Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 45

Conspiracy Theories

Rx StrangeLove, you have just responded to my good faith call for sources with this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html I am assuming good faith. Can you please point out the line in that article which backs up the existing edit? Bulbous (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Been over this. RxS (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We could also source the statement that they are called "crackpot" theories, but... --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your dilligence. However, none of this supports the current edit. The challenged line says, "These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3]". The best support that you have offered is, arguably, that Bin Laden accepts credit for the attack. How does that prove that "political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers" believe that Al-Qaeda carried out the attack? If you are serious and interested in a balanced article, why not address this statement? Bulbous (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a summary of a subarticle. It is very difficult to precisely source that particular statement; you can source fragments of it from all over. For instance, this Time Magazine article can source the "media/journalists" part. However, it's un-necessary and onerous to source the whole shebang, since one can just read the sub-article. --Haemo (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that you find proper sourcing to be "onerous". But it is absolutely necessary! I didn't even remove the unsourced line. I merely added a fact tag in hopes that someone would research and defend the edit. It doesn't look like anyone has any interest in doing so, so I will be removing it. In addition, the Time magazine article you mentioned DOES NOT support the edit. Nowhere in it does it say that mainstream journalists... have concluded that the responsibility rests with Al Qaeda. Can you point out where it does? Bulbous (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it refers to "the passion" that many conspiracy theorists hold; and that they refer to it as the 9/11 Truth Movement. --Haemo (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Look at the part where it talks about the theories being "largely ignored" by the mainstream media. The point is that it's onerous because summary style doesn't require it. --Haemo (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What the article says is that "the 9-11 Truth Movement... has been largely ignored by the mainstream media". That is a far cry from saying that they believe that alternate theories are not credible, and that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda. Nothing in WP:Summary gives you license to ignore other policies. Actually, from WP:SUMMARY - The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This contentious line is debatable and MUST BE SOURCED. Bulbous (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It refers to the "passion" of conspiracy theorists as being largely ignored. It seems relatively clear to me what they're referring to, and only mentioning the Truth movement as examples of those being ignored. --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
So, we have no support for that statement whatsoever now? Bulbous (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the opposite of what I said... --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any belief that "These theories are generally not accepted as credible ..." is inaccurate? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An edit does not have to be proven false to be removed. It should never have been added in the first place without a proper source. Secondly, anything that is likely to be challenged is required to be sourced. And this line has been challenged. Bulbous (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I said belief, not proof. If there is no doubt it is accurate, it should remain until a reliable source is found. If there is doubt, that would be different. On the other hand, if this is removed, I would have no qualms about removing any statement which has an unsourced implication that there is a sane person who believes the conspiracy theories. (There's certainly no proof.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anything that is not sourced needs to be removed, from *all* articles, not just this one. However, there is a sourced poll that says that 36% of Americans believe in some alternative theory. (Presumably, the other 2/3rd are more interested in what time American Idol is on TV). That poll is currently being suppressed. Bulbous (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The hallmark of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist - the unreasonable belief that the other 64% cannot possibly be right, they must be ignorant or stupid. At least you didn't accuse them of being on the government's payroll. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, that 64% includes all that doubt some aspect of the mainstream theory. Personally, I doubt many aspects, but not the conclusion that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the four planes, and that there was no "controlled demolition". But even if the poll question were as quoted, it would not mean that the named groups accept any "alternative" theory as credible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to out-of-date figures. According to the more recent Scripps-Howard poll, its now 62% believe either LIHOP or MIHOP. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if we have a more recent poll, what possible grounds are there for it's exclusion? Especially when this discussion centred around adding a completely unsourced line about the beliefs about politicians and journalists who aren't free to think for themselves? Bulbous (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the title "Conspiracy Theories" needs to be changed. It's desultory and diminuative, as if every critical thinker that questions the "official" record of events is some kind of nutjob that sees the CIA in every corner of the room. This section should be retitled "Alternative Theories". Bulbous (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming term for these kind of theories in the media and academia are "conspiracy theories"; calling them "alternative theories" is misleading, and at odds with the normal term for these theories. Because you believe in a conspiracy theory does not make you a "nutjob", nor does the article imply as much. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Conspiracy Theories" is still a very poor term, and justifying it by its use in the media only helps prove the point. It implies that any person who has questions about the official record of events (as any critical thinker would) also believes in some kind of "conspiracy" involving the US Government. In fact, the official record of events did involve a conspiracy... albeit one involving solely Al-Qaeda. The word "conspiracy" makes absolutely no sense in this context. It's stictly derogatory. Bulbous (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not. It implies that they believe that there is some conspiracy at foot; by whom, and for what purpose, is entirely left up to the particular individual. For some, it is the US government shooting the Pentagon with a cruise missile. For others, it is the Israeli government planting demolition charges in the WTC. For still yet others, it is the Bush Administration covering up glaring incidents of negligence which could have prevented the attacks. Who is theorized to be responsible, and what they are responsible for varies greatly between individuals — however, the simple fact remains that the media and academia use the term "conspiracy theories" for these beliefs. It is far from "derogatory", and the endorsement of other terms for the theories, because some people do not like to be associated with the "Jews did 9/11" crowd is politically motivated. --Haemo (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well put, Haemo. Okiefromokla questions? 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is *exactly* the kind of misinterpretation that the term "conspiracy theories" generates, and the very reason why it needs to be changed. You've just automatically associated *any* alternative theory with some kind of complicity or malfeasance by some government. If a reasonable person looks at the facts and the official explanations of 9/11 and thinks, "Some of this doesn't add up", that doesn't mean that they should be automatically associate with the "Jews this, Bush that, Israeli the other". Any attempt to do so is a bad faith attack on reasonable cross-examination, of a kind typically generated by those who are ignorant of the facts. Bulbous (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I struggle to see how you read that interpretation into what I said. In fact, the "things just don't add up and are being ignored" viewpoint is explicitly mentioned — negligence, in investigation and accountability is still malfeasance. The "we're just asking questions" crowd is no less accusing a wide variety of government, academic, and media figures of pointedly ignoring "evidence" which they (as untrained laymen) believe is evidence that the "official story" is incorrect. This is no less a conspiracy than the belief that Giuliani ordered the towers demolished. --Haemo (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Haemo that "conspiracy theories" is the most used colloquial term. It is not, however, the best academic term one can devise. I am sure academics use it for marketing purposes, and not because of its inherent merits. I think "conspiracy" can better be replaced by "alternative" or "non-mainstream", and "theory" could better be described as: "hypothesis" or "viewpoint" or "opinion" or "interpretation". What is crucial about them, is not that they are conspiracies or theories, but that they differ from the mainstream account. Some of them are zero theory, just the opinion that the facts do not add up. That in itsself is not yet a theory. I therefor support what Bulbous is saying. However, at the moment this issue is more a symptom than a cause of what's wrong with the 9/11 page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with this page, it's in a consensual version and a small group of editors can't change that or hold the page hostage. RxS (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This page is POV. It is being held hostage by a large group of editors, using wikipedia policy selectively to defend their edits (or more likely, their reverts). Some of them don't mind sinning against "don't bite the newcomers", or "be civil". You are dominant by the Law of the strongest, not because you are right or because you are truly upholding wikipedia policy. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The big problem about this is that, it is not the truth that counts, it is verifiability. Si lapu lapu (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Si Lapu Lapu
Verifiability ? Veritas means' truth ! 81.69.50.139 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please remove "IT WAS A CONSPIRACY SO WE COULD GO TO WAR" write facts such as: ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 the Word Trade Center in New York … & so on first. We save the conspiracies for the bottom pages. 71.255.72.22 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Widespread confusion

