - they can read them in the main CT article. Perhaps it's best to focus on the greatest common denominators:
- Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda might have planned or carried out the attacks. It is also believed that the hijacked flights were deliberately never intercepted by military traffic guidance escort service, that the collapse of the World Trade Center (in particular building 7) might have been the result of a controlled demolition, or that American Airlines Flight 77 might deliberately have been allowed to strike~~, or that it might never have been~~ ~~that~~ ~~plane which crashed~~ into the Pentagon. The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that, rather than controlled demolition, the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires was sufficient to cause the collapse of the Twin Towers.
...and an imbalance in this is that the community of civil engineers is named, but the multiple Retired Generals etc. who have shown disbelief in the official narrative, are not mentioned now. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Iraq War is only peripherally related, not even to the attacks, but to reactions to the attacks, Meacher's opinions on the Iraq War are not relevant. Peter Grey (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you support inclusion when we forget about that last sentence? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As to sources: they are all to be found in the lead of the 911CT article. I copied the text without references for ease of editing and reading in this dicussion. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Meacher is notable and speaking in his area of expertise. I think the objections are due to the difference in political systems from the US. An "environment" minister in the US would not have been privy to all 911 information but in the Westminster system ministers work from the same knowledge regardless of portfolio. If he was not told everything the Minister of Defense knew then under the Westminster system the MOD could be sacked.
>Xiutwels text looks ok but I'd exclude mention of the rediculous "no plane at Pentagon" theory. Out of all the thousands of conspiracy theorists (by this I mean conspiracy researchers not general public), less than a dozen individuals support that one according to polls so it is not particularly notable. Wayne (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Pentagon-noplane; I had assumed it would have been 50-50. If you're right, we should delete it in my proposal, I will STRIKE it accordingly. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am assuming bad faith here, but I find it incredibly hypocritical that you are so willing to change something based on what one person says, so long as they are a CT-ist like yourself, yet when you have a large group of editors doing the same, but dissagree with your POV pushing, you simply ignore them. If this isn't proof that this whole argument is pointless, I don't know what is(Other than the numerous times we've pointed out what guidelines you are continuing to ignore)... --Tarage (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarage, I hear you are enraged, and I would like to speak to you about this, because I'm needing more harmony, not less. If the matter seems worth discussing to you, would you drop a note on my talk page, because "hypocritical" is about me and not about this article? Also I'd appreciate it when you take a look at #questions, questions. Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no need nor desire to look at any of your restated arguments, because you have yet to come up with anything new. It's all the same POV pushing you have been doing for years, dressed up in new words. You ignore policy, you ignore consensus, you do exactially as you please. I have no words for you anymore, because I don't believe in wasting them on people who refuse to listen. I have a feeling this is the only way to actually get through to you; to ignore you. --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that moniker -> "CT-ist". I presume that stands for "[C]ritical [T]hinker", i.e. one who thinks deeply about all the facts involved, instead of blindly accepting what their presydint thinkses. Bulbous (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I could come up with something a bit less rational than "[C]ritical [T]hinker", which would be closer to the truth... but I digress. The point is, reguardless of how you or I feel, these arguments have been rehashes and rehashed to the point where they are stale. No, beyond stale, boardering on rotten. I think you should take your POV pushing elsewhere, but you won't give up until the 'gods' of Wikipedia come to smite you, I'm sure. Sadly, it appears than you and yours don't care about policy. --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume GF and that he meant "[C]ritical [T]hinker" as I do not believe any of the conspiracy theories. I weakly support the general mainstream account but believe there was a coverup to hide government incompetence, and thus by extention the investigations were lacking and not based on evidence.
Nominal research will show it is not "what one person says" as the truth movement has extensively debunked the no plane theory so although it should be mentioned in the main conspiracy theories article it should not be in the summary here. Wayne (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Statements by others"

Does anyone else think this should be moved to the reactions section? I think there is a discontinuity considering the "Statements by others" is largely reactions. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Guam

I'm assuming: no, because: "Statements by others" is short for "Statements by others on the alleged motive of the hijackers" which is much more specific than "reactions". Agree? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but shouldn't "Motives" and "Statements..." be merged into something like "Possible Motives," then? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

There is no accounting for taste, but, is there a specific problem you are trying to fix? Is there something confusing about the article in that vicinity? — I would like to leave it to you, I have my hands full with the issues of Meacher, Von B"ulow, Cheney, Mineta, Bush, the passport and the molten metal...☺♥ --Xiutwel 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure

It took two days, but we are moving toward our first consensus. The following is a discussion from another section that I have copied here. It is concerned with article clarification pertaining to the "Responsibility" section. I would like this discussion to concentrate on the articles overall structure and clarity, as a number of "editors" have suggested...

Responsibility can only mean the hijackers and those who gave them direct tactical support. The motivations of the hijackers, which are largely founded on US oppression and exploitation, are highly relevant and need to be included, but the hijackers made the choice. The origin of their motives is not the same as reponsibility. Peter Grey (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-I see your point, Peter. Why? and Who? are separate questions. My qualm is with the structure of the article then, based on a difference of definition not opinion. Responsibility has many definitions, which gives it vagueness here. Since we are aware that the men listed under "The hijackers" (mentioned at the opening of the article) flew the planes into the buildings, I suggest that the section named "Responsibility" be changed to begin with "The Hijackers" so those men can be considered in depth. The "Motive[s]" section could then be expanded and clarified in concert with the overall structure and clarity of this page in our minds. 24.12.56.220 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I concur. This proposed layout would be reasonable. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-How about thoughts on tying "Memorials" up with "Fatalities" and "Survivors" sections? 24.12.56.220 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

I agree with Anon and SOCO on all accounts. It would do much for the page if those motions are accepted. --GuamIsGood (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit please

~~{{editprotected}}~~ Can someone add a period to the end of the caption for the image at September 11, 2001 attacks#Zacarias Moussaoui. Changing to: "Buildings surrounding the World Trade Center were heavily damaged by the debris and massive force of the falling twin towers." Thanks! Spencer^T♦^C 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how anybody would object to a minor and obvious fix, so: done. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Spencer^T♦^C 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we add a link?

{{editprotected}} I would like to add a link to Shanksville, Pennsylvania which is in the first section... and maybe even the white house. Since the article is protected can an administrator do this? I think it would be good for a Canadian like me who doesn't know where Pennsylvania is.... in fact what I'm really looking for is to see a map of just how close they got to perhaps hitting the white house... maybe this could be added? --CyclePat (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Google worked wonders... here is a map... they had quite a ways to go if that was there destination. --CyclePat (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No one could possibly object this this, so I went ahead and did it. --Haemo (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Haemo. Cheers from Canada hey! --CyclePat (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please do not use this talk page as a soap box, or as a forum to discuss your views. Use it to discuss concrete changes to the article and ensure that your edits remain civil. --Haemo (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

valid discussion

The following discussion 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.

I would like to invite Dscotese to reformulate [your edit which was reverted by Haemo, leaving out the non-wikirelated Founding fathers and everything, because you were i.m.o. making valid points about the current editor dispute. We have to resolve it. Ranting does not help. Neither does reverting each others edits on the Talk page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I did not realize that the talk pages were being censored. I thought reversions on talk pages were limited to obvious vandalism. I'm not sure exactly what I'm not allowed to say on the talk pages, but I had assumed that mistakes would be left for public display as an example. If Haemo feels that this is not in keeping with the educational nature of Wikipedia, I guess it's up to him and other administrators to make it more obvious that in order to be heard, we have to censor ourselves. From the edit you mentioned, I have taken the parts I think interested you. I am suggesting that we add a tag to the article to direct WP readers to the discussion page. Dscotese (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to add useful information in Wikipedia about questions surrounding the attacks has proven quite educational, although largely unsuccessful. I believe that Haemo or Ice Cold Beer or RxS or Okiefromokla or MONGO or some combination of them will find reasons to prevent the edit, and in the process, show how to apply Wikipolicy to protect the holders of US political power, while Xiutwel, Pokipsy76, Perscurator, Wowest, ireneshusband, Wayne, Bulbous, myself, and several anonymous editors will continue adding information which promotes the independent research and healthy criticism of governments that has been so lacking in recent years that the US is now waging three wars and suffering in a recession. In this sense, our continued attempts to include "CT" information is a Pyrrhic Victory for the propaganda arm of the US government.

I think there are editors who would be completely against adding a notice to the article itself suggesting that research on the attacks may be more fruitful if they participate in or at least read these discussions. I suppose each of them believes that perusal of these discussions would be a waste of time for a visitor, that it is a noble thing for them to spend so much time participating themselves in order to avoid policy violations on the reverts they have to do to protect Wiki visitors from wasting their time on such matters as the clues that uncover "political corruption" and the growing 9/11 Truth Movement. Perhaps their beliefs are correct, but I disagree with them. Dscotese (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems there are already those willing to play the British Empire and censor any opinion they disagree with. Why not? (Deminizer (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

I believe there are a few who may see the light, so I will continue providing them with opportunity and chance wherever I can. That is what these talk pages are for, and I think they would benefit from more visibility. Dscotese (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"to protect the holders of US political power", "a Pyrrhic Victory for the propaganda arm of the US government" Sweet.....I see there's a bunch of real brain wizards at work here. You know, serious debate is one thing but this sort of personal attack and assumption of bad faith has been a hallmark of this talk page for as long as I remember. We're not here to provide or promote "independent research and healthy criticism", and those who think we are have a mistaken idea of what Wikipedia is. Please take your search for "clues that uncover "political corruption" else where. For now, serious discussion of NPOV tags and fringe coverage is pretty much over. No one wants to be subjected to such mud slinging. RxS (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd link to some guidelines that may be useful to editors recently posting here. I hope this will help people to understand what will - and will not - be removed from Talk pages:

Thanks for reading! It makes life easier for everyone. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea Dscotese is trying to get across is that readers are not given the viewpoint that conspiracy theories are the result of "independent research and healthy criticism". Instead the article leans more to derogate the theories. Wayne (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe this little stunt by Dscotese is enough to add him to the 'Editors whom we shall ignore' list, don't you agree? Why not reward his bad faith in us with a little bad faith in return? --Tarage (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speak of "us" and/or "we" when editing. Your misconduct is your own, and your self-righteousness is not shared by other editors. Bulbous (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. "Those of us who abide by the guidelines set by Wikipedia and are tired of the tedious and repetative restated arguments". That better? --Tarage (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Much! Bulbous (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This once again demonstrates why this was removed in the first place. Discuss changes to the article in a calm and sensible fashion — don't accuse other people of acting for the "propaganda arm of the US government" or of "running a protection racket" to defend "political corruption" and the "holders of US political power". --Haemo (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2008 (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.