I note that the article states there was "widespread confusion" the morning of September 11th. I was tempted to add a sentence to this, until I discovered the article is protected. Perhaps the administrators would consider making some small additions, if they feel they're warranted?

I distinctly remember NBC news reporting, shortly after the second tower was hit, that as many as ten airliners had been hijacked (unconfirmed report). Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that the original plan was to take ten planes simultaneously [1]. Although this piece of the confusion has been little-reported in the post-9/11 analyses, it seems to be traceable to the military training exercises underway the morning of the 11th, where bogus radar images were "injected" into NORAD tracking stations during a simulated hijacking scenario [2]. Richard Clarke also touched on this in his book.

It seems important to me, because it helps explain the inexplicably-slow response of the military to hijackings over the Capitol. Under normal circumstances, unauthorized flight paths over our most sensitive military headquarters would garner a response within MINUTES, not the hour it actually took. The only logical explanation, to my mind, is that air traffic controllers had no way to know which reports were real and which were part of the ill-timed military exercise.

The events of 9/11 remain enigmatic and of public interest precisely because there remain unanswered questions and the suspicion that not everything has been admitted. Certainly, the quick removal of the Bin Laden family on the 19th[3] and the hijacking simulation on the morning of the 11th are key pieces of the on-going puzzle. These CONTROVERSIES -- established facts that have not been explained -- are separate and distinct from the Wiki page on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories[4].