Video Tapes Handed

{{edit protected}} In the end of the September 11, 2001 attacks#Osama bin Laden header, this needs to be added. It was removed when it shows the flip side of the videos. -- However the factuality of many of these videos is questioned and many conspiracy theorists believe that the united states government may actually have made the tapes, seeing how Osama Bin Laden, a left handed man ^{(FBI source)}, was writing with his right hand in the videos.

-- --Green-Dragon (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs to be added. Would you please elaborate? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means, Phil Mickelson is right handed and golfs left handed. I think any meaning attached to that observation would be original research. RxS (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New and intresting(Something most of these CT arguments lack), but OR. Agree with the editors above me. --Tarage (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OR? This is clutching at straws, even for a conspiracy theory. I mean, think about it: you're suggesting that the government faked the videos, going to an enormous amount of trouble to do so and finding an exact look-alike of bin Laden to play the role... then overlooked something so elementary as what hand he was writing with when making the video? Come on, people. Our purpose is to make an encyclopedia here built with solid facts, not rampant speculation. Take this stuff to a forum where it belongs and stop wasting our time. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to be that crass, but well put. --Tarage (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit not done. Requested edits need to have consensus. --- RockMFR 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Islam, the left hand is considered a dirty hand. It is used for things like cleansing yourself. The Qur'an calls people in Hell "the Companions of the Left Hand". Especially older generations of left handed Muslims would have been taught to write with their right hand. And even today, the more religious Muslim society you live in, the more likely it is your teacher won't allow left handed writing. You wouldn't write with your left hand on TV if you wanted to appear as a leader and defender of the faith against dirty Kafirs. And someone of OBL's generation would have been taught right-handed writing in school anyway. 88.113.38.127 (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we've had an unsourced reply to an unsourced original post. That's probably enough original research for now.

Unless we see some reliable secondary sources talking about this subject, there's nothing we could add to the article, so there's nothing to discuss here. This is not a forum for general debate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From a quick googling: [14][15][16][17][18][19] ("how can you use the hand that you wipe your back-side with to write the name of Allah?")

The negative stigma of left handedness in Islam is not a secret; take a peek at a travel guide to a Middle Eastern country. Or try google. We even have Islamic toilet etiquette.

Though I guess this is as much original research as the left handed conspiracy theory is in the first place? 88.114.125.67 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sources could make a good addition to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, assuming that it questions Bin Laden writing with his right hand. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

warning template at the top of the page?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If we do not want to include any information which is deemed relevant by those who doubt the official version, but not anymore by the present RS ... how about warning our readers we took such a decision? They may not expect wikipedia to systematically exclude such information, especially when they are aware of our NPOV policy!

Example:

I hope a native english speaker can smooth this a little... I think I may have worded this too strongly, not quite neutral, but I see no better phrasing at the moment. Ideas? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A warning that WP:RS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT aren't being violated would create confusion. But it's good we have a consensus that WP:RS don't support fringe theories. Peter Grey (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So... another attempt to strike at the validity of the current article. Another attempt that I dispise, and will probably fail. But hey... atleast it's new... --Tarage (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is wildly inappropriate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The above section was archived at 07:21, 21 March, by Ice Cold Beer. diff

I know no reliable source, apart from dozens of books and "journal of 911 studies", which assert the official version is wrong. But I also know no RS which assert it is correct, independently. What I do know is that the RS which assert the official version is correct, are ignoring part of the evidence. That is confirmation bias, reducing to pseudoscience. If we copy that NFSM method, we need to warn our readers! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You will never succeed proposing changes to the article based on what you "know", because that is the definition of original research. Conversely, what reliable sources have to say is going to make it into the article - because that's not just a good idea, it's policy. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The acknowledgment of the fact that there are numerous unanswered questions is not original research; it is well known and well recognized fact. Even the body which carried the investigation publicly stated so. Why is there no section on unanswered questions?!

What this single minded group of editors does here?

They are providing the answers, where there is none, and that is not acceptable.

This ridiculous but unbearable circus with truthers, conspiracist, shills and clowns lasted long enough. We are constantly undermining the very foundations of our very basic freedoms in the worse possible way and that is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.108.82 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete suggestion we could act upon? One that can be reliably and sourced with a neutral point of view. Also, please refrain from calling other users names; it is not helpful. --Haemo (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

9-11 Conspiracy Evidence Sub-section Proposal

Officially, smouldering fire brought down the Twin Towers at freefall speed; the first steel structures in history reputedly collapsed due to fire since fireproofing. It also suggests that Building 7 fell due to fire, even though photographic evidence shows there to be little damage to the building. However, an increasing number of people are questioning the official account of what happened on the morning of 9-11. ^[1]

Many New York City residents and firefighters witnessed or felt explosions before the World Trade Center Collapse. Some believed there were underground explosions. ^[2] Many reporters reported multiple explosions live at the time, including reporters of CNN, Fox, NBC, MSNBC, and WABC-TV. ^[3]

9-11 victim Frank A. DeMartini had been an architect and the Construction Manager of the World Trade Centre. DeMartini had stated in a video interview on January 5, 2001, “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." ^[4]

Some experts say that after the plane hit the North Tower the vertical movement of the first collapsing section would have stopped 0.02 seconds after impact, and no collapse would have resulted. ^[5] Also, photographic evidence clearly show large and high-speed quibs from all three buildings; spouts of ejected material caused by internal explosions. ^[6]

Defenders of the pancake theory insist that the quibs were the result of pressured air released during the collapse, but several points dispute this theory. Examining it on the North Tower: the dust could not have been discharged until after the floors hit together and the air was squeezed out. The squibs emerge ten to twenty floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating, appearing to contain pulverized concrete from the floor slabs which contained the only concrete in the tower, but the quibs appear before the floors pancake down to the slab. The pancake theory requires orderly pancaking, which would have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the base of the collapse. Each set of squibs appear as two on the same floor, one emerging from the horizontal center of each of the tower’s two visible faces, this pattern far too focused and symmetric to support the pancake theory. The pancaking of floors would have created under-pressure in the region above the top pancaking floor, causing dust to be sucked back in ^[7] ^[8]

In May of 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released its Building Performance Study. Despite the fact that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were built with public money and so the engineering drawings of the buildings were supposed to be publically available, the blueprints remained off-limits even after five years following the attack. In March 2007, a whistleblower made the detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower available. These show that the sizes and features of the design are not in keeping with the structure as FEMA claimed, and photographic evidence also contradicts their claims. ^[9]

It is commonly assumed that the reasons for the 9-11 conspiracy are in what has resulted since; the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. Although in April 2007, Greg Palast, an American-born investigative-reporter for the BBC, released “Armed Madhouse”, which became a New York Times Bestseller. The book displays dozens of secret documents showing that President Bush had planned to go to Iraq and stall the oil to benefit other oil companies, thereby strengthening his connections to them. He has also reported these findings on the BBC network. ^[10] ^[11]

Missing black boxes, an ID card found intact even though most of the plane’s wreckage near Camp David had mysteriously vanished, missing passengers, seven of the 19 men suspected as the culprits by U.S. authorities claiming to be alive (however officials have defended this by stating that their identities might have been stolen), and the fact that the evidence of terrorism is being kept from the public, are just a few points causing many to feel that there is a conspiracy. ^[12] ^[13]

A public poll run by CNN in November 2004 resulted in 89% voting that they felt there “is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9-11.” ^[14] Notable Celebrities who have publically questioned the official account of 9-11 include Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sharon Stone, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Russo, Eminem, David Lynch, Marion Cotillard, Robert Baer, Rosie O’Donnell, Juliette Binoche, and Paris (Oscar Jackson, Jr.) ^[15] 9-11 “inside job” spray painting has been seen across Bristol, England. ^[16] Hundreds of engineers and architects have come forward with problems with the official 9-11 account. ^[17] Dr. David Ray Griffin has listed a series of facts which were omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. ^[18] Several 9-11 Conspiracy groups are fighting for a new and “truly independent” investigation of 9-11. ^[19]

I would also ask that the existing sub-section called "Conspiracy Theories" be replaced with this one, partly because it is a very poor paragraph. The bold statement, "The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers" has is no cited evidence to support it, and I highly doubt its claim. I would also ask, if I may, that the title be changed to Conspiracy Investigations, Research or Examinations, because conspiracies are ideas without hard evidence to support them. The official account of 9-11 actually has less ground to stand on. I would also just like to note that the use of conspiracies, plural, does not fit because the '9-11 Conspiracy' is a singular account of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read this page and its archives to see why we don't give undue weight to conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read my sources you may have felt differently. Neurolanis (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is posted at the wrong page. You might like to try 9/11 Conspiracy theories, then read WP:SUMMARY for a partial explanation of why the paragraph you want to change looks the way it does. Thanks. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you have provided are not reliable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what the point of this rather long essay is. Given the number of errors of fact, it's not even suitable for 9/11 Conspiracy theories. Peter Grey (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this page deserves a sub-section on this issue because it is part of it. It does already, but the existing one is poor quality and really more of a response to the 9-11 Conspiracy, so it is at the least mistitled. And the sources here are more reliable as on several Wikipedia pages I had read today. Besides which, you still haven't had time. The professional way to handle this would be to read through the sources and then make a professional evaluation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the conspiracy theories section needs to be renamed: That is the most common name for these beliefs — the msnbc source is a good indicator of that. Note that www.journalof911studies.com and 911research.wtc7.net, which most of your information comes from, are not reliable sources for much of the scientific information you are using to cite them with; they are groups trying to argue something that has no consensus of scientific or expert backing as shown by neutral independent sources (See WP:FRINGE). The same goes for www.patriotsquestion911.com and many of the other pro-conspiracy websites that you use to cite scientific explanations. The MSNBC source, on the other hand, is good for citing that the conspiracy theories exist and what these theories claim, as it's clear these are notable beliefs outside of scientific/expert fields.