The main 9/11 article, in my view, should at least link to these key discussion points. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, that's written partly in first-person, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Second, 2 of your sources are other Wikipedia articles, which we don't use as sources. Words like "bogus," "ill-timed," "enigmatic," and words in ALL CAPS are unnecessarily dramatic. The second paragraph is all your opinion and most of the third paragraph is an improper synthesis of other sources ("key pieces of the on-going puzzle"). Mr.Z-man 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, I'm sorry if I misled you. The discussion above was meant as a "discussion," not as the actual proposed addition to the Wiki article on 9/11. I thought putting it on the Talk page would make that clear. I agree that first person narratives and all-caps are not appropriate for Wiki articles.
The links to other Wiki articles are exactly what I was suggesting be added to the main article. The backstories are out there, but nowhere on the main page is this mentioned. That seems like an oversight to me.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls

An edit has been made to the conspiracy theory section which I have two issues with:

The new text includes poll data information from a 2006 poll. I thought consensus has been that poll data becomes outdated and is therefore to be avoided.
It also tweaks the text to be in line with the reference and not the reference added to support the text. Isn't the conspiracy theory section supposed to be summary style of the supporting article?
Summary style does not exempt us from the need to reliably source the wording. If it is contentious, as this case most certainly is, then it must be sourced as instructed in WP:SUMMARY. I have no objections to references being added that support the edit, but I have not as yet seen even one. Bulbous (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted twice today and really don't want to get into an edit war so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Is this okay with everyone? --PTR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong, it's outdated. Some context would have to be provided and this isn't really the place for it. There's an article about the polls for example and the CT page of course. RxS (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see those polls in the Responsibility section. And they are not necessarily outdated, we could show that year by year the disbelief in the official theory is growing. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility

Don't know if the section is detailed enough, how much responsibility does rely on Saudi Arabia(where most the hijackers were from).I think its just as much a violant and terrorist region as iraq or afghanistan.Rodrigue (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert any nation is responsible for the attacks, so I don't know why we're talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation for that matter. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the only country charged in this article with any responsibility is the U.S. The article asserts that Osama bin Laden organized Arab mujahideen "with American government assistance." Of course this isn't true - the adventures of this little Arab Lord Fauntleroy and his small group of Arab foreigners were funded by Saudis. Sadly, people cannot resist equating U.S. assistance to the Pakistani ISI with U.S. assistance to Osama bin Laden. In the 1980s, Osama bin Laden did not contribute to the Afghan resistance in any meaningful way, was largely resented by native Afghans, and was far too small a figure to be on the radar of the CIA, let alone funded by the CIA. But people just love the irony of the U.S. funding its Public Enemy #1, so this myth will probably never die. 9591353082 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is its responsibility?, shouldn't it be mentioned as such. Rodrigue (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd think the host country would have some notable direct or indirect responsibilty for the atacks, considering how much focus there is on other co-conspiraters and they're state.Rodrigue (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Afghanistan, the then ruling clique the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden and his training camps. The fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals probably has more to do with Bin Laden, also a Saudi native, than it does with the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. They're smart enough to know better than to push it too hard with the U.S. as surely, had they been harboring Al Qaeda openly as the Afghans had been, a similar fate would have awaited them in the aftermath.--MONGO 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Streamline the lead a bit

In the lead, the passage that now reads:

On that morning nineteen terrorists[1] affiliated with al-Qaeda[2] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings.[3] The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;[4] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to WTC dust.[5] Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998 — most of whom were civilians.

seems unnecessarily clunky due to trying to fit too much information into one sentence. I propose a slight rewrite:

On that morning nineteen terrorists[6] affiliated with al-Qaeda[2] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175. Each team of hijackers included one who had had some pilot training. They intentionally crashed one airplane into each tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, and a third into the Pentagon building near Washington. On the fourth aircraft, passengers and crew members attempted to retake control from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.[7] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Both WTC towers collapsed soon after the impacts, causing extensive damage to nearby buildings,[8] and the Pentagon was seriously damaged. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and at least one person was determined to have died later from exposure to WTC dust.[5] Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998.

This elides a number of bits of information in the interest of presenting the basic facts smoothly. All those other details belong in the article body, I say, and indeed most of them are there. (I have also made a few changes to what is and isn't a link.)