Note that your CNN opinion poll is not notable. Polls are of fickle reliability, especially informal online polls: obviously, the people more likely to take time vote in that poll are people with strong feelings that 9/11 is a cover-up. You're also seeing the responses of people who happened to be on the page that day, or may live anywhere in the world. A certain geographical area, age group, religion, race, etc, could be represented disproportionately as there are only 10,000 respondents to (supposedly) represent the distribution of views from the entire world. Any poll of encyclopedic notablity are large formal polls from reliable and neutral organizations.

I agree with others here: This is way, way too much for this article (see WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY). It's especially too much considering that there aren't sources that specify how much of this stuff actually has support from experts and not conspiracy theorists. Most of this, however, would be good for 9/11 conspiracy theories, so check if there are places to insert this information in that article. Note that some of the claims in your composition aren't sourced or are sourced but the corresponding source does not support the information. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, I appreciate your honesty. However, you say, "most of your information comes from, are not reliable sources for much of the scientific information you are using to cite them with", but I must ask then which online sources do you consider to be "reliable"? You say, "they are groups trying to argue something that has no consensus of scientific or expert backing as shown by neutral independent sources" and I must ask, what beyond being a leader in a scientific field makes one an expert? A neutral source? Such as those representing the conspirators you mean? These are truly independant sources who have done their own professional, honest calculations. Besides which, I am not offering this information as Wikipedia's official take on 9-11, I am offering it as a sub-section on conspiracy investigation. I asked if it might not be referred to as a 'conspiracy', but if it that isn't approaved I would be fine with it. But many, many people are aware of these issues and would have to wonder why aren't they mentioned on the page? Neurolanis (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text for Conspiracy theories section

Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals from outside Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. It is also believed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately not shot down, or that it did not crash into the Pentagon.^[20]^[21] The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.^[22]

This is a cut-down version of the lead of the main article, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY, and taking account of problems that were raised earlier on this page. If we can get consensus for this edit, we can get the change done with an {{editprotected}} request and improve the article. What do you think? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield, I'm not opposed to expanding the CT section in appropriate summary style. I've made some changes to your paragraph, added a mention of Conspiracy theorists' accusations regarding the incentive of the US gov (per source), and added a scholarly peer-reviewed journal sponsored by the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society that helps cite the last sentence. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Various conspiracy theories have emerged suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals from outside Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. Conspiracy theorists sometimes maintain that the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by a United States fighter, that American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately not shot down, or that it did not crash into the Pentagon.^[23]^[24] Conspiracy theorists believe the United States government planned to use the attacks as justification for the Afghanistan War and the War in Iraq in order to secure oil reserves, among other incentives.^[25] The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.^[26]^[27]

Well, granted it is superior to what is there right now, but it still ignores many important points, the big names who have come out on the issue, and plus it sounds like it was quickly written as a sort of kiss-off for the researchers. It doesn't do justice to the issues, frankly because it ignores most of them. Neurolanis (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems rather long for the lead article, has too many details of specific conspiracy theories, rather than simply introducing the subject. Peter Grey (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to mine. I admit it is long, but I have already trimmed it down. Every one of its details are important, although a few quoted lines could go. I'd be open to such suggestions. And it is one conspiracy. Neurolanis (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the lack of reliable sources, Neurolanis, your proposed section is still longer than any other single section of the article as it stands now. It must be proportional to be considered in the first place. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Many times pages have a sub-topic that is longer than others. But I could shorten it... Neurolanis (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories have long been a point of contention on this article, with the discussion leading to administrative action on more than one occasion. There is presently one such case appealing to the highest authority on Wikipedia. So it's a bit of a hot-button issue. However, the purpose of each section in this particular article is to summarize the information found in the more detailed sub-articles which fall under the wider category of 9/11. I agree that the conspiracy subsection needs work to better summarize its parent article, but I personally think Okie's suggestion does a better job of this: it is a summary of the article's lead which is proportional to the rest of this article.

Anyways, as you appear to be a new user, I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policies; among them the necessity for neutrality, verifiability, and use of reliable sources. These standards have been in place since Wikipedia was founded, and all of the articles on Wikipedia are supposed to abide by them; the fact that many of the less-supervised articles of lower quality do not is not an excuse to ignore or lower the standards here. If you choose to reply to this, please do so in the thread about your particular proposal. This thread is supposed to be about Okiefromokla's proposed text. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the Okie's version as better than my own offering. Neurolanis, please bear in mind that my version (and Okie's improvement on it) are both based on the introduction to the main article 9/11 conspiracy theories. Your text doesn't seem to be related to that, so I think the best thing to do with your material would be to take it to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and discuss incorporating it into that article. Your contributions would be most welcome there. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments to the proposed summaries:

the sheffield steel version seems quite fine
the subsequent proposed expansion instead:
- make a repeated use of the word "conspiracy theorist" which could seem intended to drive bias
- as it express all the things it seems to sugest that there is a group of people (the "conspiracy theorists") which actually "believe" all those different things on 9/11 all togheter. Instead there is not such an omogeneous group of "believers".
- the word "bleieve" makes thing too strong and possibly biased: people can just suspect or doubt, why should we put things like if they are so unreasonably confident?

Moreover, for both version: the phrase about the civil engeneers seems quite unrelated with the context and it's not clear why this article is citing the debunking of just one of the many claims presented in particular.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any of them as an improvement over what's there now. The details seem out of place, it's too long. I prefer what's there now unless there's a compelling reason to change. There's a fairly neat encapsulation of the concept with a link to the main article. Seems fine. RxS (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I crazy? Or should the main article be based mostly on the most reliable sources, and the sub pages be reserved for the more OR-esque entries? You know, don't bog down the RS with OT? Seems logical to me... --Tarage (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust those questions were purely rhetorical, Tarage. My assertion is that the main article's section on conspiracy theories ought to be a fair and concise summary of the lead of the 911CT article. You'll notice that the section as it stands now mentions that building collapse is attributed to aircraft impact and fires rather than controlled demolition, which is rather odd since it doesn't say that anyone suggests controlled demolition might be a cause. That's why I proposed the version I did. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SheffieldSteel and Pokipsky that it is odd to mention "not controlled demolition" without mentioning "controlled demolition". Let's either make a better summary, or delete the "civil engineers" bit. This makes little sense, except to readers who know a lot already about the conspiracy theories. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC) // I welcome both Okiefromokla's and SheffieldSteel's proposals. I do not fully agree with them, but any of them is better than the currect version, as I was saying. Let's make the edit; in case any of you object, would you then please make a counter proposal and/or quote guidelines instead of mentioning them? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

When/if you can agree on a version, I'll make the edit if you need me to. --Haemo (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarage, RxS, do you agree with Okiefromokla's text? (Since SheffieldSteel supports that...) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My appologies for letting this slide for so long. What text are you refering to? I can't seem to easly find it... --Tarage (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I argued before I think the Sheffield's one is ok and the Okie's is not for the reasons I gave above.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification: Arbitration in progress

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This talk page is also mentioned in the above case, which opened on March 20.

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11

im doin a report on 9/11 n have lots of questions so if anyone nos about be more then welcomed to let out any info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.190.99 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Do you have to use this topic? I would really try to pick something else for a report. This is a very controversial topic with many books and videos created about it, and you don't have time to read them all. The country is split bout 60/40 between people who think a handful of Arabs did it all by themselves (the majority) and the minority who think that either the US government let it happen on purpose, or caused it to happen on purpose as an excuse to start a war with Afghanistan and Iraq. If you take either side, there will surely be someone on the other side who won't like you. This is not, currently, an historical topic, but a political one, and politics, sex and religion are not normally good areas for children to pick to write reports about. Also, Wikipedia is not a good source for a report on anything. It's a good place to start doing your research, though, because it has articles on just about everything and you can then find more reputable sources for your information. You should ask your teacher whether I'm right about this or not, though, and then do whatever your teacher says, no matter what I say. Wowest (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Also, you might try the reference desk if you have questions about subjects on Wikipedia. Article talk pages are not the best place to ask them. --Haemo (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a bad source for essays, but a good source (we hope) for sources. Make sure you follow up on the footnotes and links. Good luck with your research! Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

proposal: Bush - Cheney testimony to 9/11 Commission

The following text was part of a much larger proposed section, at #Norman Mineta testimony issue. We did not reach agreement; I hope we can agree on the inclusion of this much smaller topic:

Vice president Dick Cheney and the President refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. They also insisted on testifying together, instead of separately as requested by the Commissioners'. When asked, the reason for this given by George Bush was: "It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."^{< ref>Counterpunch< /ref> < ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Bush-statement-on-Iraq/2004/04/17/1082140100198.html< /ref> < ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/< /ref>}

proposed insertion point:

September 11, 2001 attacks#Immediate national response

Include? Modify? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Testimony to the 9/11 Commission is not immediate national response. This information is essentially trivial and irrelevant to the 9/11 attacks (the subject of this article) - remember that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If a secondary source reports that this information is important, then we need to consider the context to determine where this material might be appropriate. For example, if secondary sources say that this is cited by conspiracy theorists as evidence of wrongdoing, then it could be added to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories; if primary sources say that it is proof of a conspiracy, then it could be added to 9/11 Truth Movement or wherever (depending on the source). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How would this fit into the article? All I'm getting from this paragraph is that that's how they acted; it seems too ambiguous for readers, and also fairly irrelevant. However, if you attach it to a paragraph about, say, accusations from prominent figures about the government's wrongdoings, then I think it would be promising. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not being able to reply sooner (Real Life and ArbCom issues...).
I am hesitant to expand the proposed edit, because the longer it is, the more it might be opposed. The context, which should be (made) clear to our readers, is that the "immediate reponse" consisted of giving a shoot-down order, only after all four planes had already crashed. This is consistent with Cheney's testimony, and not with Mineta's. The fact that Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath cannot logically be irrelevant to this article, and deserves mention somewhere. I disagree we need to couple it to accusations, that is not at all necessary for the information to make sense.
If we let go of the Mineta issue for a moment, perhaps another valid insertion point would be: 9/11 Commission . Any suggestions? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections (or suggestions) concerning the making of the edit (proposed above) at the 9/11 Comission paragraph? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Would you like me to post it again? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WTC 7

I'd say we need a section about controlled demolition of WTC 7. [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.48.239 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have an entire article on it: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that's a theory, so it'd be more at home at the 9/11 conspiracy theories article than here. --clpo13_(talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory; it is one of numerous unanswered questions & article should state so. Is there a reliable source which would explain the introduction of currently deployed fire and debris hypothesis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.48.239 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have reliable sources calling it a conspiracy theory — so unless there's a compelling reason to disregard it, there's not much left to discuss. --Haemo (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have sources pointing towards debris bringing down WTC7, but they aren't what anyone would call reliable. I won't link to them because this isn't the place to debate what is and isn't a conspiracy theory. --clpo13_(talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fellows we are not interested in conspiracy theories, we are interested in the hypotheses, as far as I've seen we don't have an article called Controlled demolition conspiracy for the collapse of the World Trade Center, yes?

This following sentence: A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m. as a result of debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequent fire.

Is utterly, completely, undeniably, ridiculously POV! The fact is, there is no official answer for the collapse of the building, who with the right mind placed such blatant and obvious fallacy here and for what reason?!!

The article should state all the details about the ongoing NIST investigation, along with announced release date (most probably on 8.8.2008., the date when Nixon went away, if you'd excuse such digression), not implying something from nothing.

Please, place the POV tag on top of the main space, immediately, and allow other editors to seek, find and join this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources stating that something other than fire and debris brought down WTC 7, and then maybe we can have a serious discussion about whether the article needs to be balanced. --Haemo (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no official answer for the collapse of the WTC 7. Your off topic assertion is not helpful at all.

It is not "off topic" — it is on topic, since that is what talk pages are for. We have reliable sources stating that the collapse was caused by fire and debris. We also have preliminary government reports for this hypothesis, and a final report in the works. Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources — so if we're going to discuss your suggestion let's work with the sources. --Haemo (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the source, I'm outraged by its interpretation, working hypothesis does not constitute proof, not now, not ever. How exactly can working hypothesis of ongoing investigation be presented in such manner, we are not here to post postulates, are we? The presentation of the sourced material is misinterpreted (to say it vaguely as one can) in must inappropriate and misleading manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying that the collapse of WTC 7 is subject of ongoing investigation, we are saying that the fire and debris brought the building down? It's beyond irrational, it's bordering with cover-up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to provide proof, for or against anything. Our standard is verifiability not truth — which means "what reliable sources say". If we discuss something, we need to rely on reliable sources discussing it. So, if you want to suggest changes along the lines you've outlined we need some sources to start the discussion. Otherwise, there's no real way to move forward. Please, suggest such a revision if you're keen on it. --Haemo (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here> [21],[22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) No, I mean, suggest a revision of what you'd like it to say, with sources. --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision could state something along these lines>

The collapse of the third building, 7 World Trace center (WTC 7), which was not hit by plane, occurred at 5:20 p.m. and it is a subject of ongoing investigation. [23],[24]

And it should be followed by unbiased presentation of the two most prominent hypotheses, which would allow readers to form their own opinions, whatever those might be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, but it's the second part that's the tricky bit. --Haemo (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't need the second part (at the time, that is), and the implementation of proposed revision would be a first sign of good will (in a while, that is) to resolve this long lasting status quo and move the article closer to the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say 7 World Trade center (WTC 7), though not hit by a plane was severely damaged by the destruction of 1 WTC and 2 WTC and collapsed at 5:20 p.m. All three collapses are the subject of on going investigation. But the controlled demo theory isn't a significant minority view so it doesn't need it's own section, it's got an article as it is. The article is pretty NPOV at the moment. RxS (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer first take, which is more accurate with regard to the reliable sources we have there, but we could go with yours too, if you would agree to dispel the word severely. To clarify, WTC 6 sustained severe damage [25] (yet it didn't collapse) so to put emphasis in such manner should be considered as exaggerating. I'm also not sure what are you implying with the minority view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

By minority, he means that there is little support in academic circles for the idea that WTC 7 fell due to a controlled demolition. To find out more about the policy he was referring to, and how it applies here, please see Wikipedia:Fringe theories. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting notion, do tell, your assertion is based on what? Are you delivering it from global perspective? Are you aware that European [26] and Japanese parliaments [27];[28] discussed these grave matters? I'd like to see some references for your claim, if you could provide some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.174 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's based on the current level of acceptance among the relevant academic community, which in controlled demo's case is nearly zero. Politicians don't constitute an academic community so they aren't really relevant. I can see you're new here, I'd suggest reviewing the archives to avoid having to answer the same questions repeatedly. This is a topic that's been covered extensively. RxS (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. The reliable sources we do have (e.g. the NIST interim report) say that the fire almost certainly played a part in the failure of the structure. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall we rephrase to "almost certainly", then? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Appropriateness Of Subject Heading "Conspiracy Theories."

Since the official account is in itself a theory of conspiracy, wouldn't it be more apt to re-title this section as something more akin to "alternative theories?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.152.2 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again... Why can't people take the time to read the archives? I'm requesting an archive of this so we don't get into yet another redundant argument. --Tarage (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there are several megabytes of them. You will just need to keep a FAQ for yourself to refer people to, it's not fair to ask of anyone to go and read all the stuff you and others have written over years, before commenting here. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The heading matches the name of the article that it refers to, 9/11 conspiracy theories. Many editors have discussed that name (see the Talk page), and I think the consensus is unlikely to change unless someone brings a new argument. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More apt to refer to the 'official account' as a conspiracy theory. User:Pedant (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your oppinion has absolutly zero relivance to this argument. Back it up with RS, or keep the soapboxing out of here. --Tarage (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How about toning it down a little and stop attacking an editor for a GF suggestion? Regardless of the Conspiracy Theories pages name it is more appropriate and grammatically correct to call the section in this article "Alternate Theories" and refer readers to the 911 conspiracy theories page and have a short explanation of why they are refered to as Conspiracy theories. The only reason the section is not so named is POV pushing which is why it keeps coming up. Check out science articles and see how alternate theories are headed... you wont see them using a name that translates as "other crap theories that only loonies believe" no matter how fringe they are. Wayne (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new to this talk page, and was not trying to start an argument. I respect everyone's opinions here. I was just offering a suggestion that seems to make sense in light of the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is widely understood as a label that discredits certain views and by extension elevates others that may not necessarily be more empirically correct. The term is dismissive, and I think that given the fact that the 9/11 issue is far from settled it seems unfair to apply that label in this forum. Sorry if my suggestion was viewed as "soapboxing" as that was far from my intention. I just feel it is unfair and that it puts this debate on unequal footing. Users of Wikipedia should be able to decide for themselves if alternate theories about Sept 11, 2001 are substantive or not without suggestive labeling influencing their assessment of the various sides of the debate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.152.2 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear a moderator weigh in on my comment if that is possible. Again, I'm not here to fight. But arguing for fairness is another matter entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.152.2 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Moderators" don't exist on Wikipedia, just FYI. Also, this issue was pretty extensively discussed on the article's talk page and the arguments basically feel down to (1) it's pejorative and possibly innaccurate, so let's avoid it and (2) it can be pejorative, but we're not using it in that sense, and it's the most common name so let's keep it. There was no consensus at the end of the day, but the archives on that page might be helpful to you. --Haemo (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this article belong to a wiki-project?

Is there a wiki-project involving a category of articles which include this one?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are actually several; they're linked at the top of the page:

WikiProject United States (Rated B-Class)
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-Class)
New York State WikiProject (Rated B-Class) (Rated Top-importance)
WikiProject New York City (Rated B-Class)

They're in the collapsed box. --Haemo (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we move towards unprotection?

This eternal full protection is far from helpful. If everyone agrees not to restart the edit war which occurred last time, I'll unprotect. Better, if everyone can agree on something, I can unprotect with even more gusto. --Haemo (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that as long as the article states unsupported assertions and assumptions as fact, then it will continue to suck, and it is a wikipedia policy that we make articles that don't suck. If the article sucks, there's going to be an edit war. Unprotect it anyway. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are anything but helpful to this debate with your needless soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems more likely that YOU Tarage are using wikipedia as a soapbox, since most of your edits are to this and related articles. I however edit a wide variety of subjects, and I know an unsupported assertion from a reliably-sourced fact. Our mission here is to write a well-written, factual and unbiased article. Remember that. 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so simply because I choose to edit articles that intrest me, I am using Wikipedia as a soapbox? Do tell me then, how many non discussion page edits have I made? --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather, not giving undue weight to minority positions is a policy — we don't have a policy which says articles must not suck. Probably because what "sucks" is extremely relative. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit I am suggesting below is not a minority position, it is an almost universally-held consensus position. And Jimbo said "we make the internet not suck" and policy says we don't use unsupported assertions, and that our goal is to write a good encyclopedia... a good encyclopedia doesn't express opinions, but facts. User:Pedant (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is only "universally held" because you stripped out all facts you disagree with, leaving only the ones you agree with. You could just as easily argue that "9/11 is a term for an event many people think happened" is "universally held". Naturally, that defeats the purpose of writing an encylopedia article — to quote Kurt Vonnegut: I have never seen a more sublime demonstration of the totalitarian mind, a mind which might be likened unto a system of gears whose teeth have been filed at random. […] The willful filing off of gear teeth, the willful doing without certain obvious pieces of information[…]. --Haemo (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify that I am not called you "totalitarian" — rather, that the doing without information allows for misinformation and misapprehension, which is a pre-requisite for totalitarianism. Wikipedia aims to help prevent this from ever happening again. --Haemo (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There were millions of eyewitnesses, obviously something happened on September 11 2001. We should state what is known, and not what is surmised. I'm not a deletionist, nor an inclusionist, I think a brief perusal of my edits will show that I do not have pet theories or attempt to own articles. However, I do insist on articles containing only facts which can be referenced from reliable sources. As an editor, that is both my right and my duty. I take Wikipedia very seriously. I did not "strip out facts I disagreed with", good editors do not use their opinions as sources. I proposed the editing of one sentence -- the lead sentence to reflect those facts which are not in question. Certainly aircraft crashed into buildings that day, but can we state as fact who was piloting the planes? Can we state as fact why they were flown where they were? Can we state as fact that the hijackers (if they were indeed piloting the aircraft) were members of al Qaeda? and if we could, would it be accurate to say it was an attack by al Qaeda? Can we be sure that this was an attack "on the United States" and not an attack on the World Trade Centers Association? or upon Larry Silverstein? It is not up to us to ascribe motive to the perpetrators or to fill in the blanks between what is known and what is merely surmised. If the "facts" as stated in the present lead sentence are in fact factual, it should be pretty easy to just say "Look Pedant, X plainly states that the attacks were intentional suicide, that they were directed at the United States and not some other entity, that the planes were piloted by so-and-so who is definitely a member of al Qaeda and was following an al Qaeda plan... and that X bases their assertion on good evidence that could be reasonably expected to be true." If the references don't bear out the statement, then let's pull the statement and move on to the second sentence. If they do bear it out, let's move on to the rest of the article. It's pure BS to have to put stuff in and take it out over and over for half a decade. All I want is to move forward. When I see an article in crisis, such as a full-protection -- which I consider to be a huge red flag, I am all for getting to the root of the problem and resolving it. Is there anyone here besides me who wants to make this article not be an endless war? If that's not what you are here for, you should just go away and let the real wikipedians fix it. I'm not going to tolerate any more of people accusing me of acting in bad faith. I didn't fuck this article up, and I'm not here to fuck it up, and one more accusation of bad motive on my part will, I promise, be met with an escalation of dispute resolution procedures. I've been polite and sincere and cooperative, but I'm not going to be accused with impunity. User:Pedant (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page shouldn't be a constant edit war, but when it comes to a subject like this, every side has deeply-held opinions, which means there will be warring over pretty much anything. I can understand your point of view regarding citations, but I can also see the point of view of the other side, that is to say that, to many, the idea that this was a suicide attack on the United States is self-evident. I'm not going to state my opinion, since I really don't want to get drawn into this, but I can honestly say I'd like to see this page unprotected, even though I doubt that will happen any time soon. --clpo13_(talk) 09:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please edit this:

The following discussion 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.

NOTE: I've archived this so we don't get the same discussion in two places. --Haemo (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." to: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of violent destructive events which, by their similar nature and timing, have been presumed to be intentional and coordinated attacks.

I think we need to go through this article, sentence by sentence and change any statement of opinion or theory into one of fact. User:Pedant (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is fine, the fact is that reliable sources say 9/11 was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States...so we're good. RxS (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him RxS. I can't tell if he is trolling or simply back for another round of soap boxing, but neither are productive and helpful. --Tarage (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not assuming good faith. I'm neither a troll nor a soapboxer, I am an editor in good standing. This sentence, and many others in the article do not have reliable sources. We need a source for:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

what's the reliable source that says they were coordinated suicide attacks...what's the reliable source that says they were 'by "al-Qaeda" and what is the source that says it was "the United States" that was attacked?.

If this article is ever going to be worthy of featured article status, we need to systematically remove everything that is not sourced, or which has equally reliable sources contradicting it. And don't call me a troll. And don't imply by "back for another round of soap boxing" that I not only am soap boxing now, but that I have done it before. Civil, AGF, DICK, etc... User:Pedant (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to assume good faith with you, because I've delt with you before, and this entire debate has drained my good mood. You have cited no sources, you have provided no new arguments, and you only speak of your oppinion. I have no time to waste on arguments such as these. --Tarage (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason you have to assume good faith is that you are required to do so. I insist that you do so. Your mood is not relevant to the facts. I have not as you claim, made any reference to my opinion. I have not provided new arguments, I am merely starting at the top of the article and attempting to bring it into line with our community policy. I'm not having an argument with you, if you have citations for the 3 points I have requested, provide them. If not, stay out of it, and let someone else provide them if they exist. We're not here to express opinions or argue with each other, we are here to work together toward the common goal of writing an encyclopedia. I would also point out that it would be more benefit to the community to not limit yourself to one pet topic, as your contributions seem to indicate that you do. If you are able, maybe you should find some other article to work on while this one is locked, because you are not being useful in this discussion. Just because you feel you own this article, doesn't make it your responsibility to get in an argument with me. User:Pedant (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oho! Now who isn't assuming good faith? Pet article nothing. I just happened across it one day, and found it littered with those who would do damage to it. Even then, I don't exactially edit all that often. The most I've ever done is revert vandalism. You are right though, you have not provided new arguments. You aren't even re-hashing old ones. You are all but carbon copying them. One look into the archives would show you that this needless nitpicking of wording has been debated to death. You want sources? That's the problem. Almost all of the sources we have claim this. We've already said that to include all of them, we would have to have a refrence page double the size of the article. No, the burden of proof is on you. If you want the article to change, show us some refrences. Show us some reliable sources that can rightfully overlap all those that claim this to be true. Then again, we've had this argument before. With you, if I remember correctly. Please, before you go any further with this crusade, check the archives. I'm 100% positive you will find this exact argument. --Tarage (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources for both those points. Just because you don't agree with them is not a reason to disregard our policies. --Haemo (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Three points actually:

1)coordinated suicide attacks

2)by al Qaeda

3)the target of the attacks was "The United States"

These don't seem to be cited in the article. Would you care to point out the citations from any of the 'multiple reliable sources' you say we have? As an editor, whether I disagree or agree with a fact is not relevant. Please don't accuse me of violating Wikipedia policies. I don't. User:Pedant (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The best solution here is for those who claim to have a source to state it and put an end to this. Note Pedant, you too have not provided any sources.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't provided sources because I haven't made any claims. It does seem strange to me that someone intent on suicide would pack their will intending to take it with them into the explosion. I don't claim to know who was flying the planes, or why, or what affiliation they had, or who or what the attack was directed at. I don't know. User:Pedant (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced multiple times. It's a summary of the article. The reason this article has 181 sources is because people insist on sourcing statements multiple times. Heck, check EB for it. --Haemo (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't cite sources for that information either. That link you provided was a commercial website, it will cost me money to get more than a quick glance. Without reference, Encyclopedia Brittanica is acting as a primary source. Encyclopedia Brittanica was not a witness, they need a source as well.

Regardless, if there is a source for this information, I do not see the citation. That is what I am asking for... what authoritative source, which can be reasonably expected to be correct, based on evidence, is there for

1)coordinated suicide attacks

2)by al Qaeda

3)the target of the attacks was "The United States"

? ...if there is none, then it is clearly against policy to include the assertions. If there is a source, what is it? This isn't a difficult point, on any other article, an "unreferenced fact" would be removed and replaced with unambiguously unquestionable actual facts. This article should be no different. I've asked for references and not gotten any. Do they in fact exist? User:Pedant (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just being absurd. If you honestly think that we have absolutly no sources to back up this claim, after this many years, then you think far too lightly of us. Again, burden of proof is on you. Go find reliable sources to the contrary, and we will debate then. --Tarage (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. " -- Jimbo Wales User:Pedant (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to take part in a redundant argument for your sake. Read the logs, and don't make me assume bad faith in thinking you are too lazy to do so. --Tarage (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OUTDENT The burden of proof is upon you to show how this is not referenced. Sources are not required in the lead (debate in Wikipedia seems to waffle on application of references in the lead, but hovers around 50/50), but the information contained must be referenced somewhere; indeed, it is: the first two sources cover the information you requested. IAW Wikipedia policy this is sufficient and need not be primary sources; in fact, policy states the opposite...that secondary sources are preferred. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point: secondary or tertiary sources are preferred. Brittanica is acting as a primary source but they are not a primary source and do not cite a source. Neither of the first two sources even contains the word "suicide" ... where in these sources is the reference to "suicide attacks" (to start with the very first unreferenced "fact")? By what reasoning do you claim that I have the burden of proof? I'm not offering to prove anything, I simply want to know where the data comes from that leads to us using the first sentence in the article. User:Pedant (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, one need not assume good faith when behavior clearly points to a recursion of bad behavior... — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What policy are you going by there? What bad behaviour are you alluding to? Accusing me of bad behaviour and further of a recursion to bad behaviour is essentially wikislander. I insist that I am acting in good faith, and that you assume good faith on my part as required by policy.

I am not "behaving badly" at all.

I didn't start this. I haven't edit warred on this article. I haven't edited the article this year even. It is not my fault it is protected. I didn't ask for it to be protected. I didn't protect it. I have nothing to do with it being protected. It is not customary for us to have protected articles, "anyone can edit" is one of the founding principles and core policies of wikipedia. I support this policy and all other wikipedia policies.

All I am asking for is a citation for the claims of fact in the first sentence of this article. If we remove all the nonsense (unsupported claims are nonsense in this context) from this article, then we will not have edit wars. There does exist a subset of all claims re 9/11 which are indisputable, because clear evidence exists. The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of violent destructive events which, by their similar nature and timing, have been presumed to be intentional and coordinated attacks. This is an uncontentious statement that can be readily supported by the available data and witnesses and investigation. That is a good lead to the article. As the lead sentence stands now, it is not uncontentious and is not supported by the references provided. User:Pedant (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said you were behaving badly, I merely said that the policy you cite states that I do not have to assume good faith where no good faith is present. I didn't say it applied to you personally, but that your statement simply isn't true.
I showed you that all of the above claims were cited using the first two references.
You certainly did start this discussion.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine... if it will get you to stop this redundant argument... the NIST interim report. I'm sure you'll find some way to poke a hole in it, reguardless of how small and insignificant, but atleast it's a start. It's far too late at night to scour the archives(Which you refuse to read) for the extremly long list of sources that were posted last time this argument was used... --Tarage (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop telling me I am doing something for which you have no evidence. Don't say I refuse to read the archives. I've been reading the archives for the last 8 hours. You seem to crop up quite a bit in the discussions, but I haven't noticed one time where you did anything to facilitate progress on this article, and have seen what seems to me to be a general obstructive trend to your comments discussing the article. So stop adopting a superior tone. Stop accusing me of 'bad behavior'. What is in the archives has nothing to do with whether the article cites references or not. The reference is in the article, or it isn't. If it is, point it out, if it isn't, don't pound on me for it. You're the one who spends 90% of his time on this article not me. I've read the NIST report. Nowhere does it state anything about:

1)coordinated suicide attacks (the word "suicide" does not occur in the report)

2)by al Qaeda ("al Qaeda" does not occur in the report)

3)the target of the attacks was "The United States" ("United States" does not occur in the report)

Stop trying to characterise this as me arguing. I'm only requesting citations for unsupported assertions in the lead sentence. Something is definitely wrong if we can't have a stable uncontroversial and not-protected article about events that happened 7 years ago. Don't blame this mess on me, you are the one who has been fiddling with this article for 4 years. And now it sucks. An article that needs to be protected isn't a stable article with good factual data. Either help fix it or go away. This isn't a fight. It's a collaboration. User:Pedant (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The principle reason we don't list a specific source is that we could list thousands of reliable sources, but each of them, individually would provide undue weight toward that source and would allow the implication that there is some dispute about those facts, which also would be undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. " -- Jimbo Wales User:Pedant (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the above claims are substantiated in the first two references already in the article. No need to duplicate information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, neither source substantiates any of the three assertions. I have read them. User:Pedant (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (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.

The following discussion 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.

Edit declined - no consensus Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

{{editprotected}}I have discussed the following change, and am suggesting that "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."

be changed to: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of violent destructive events in the Northeastern United States, which, by their similar nature and timing, have been presumed to be intentional and coordinated attacks.

which is the same statement with the unreferenced "facts" removed. I have unsuccessfully attempted to obtain references for the following:

suicide attacks
by al Qaeda
upon the United States

there appears to be no consensus for my proposed edit, but it is a true statement, and it is what is left over after the unsupported assertions are removed. User:Pedant (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The attacks were clearly co-ordinated, they were clearly suicide attacks and the target was clearly the United States. Suggesting otherwise (at least without some compelling evidence) is not a good-faith suggestion. The consensus is that al Qaeda is responsible - this is what should be reflected in the introduction, though verifiable criticism of this conclusion could be included elsewhere. Peter Grey (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "clearly" the case is in the realm of Wikipedia:Common knowledge -- please see that policy page...

It is not up to us as editors to decide what conclusions can be drawn from common knowledge nor are we entitled to synthesize conclusions based on elements that have been published by reliable sources, as that would amount to original research.

All I am asking for is the references to a reliable source for those three assertions in the lead sentence. Do they exist? Without reliable verifiable sources, these assertions are not acceptable additions to wikipedia. Sure, anyone can see that the events were coordinated, everyone knows al-Qaeda did it, it happened in the USA so it must have been directed AT the USA. Obviously anyone onboard a plane who is flying a plane into a building is intending to commit suicide. It's Common knowledge.

Problem is that common knowledge is not enough to include "obvious facts" in an encyclopedia. These are all conclusions someone has drawn. But is there a reliable secondary or tertiary source for these conclusions? Because it's just as "obvious" to someone that "it's an inside job, that nobody could have flown planes like that unless they were experts, so they were remote controlled, so it wasn't suicide because the pilots were in Nebraska at Stratcom HQ, and it wasn't an attack by foreign terrorists but by criminals bent on gaming the Stock Market and the insurance companies".

We aren't the arbiters of whose 'obvious' gets respect and whose gets ridicule... it isn't up to us to decide what is a fact, because doing so is original research. This essay might be of some use if you just don't get it. There's a reason we have policies, and it's a good reason. This is n't an anarchy, a democracy, a chatroom, or a soapbox. It's an encyclopedia. We work together as a team, not against each other. That's a rule.

Still need those citations. With all the folk who edit this article, I would have thought someone could have pointed out a reliable source for these 'facts' that have been in the article for so long. Don't waste your time telling me I'm not acting in good faith, just show me I'm wrong. If not, don't waste the community's resources by dragging this out. Go find a reference or agree that our policies require us to remove those assertions. Then we can move on. If we work systematically we can reach a stable article, and build from there. (I propose that the most straightforward technique is to start at the beginning, go on until we reach the end and then stop -- with all due respect to the reverend Dodgson) As it stands, this article is a mass of policy violations. Don't let your personal belief interfere with the task, personal beliefs have no place here. User:Pedant (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pedant, in the past I also asked to have the statement sourced or attributed instead of expressed as a fact. You can note that the article Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks says correctly that

The United States government identified 19 hijackers as being responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, and linked the attacks to Osama bin Laden.

this article instead says that it is just so.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia as a source. "The United States government" is also not a source, it is vague. We might as well use "every right-thinking red-blooded American" or "the whole world" or "everyone" or "left-handers" as a source. Who says suicide attacks/by al Qaeda/upon the United States? Where, in what reliable reference? User:Pedant (talk)

No one is using Wikipedia as a source. Please note the first two cited texts. They cite the information you request. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the texts you cite. As far as I can see they don't even mention these three assertions. Do you mind pointing out where you see this information in the texts you are citing? Please? User:Pedant (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you have misinterpreted me. My point is: we actually shouldn't assert as a fact that the attacks were made by Al Qaeda, we should instead attribute the claim to the US government like we do in the page about the responsabilities.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be that I did misinterpret you. We can't use the "US government as a source", but I would not be opposed at all to mentioning a specific US Government source... "the government" is not really specific enough, I think, but if there were like a Congressional proclamation that it is the official position of the United States government, or something like that. I know that there are congresspersons who don't profess to believe al Qaeda did it... there are certainly others in the govt. who don't... But I won't be opposed to the inclusion of any fact that has a reliable source and is verifiable.

While we try to assume good faith, there is no sense is discussing whether four hijackings occurred at the same time by random chance, that the pilots of deliberately crashed aeroplanes believed they were going to survive, or that the attacks occurred in a different country. This sort of silliness only makes it harder for legitimate criticisms to be discussed. Peter Grey (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't "try to" assume good faith. We "must" assume good faith in order to work together as collaborators, which is why we have a specific firm policy that we do so. You are arguing against a position I don't hold, and I never asserted that there was anything random about the events of that horrendous day. I can see that the attacks were "obviously connected". I'm not a source. What is "obvious" is the same thing as "common knowledge". If it's obvious, and true, is irrelevant. To use a statement, there must be some reliable source that states it. I'm not asking for discussion just a reference for those three assertions. Your statement begs the question. It assumes that the planes were piloted by "the hijackers", that they did indeed deliberately crash the planes. It also assumes that an attack in the US is an attack upon the US.User:Pedant (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well beyond the assumption of good faith, but no doubt the wording Pedant suggests is weasel wording and unnecessary when we have plenty of reliable references throughout the article.--MONGO 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing 'weasel' about the suggested statement. Without the references, we don't use the assertions. If there are 'plenty of references' it shouldn't be hard to provide one of them. Without references for 3 major statements of fact in the lead sentence, I don't see how anyone can expect this article to move forward. It's a simple request, what are the reliable sources for those three assertions? User:Pedant (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided two references, which you seem to ignore. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seem to ignore? I have read them. Neither source contains references to any of these 3 claims, unless I have overlooked something. Just exactly what portion of the texts seems to you to be substantiation of one of the 3 claims of fact suicide/by al Qaeda/upon the United States ? User:Pedant (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, I didn't put this article in this state. However, at this point, it contains 3 specific unsourced claims of fact in the lead -- which is manifestly not according to wikipedia policy. I'm not arguing whether the sentence is true, I am asking for a reliable source for the 3 unsourced statements of fact it contains. Our rules require sources, it's as simple as that. We simply cannot expect to have an unprotected article which contains unreferenced statements of fact, as every wikipedian is compelled by the rules to remove such. User:Pedant (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying you put it "in this state", but hostile/misleading/erroneous discussions like this led to the article being protected in the first place. Changing the text to read what you personally wish violates consensus and is rejected. You are entitled to believe what you wish, but that doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all being hostile, I am urging the editors to collaborate on improving the article. My beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion and to the project as a whole. I'm not 'Changing the text to read what I personally wish', I'm not changing anything. Obviously if the article needs to be protected, then there is no consensus. Consensus is how we arrived at the policies that require reliable secondary or tertiary sources for claims of fact, which is particularly important in controversial, or for controversial statements in otherwise non-controversial articles. The policies are there for a reason, and the more difficult an article is or the more controversial, the more important it is that we strictly adhere to those policies.User:Pedant (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with the Encyclopedia Brittanica? Are they not a reliable source? --Haemo (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, it is a commercial website and I could only grab a select-all-and-copy of the page. What I was able to read did not mention suicide. Without access to the whole article, I can't judge it. Perhaps you could copy the relevant text to this discussion if you have access to it. User:Pedant (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies here...

...but since you insist...

Article #1: "SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS, ‘IN STRONGEST TERMS’, TERRORIST ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES"

That one doesn't mention suicide, nor does it say the attacks were 'upon the USA', neither still does it state that the al Qaeda did it. User:Pedant (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The title says CONDEMNS IN STRONGEST TERMS TERRORIST ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES, yes. It does refer to the attacks as being upon the US, it does not say that the attacks were targeted at the US, or the attacks were attacks upon the US...

consider this example: a clown opens up a condom, and inflates it like a balloon... the Portrzebie Chronicle, a local newspaper features a caption that reads "clown holding a balloon", but it does not say "the object in the clown's hand is a balloon". The object is in fact a condom. It would be incorrect to say "according to the Portrzebie Chronicle, the clown did not inflate a condom, but a balloon". That would be synthesis which is forbidden by policy, in a similar way that original research is forbidden.

It would be an entirely different matter if the United Nations resolved: that the attacks of 9/11 were attacks by foreign terrorists targeting the United States. We need references for the claims we make, not for some closely related claim from which we draw the conclusion that the claim could be made.

Because the subject matter of the article is so controversial, it behooves us to be particularly careful, precise and diligent, if we are to ever have a hope of successfully producing a stable article which does not need protection.

If this isn't clear, find another Wikipedian who can explain it to you. I'm more interested in just moving forward with the edit the article to make it a stable compilation of well-referenced fact. User:Pedant (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article #2: "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11" and "...19 suicide hijackers took over four American passenger jets."

You can look through all the other articles for more information to corroborate this information if you wish. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I have requested a citation for an assertion of fact. Without the citation, it should be removed. User:Pedant (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Laughing ... Well if we did include this edit the media would inevitably report on it — anyone watch Stephen Colbert? The angle would be "Look at this! Wikipedia is saying that 9/11 was just a bizarre coincidence! Well that's a relief."

In reality, we do have sources, as others have been saying here. This may very well be the most amusing attempt to soften the mainstream view this month. I do applaud it for creativity. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ps: I mean no disrespect in the above comment. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a plain WP:BITE to a newcomer who has been civil and a bad faith assumption. Are you just trying to make him angry in order to cite WP:CIVIL and try to make him ban like you are doing with irenesusband?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Redundency and a refusal to read the archives is not excusable under WP:BITE. --Tarage (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are still biting and assuming bad faith, you should stop.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I told you he was a troll. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I don't mind being the 'bad guy' here Okie, if it will end this redundant debate. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

0:-) Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate, wikipedia is not a soapbox, debate club, community forum or chat room. I am attempting to bring this article back to featured article status, which can't be done if it is protected, and there is no point in unprotecting it if it is meant to include unreferenced and unverifiable assertions as fact. I have requested citations. I have received numerous unresponsive comments, accusing me of acting in bad faith, debating, being a troll and even a newbie. I have received insults and ridicule. I have not received citations for the 3 unsupported claims in the lead. This is going to take a long long time if everyone is just going to pile on me and bash at me, rather than as policy dictates behaving as colleagues with a common goal. User:Pedant (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your comments on topic — a meta discussion about who is, and is not, a troll is not helpful, nor are arguments about whether said discussion is a ploy to get people banned. This suggestion has no traction, and all of the sniping is making a speedy resolution more difficult because it's derailing the discussion. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see we were not wrong in giving you the keys to the mop bucket. Please, can we just get started working out some sort of plan for fixing this sad and broken article that was once a featured article? Can we set aside our deeply held beliefs and just get to work? Please? User:Pedant (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:BITE actually says "do not bite the newbies". It should really only be used in conversations involving newbies. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no newbie, the last I checked (2006?) I had well over 5000 edits, I'm a good faith editor, in good standing, and I make productive contributions across a wide spectrum of articles. BITE me all you want, we still need references for all facts. If a fact has a reference it follows that removing the fact is outside of policy, conversely, if we don't have references, policy demands the unsupported assertions of fact be removed.

Again, I demand that you assume good faith on my behalf, in accordance with our policy, and that you recognise that I have been civil and patient in this discussion, in which over a meter of discussion following yesterday's request for references has not produced a reference for 3 simple facts. We just don't state as fact, those assertions which are not readily obtained from reliable sources that are verifiable. It is not our way of doing things.

This article is protected. Protected articles by definition have problems. One way to fix the problems is to pare this down to just the facts and nothing more. Then we ban the vandals who remove facts, and ban the vandals that add nonfacts if necessary. Problem solved.

When I work on an article. I tend to start at the beginning and work my way through one statement at a time. I think that is a good way, and I understand it is not the only way. But that's how I intend to work. The first sentence has, as seems to me and I have not been shown otherwise, unsupported claims. I am proposing to remove them. Or to reference them. Can someone show me where this can reasonably be claimed to be the wrong thing to do?

Further, it is my position that anyone trying to obstruct the removal of unsourced claims and the addition of facts which have reliable verifiable sources is acting to the detriment of Wikipedia and in violation of policies by which we all, by editing articles, have implicitly agreed to abide. Such persons should not be allowed to continue editing, and if they are admins, they should be deadmin'ed if they persist in obstructing the wikipedia mission.

If anything I've said in this comment is out of line, let me know. Otherwise, roll up your sleeves and let's fix this article, so that we can unprotect it without endless edit wars. User:Pedant (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what was wrong with the Encyclopedia Brittanica source presented earlier? Or how about this Encarta source? (And, yea, if only it were as easy as "banning the vandals"). --Haemo (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the Brittanica article (it's a membership site) what I could read wa swhat I quickly grabbed with control-a/control-c before the login screen popped up. That text didn't reference the assertions in question. I'd be very grateful if someone emailed me the full text, or copied it into this discussion or whatever is appropriate and convenient. The Encarta text states in part "the fact that the hijackings were so clearly coordinated suggested they were the work of a highly organized terrorist group with vast resources, and bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network met that description" which is startlingly similar to my proposed edit. Additional information is attributed to "investigators"... also "Bush suggested that the top priority of his administration would be a campaign to end terrorism. He affirmed that all the evidence collected at that point indicated that al-Qaeda was the organization responsible for the September 11 attacks, and he promised that a U.S.-led war on terrorism"

to me that amounts to "According to GW Bush and other investigators" ... do you propose that as an appropriate citation? Generally Encarta doesn't cite sources for its information, are you proposing we treat Encarta as a primary source? Because without attribution of their sources, it seems to me that Encarta is acting as a primary source.

If you feel that those citing "GW Bush and other investigators" or citing Encarta as a primary source is appropriate, I won't oppose including the cites, but as was pointed out before, which I agree with, we shouldn't state it as fact without a source. I personally don't feel comfortable with those citations, I think they are kinda wimpy compared with the facts they are intended to support... the identity of the perpetrators of one of the very worst violent crimes of all time, which was a substatantial reason for the US entering one of the longest and most expensive military conflicts in US History. That's just my opinion. I'd really prefer to work up from an unquestionably true lead sentence, and go into painstaking detail in the body of the article, so that the scholarship of the article is unassailable. This might be the most visible of all of our articles for some time to come, and I think it requires a very high degree of diligence and meticulous attention to the precise origin of anything in the article. User:Pedant (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not citing them as a primary source; they're not a primary source at all — they're a tertiary source. You seem to be under the incorrect impression that the sources we cite need to cite their sources in return — this is incorrect; they need only be reliable sources. Indeed, the Encarta article has, as its lead September 11 Attacks, coordinated terrorist strike on the United States in 2001 that killed about 3,000 people and shook the nation to its core. It then follows with The 19 men who carried out the hijackings [...] were affiliated with the al-Qaeda. This doesn't resemble your edit at all; it is, in fact, exactly what our lead says. --Haemo (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would point out that this article is protected not because it is "bad" — that is not a reason to protect things — but because there was an edit war. --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars are caused by people allowing their beliefs to influence their editing, one reason I recommend that people don't edit articles that they feel strongly about. I do understand that it's not as simple as I made it out to be. But consider the effect it would have on an edit war if everyone worked toward editing, rather than focus on being right. What is right is only what our policy demands we do, and what is wrong is anything against policy. And if we don't like the policy, the place to work that out is on the talk pages for the policy in question and not in the discussion about an article... as you pointed out Haemo,

"sniping is making a speedy resolution more difficult".

Let's just get to work. Really, line by line, step by step, forward progress, collaboration, teamwork. I have an enormous faith in our ability to resolve this if we just actually work toward it. User:Pedant (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the brouhaha is all about here, BQZip01 provided a couple of refs above that say everything that needs to be said. RxS (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedant, yes, "edit wars are caused by people allowing their beliefs to influence their editing"...so if you can put aside your beliefs, then maybe there is hope we can get this article back to featured level. However, so far, none of your suggestions are worth taking seriously.--MONGO 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well MONGO, since we are talking about beliefs, I believe I have had several unproductive encounters with you before. I encourage everyone to check that link and see my funny beliefs... beliefs that I keep on my user page, and try to avoid allowing my beliefs to interfere with my work. If you have a problem with my edits in the article namespace, those would be more relevant to your attempt to discredit me. As I recall, MONGO and I don't work as well together as I would consider desirable, but that shouldn't prevent us from trying. Am I remembering correctly that at one point you (MONGO) claimed to be working for the Federal Government and editing Wikipedia as part of your job? At any rate, maybe we can work alongside each other without being provocative or confrontational? On my part I hope you will understand that I will pretty much be ignoring you unless your comments are of substance. Don't take offense if I don't respond to your jabs, but only to productive discourse. User:Pedant (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You brought up what we editors do outside of this article, and now you are crying fowl? I still claim you are a troll. --Tarage (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought up what? What do you mean? I am crying fowl? (Do birds even have that ability?) What are you talking about? I won't tolerate your incivility. I'm not a troll. If I were a troll, conventional wisdom holds that you shouldn't 'feed me'. Your comment has nothing to do with the article and is nothing at all except a personal attack. I suggest you desist. Can we get back to the article? 9/11? Horrific loss of life? Caused a major military engagement? 8000 plus Americans and unknown number of others dead? Ring a bell? User:Pedant (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Lets then get back to the reason why you are ignoring the RS being provided to you. --Tarage (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)

Wow! What a lengthy discussion on one sentence... Let me repeat it for clarity:

I have discussed the following change, and am suggesting that
"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."
be changed to:
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of violent destructive events in the Northeastern United States, which, by their similar nature and timing, have been presumed to be intentional and coordinated attacks.
which is the same statement with the unreferenced "facts" removed. I have unsuccessfully attempted to obtain references for the following:
suicide attacks

by al Qaeda

upon the United States

Pedant, I agree with your analysis that we cannot take for certain they were either suicide attacks, or by Al Qaida. They were however nodoubt "intentional" and "coordinated" - by whomever. Also, hitting both the Pentagon and the WTC, assuming America was the target seems undisputed as well, to me.

I therefore have new proposal:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated destructive attacks in the Northeastern United States involving four hijacked airline planes.

Any suggestions? I feel that editors which want to preserve the "suicide" and "Al Qaida" claims should give references, not the editors who want it out. Also, by WP:NPOV, mentioning Al Qaida as the culprite would require to also mention the SigMinView that Al Qaida was used or even uninvolved.

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is fine the way it is. There's plenty of RS that show Al Qaida as the responsible party [29] [30] [31][32] [33] and as suicide attacks [34] [35] [36].

This suggestion is without merit, and to avoid wasting any more time on this I'd like to close this as well. Any objections? RxS (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the voice Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to see how a neutral page must be written: the page says:

is a prisoner in U.S. custody for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians
According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks".
He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings,

it doesn't say

he planned the 9/11 attacks

Now can we try to make neutral also the introduction of this article?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that:

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the brains behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, was surprised by the scale of destruction wrought by the tragedy"

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,",

"Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11"

So yeah, we're good. RxS (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this reply could be tought to have any meaningful relation to my bjection above, can you explain?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: it doesn't say he planned the 9/11 attacks

I gave a reliable source that quoted him as saying "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z"

If you don't get it then that's kind of your problem. RxS (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you just completely misread my comment. What I wrote is "Check the voice Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to see how a neutral page must be written": the neutral way is to not give facts for granted and attribute them to the relevant people who claim them.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is no consensus for making the proposed change. Sandstein (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary subsection to make editing easier for all (Proposed edit)

I agree with Sandstein that there is no consensus. Sadly, I do not see any chance of consensus on any najor change. I commend Haemo for proposing to unprotect the article. Unprotecting it, however, will not enable consensus either. We should get to terms with each other regarding several aspects of policy. I tried naming some proposed principles on the arbcom page here. Hope we manage to get out of this misery, somehow.... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (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.

The following discussion 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.

The United Nations Resolution

[This] has been offered to me as a source for "the attacks were attacks upon the United States" but it does not say that. The title of the abstract of the resolution is " SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS, ‘IN STRONGEST TERMS’, TERRORIST ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES", but the actual text of the resolution doesn't make it as cut-and-dried as the title would seem to imply. Within the resolution we have:

""horrifying terrorist attacks" in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania"
"any act of international terrorism was a threat to international peace and security
"Many agreed that the whole world, and not just one country, had been plunged into an unprecedented time of peril, fear and uncertainty."
"an assault not just on the United States, but on all who supported peace and democracy"
"such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security"
"The United States, the host country, and New York, the host city, had been subjected to a terrorist attack which had horrified all."
"A terrorist attack on one country was an attack on humanity as a whole."
"Yesterday’s act was a global issue, an attack on modern civilization "
"targeting the United States was also aimed at democracy and the free world"
"That crime had been primarily directed against civilians, but was a direct challenge to the entire civilized world."
"The attack was an affront to humanity"
"the attack yesterday was a barbaric and evil one that had been committed against innocent people. It was also an attack against all humanity"
"Yesterday’s attacks, which stunned the world, took place in the United States, but represented an open challenge to the international community as a whole."
"Yesterday's attacks were not only directed against the United States but at freedom and democracy as well. "
"It was an attack against all of us"
"the attacks yesterday were not only against the United States, but against the entire community of civilized people"
"In the face of what constituted an attack upon all mankind and against the values and principles embodied in the United Nations Charter,"
"It had been an assault not just on the United States, but on all who supported peace and democracy and the values for which the United Nations stood."

...so it seems to me that if we are using the UN Resolution as a source, we need something other than to flatly state that the attacks were "upon the US". comments? User:Pedant (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is rediculous. Are you still trying to claim you need more sources that say the attack was against the US? I'd ask you who, if not the US, the attacks were directed against, but I have a feeling that would be an open invitation for soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The UN is just taking for granted what the US Goverment and investigators said. The only relevant source which could legitimately say what was the porpose of the attack is the terrorist organization who was behind them. So we should say that *according to the alleged perpetrators* the attack was against the US.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It clearly states, several times, that the attacks were on the United States. It qualifies this by providing more context and clarity — your reading that it does not is, frankly, bizarre. No source is ever just going to say "on the United States" without going into detail. When I say, "this is an attack on not just me, but on all people of my kind", I am not implying that this is not an attack on me. --Haemo (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Haemo. The source repeatedly says that the attacks were upon the United States. It also contains statements of solidarity by "all who supported peace and democracy", which should not be misinterpreted as claims that they were also attacked. Funny that when Bin Laden recorded his well-publicised video discussing this, he did not claim to be attacking peace and democracy, but the US. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously to say that the porpose of an attack is X you cannot cite the UN: you need the claim of the terrorists who are thought to be the resposible. Even when you have it you can just talk of the "alleged" porpose of the attack.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's talking about purpose?? The sentence reads "a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." It's a statement of the events of that day, not of intent or purpose. Can I close this now?RxS (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To say "upon the US" is to say what is the intended target i.e. the porpose of the attack.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the U.S. might not have been the target? Of course we have them saying that it was the intended target. RxS (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: this is why we should specify that it is what this people say, not what wikipedia say.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We have both a senior member of al-Qaeda and bin Laden saying the US was the target. RxS (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I don't see what's the problem if we attribute the claim to them?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, there's no point in carrying this on, anyone mind if I close this section? RxS (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. This is a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and no good can come of it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, close it. This is ridiculous. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:20, 31 March 2008 (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.

Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission "Admits Lies"

Text removed as potential copyright violation from The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11 (Hardcover) http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0151013764 Rmhermen (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The deleted text is part of the "Product Description" that can be found on the page indicated in the comment above. How can reproducing a text that is clearly intended for everyone to see be a copyright violation? --Cs32en (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The published statements of John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission and the obvious conclusions noted in the book description (neither of which apparently even consider the vast amount of evidence that proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 was staged by the US government), yet again clearly indicate that the Wikipedia article on 9/11 and related content is a fraud.

I want to know, what is needed to rewrite this 9/11 article and related Wikipedia content from a neutral perspective that fairly considers the evidence for and against the official conspiracy theory. What exactly is required under Wikipedia rules for the article to found be false, misleading or fraudulent? What sort of proof do I need to provide? How to do I get a fair hearing? Please be precise. 142.46.214.106 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What do the preponderance of reliable sources say about 9/11? The answer to that question is the answer to your question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the false dichotomy argument (yet again). There has always been scope for legitimate criticism of the 9/11 Commission, which is known to have been obstructed in its mission, and there is evidence, albeit circumstantial, of negligence and cover-up of negligence. Hence the 9/11 Commission Report is not the sole source for this article. If a reliable source documents negligence or other factors, then there may well be a case for modifying this article (or more likely certain sub-articles). This is vastly far removed from anything supporting the lunatic fringe conspiracy theories. Peter Grey (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

142.46.214.106: Wikipedia defines neutrality according to what reliable sources say about a subject. Thus, if reliable sources say that 9/11 was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by 19 Islamist terrorists, then that's what Wikipedia's articles should say. To change this article to include conspiracy theories, you can either lobby Wikipedia to change its policies or lobby reliable sources to say 9/11 was staged by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Farmer's and indeed all the 911 commissioners views that 911 was a lie is documented in reliable sources and not disputed. Rather than the "all 911 is a lie" position given by the anon the accusations only cover the response to 911. It should be in the article and in fact no legitimate arguement can be made to keep it out but care should be made to ensure it goes no further than the claims actually made. Wayne (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need more coverage of criticism of the 9/11 commission in this article? The commission gets a grand total of three sentences, one of which is about criticism. There's a whole sub-article devoted to criticism of the commission, and it already quotes Farmer. Hut 8.5 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is not critism. It is that the actions and timeline for the Pentagons response is not reliable. Wayne (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an omnibus article focusing on the actual attacks. It only briefly touches on the 9/11 Commission so including extensive detail on the Commission's findings and anyone's later comments on them would be giving it undue weight in the context of this page. If you have reliably sourced material you want to include, that relates to the 9/11 Commission process, findings, accuracy or consideration of alternative views, you would be better suggesting them at Talk:9/11 Commission, Talk:9/11 Commission Report or Talk:Criticism of the 9/11 Commission.

It's also been pointed out numerous times before but is worth restating that it is not the role of Wikipedia to sift through all the material on 9/11 in search of the truth. Wikipedia is not an investigative website and doesn't advocate for or against any cause. Instead it documents subjects, based on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. These sources could indeed all be wrong, but it is not the role of Wikipedia to expose that "wrongness" and quest for the real facts of the matter. Such a quest might be a noble thing but this isn't the place for it. Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy

I have one question for those who are researching this subject, ask the people who are saying "there's no conspiracy" about the Bilderbourgs group.99.145.9.235 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Studyof9-11 / url=http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/
^ Witnessed / http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html]
^ Reports / url=http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/110.html
^ Statement / url=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html
^ Science / url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
^ Quibs / url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf
^ Journalstudies / url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf
^ Evidence / url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
^ Blueprints / url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
^ Book / url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Armed-Madhouse/Greg-Palast/e/9780452288317
^ BBC / url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
^ Points / url=http://www.utopiax.org/strange.html
^ Conspiracy belief / url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/
^ CNN Poll / url=http://archive.indymedia.be/news/2004/11/90092.html
^ Outspoken Celebrities / url=http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/media.html#Stone
^ Bristol Spray-Painting \ url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7174756.stm
^ Engineers and Architects \ url=http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
^ Omitted Facts / url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404
^ Call for a "Truly Independent" Investifation http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1203872381
^ http://www.ae911truth.org/info/24, retrieved 27 February 2008
^ "The "Stand Down" of the Air Force on 9/11". Retrieved 2008-02-14.
^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
^ http://www.ae911truth.org/info/24, retrieved 27 February 2008
^ "The "Stand Down" of the Air Force on 9/11". Retrieved 2008-02-14.
^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/
^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
^ http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[1] Las Vegas Review Journal, September 16, 2001.

[2] BBC, September 16, 2001

[3] ttp://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm

[4] ttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.75.html

[5] 911 Commission hearing cache video 1.8 MB

[6] Paper by Adam Letalik published in journalof911studies.com

[7] Counterpunch

[8] Ireland news archive, 5 December 2001

[9] St Petersburg Times

[10] [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] per cooperativeresearch.org

[11] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/20/wbulo20.xml Telegraph, 20 Nov 2003

[12] Studyof9-11 / url=http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

[13] Witnessed / http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html]

[14] Reports / url=http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/110.html

[15] Statement / url=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html

[16] Science / url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

[17] Quibs / url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

[18] Journalstudies / url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

[19] Evidence / url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

[20] Blueprints / url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

[21] Book / url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Armed-Madhouse/Greg-Palast/e/9780452288317

[22] BBC / url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

[23] Points / url=http://www.utopiax.org/strange.html

[24] Conspiracy belief / url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

[25] CNN Poll / url=http://archive.indymedia.be/news/2004/11/90092.html

[26] Outspoken Celebrities / url=http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/media.html#Stone

[27] Bristol Spray-Painting \ url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7174756.stm

[28] Engineers and Architects \ url=http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

[29] Omitted Facts / url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

[30] Call for a "Truly Independent" Investifation http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1203872381

[31] ttp://www.ae911truth.org/info/24, retrieved 27 February 2008

[32] "The "Stand Down" of the Air Force on 9/11". Retrieved 2008-02-14.

[33] Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).

[34] ttp://www.ae911truth.org/info/24, retrieved 27 February 2008

[35] "The "Stand Down" of the Air Force on 9/11". Retrieved 2008-02-14.

[36] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

[37] Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).

[38] ttp://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]