I can't make this edit myself since the article is protected from us evil anonymous users (and no, I have no intention of registering at the present time), so I hope someone else will do so. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this proposal. --Haemo (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say in the paragraph, which flight was crashed into the Pentagon, which at Shanksville, which into the WTC. If you can reword it to specify that, then I'm open to changing the lead section. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor comment - shouldn't Flights and Flight be lowercase? Vrac (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a style issue and it makes sense both ways. I haven't checked the WP:MOS, but I think I see them capitalized elsewhere in Wikipedia in this sort of context. I still think that listing which flight was crashed where is a subject that belongs in the body, not the lead. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanently lock

The POV/conspiracy pushers for this article are just insane. I visit this talk page every now and then and it's the same old crap over and over. The wacked-out theories are worthless. To you POV pushers, please do something constructive for wikipedia (and society), and drop this topic and move on.

I suggest this article be permanently locked, along with its talk page. Nothing good can come from allowing either of these to be edited. All I see is a huge waste of everyone's time. Timneu22 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's pointless to discuss this. It's not going to happen. Ever, as it violates basically every principle of Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't permanently lock articles on Wikipedia, but I would like a rule that would limit the conspiracy pushers the ability to constantly harp about it on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see that too. Conspiracy pushers are basically (somewhat borderline) trolling when they bring up unreliable sources to push radical claims over and over (and continuously attack Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources), though some of these editors also make constructive edits so they can’t really be classified as "trolls". In extreme cases users who refuse to stop trolling could theoretically be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but if it isn't outright disruptive behavior over long periods it might not fly. Of course it goes without saying that any IP addresses or new users that troll and vandalize a lot can be reported. But to make a long story short, yes, I'm as annoyed by it as everyone else :). But lets not feed them too much. Okiefromokla questions? 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree A quick read of this section serves to illustrate which camp deserves censure. I haven't seen much trolling, except as written in the above paragraph (allegations of trolling IS trolling). Asking for a page to be permanently locked is just saying, "No more discussion. Everyone already knows everything about these incidents. Stop asking questions". Hopefully, pending regime change in the US will bring more hidden facts to light. It's definitely premature until after the elections. Bulbous (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
These folks aren't just "asking questions". They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit. People are more than welcome to ask questions - but that has not been what is going on. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Bulbous, you can certainly keep asking questions. By all means, try to find out the truth if you don't think the view based on seemingly reliable facts is correct. Write a book. Call government officials. Get in contact with others who share your view. Watch Fahrenheit 911. But keep it out of Wikipedia. We don't give credence to original research, speculation, and unreliable sources. We report what the reliable sources say (the accepted view of things), and that is all. None of these conspiracy theories are supported by reliable sources and most are based on some form of original research where the editor claims to come to a certain conclusion based on a long list of "facts" cited with unreliable sources - or none at all. Therefore, we cannot integrate these theories into a prominent place in the article as though they are accepted as plausible alternative explanations of 9/11, which, at the moment, they are not. That being so, these editors who continuously push for these theories on the talk page are being fairly disruptive. However, they are not exactly trolling, as I assume most of these editors at least don't intend to disrupt. Though if they push again and again as we have seen, it begins to look a little more like trolling. Okiefromokla questions? 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're getting several different discussions mixed up here. This section concerns permanently locking the article. Even if the motivation is thwarting "conspiracy theorists", the end result is that you will be locking out any future WP:Verifiable information as well. And so the proposal is only self-serving for those looking to close the book with the current "official" record of events. And that makes no sense from any perspective. Bulbous (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehem. Sorry, but im just an ordinary web-browser from Lithuania. Why don't you want to at least include a section about that conspiracy theory, which is, let's say a sorta likely theory, like "criticism" or so? I understand that you would do anything to keep everything the way it "should be". Thanks god i don't live in USA. Who knows, maybe i would have end up brainwashed like you are. Don't dare deleting my message, i'm looking forward to an answer. I hope that people who created wikipedia won't let wikipedia be controlled by people who should be in jails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP has an entire article about the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory section in this article links to it: --PTR (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Golbez, I hear your frustration when you write: They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit — and I can well imagine your dismay. To be honest: I might also have made the mistake of accusing you of bad faith, were it not that I have seen members of my own family turn violently against "conspiracy theories" — who's good faith I do not question. My conclusion is that it is possible to be an intelligent individual, study 9/11 and conclude that there is nothing to worry about, no inside job. I've seen it happen so often. But, it remains for me hard to grasp. So I can well imagine that others would suspect you of foul play. Just as it is hard for you to imagine anyone genuinely believing it being an inside job and being intelligent and reasonable at the same time, so it may be hard to believe you are not a reptilian. This brainwashing is cleverly done, and its succes is at the same time the explanation for 9/11: they wouldn't have tried it if they didn't think they would get away with it. And they seem to be getting away, at least, for six years pretty much already. However, the struggle between the two camps is pretty much symmetric in arguing. The pro-mainstream wikipedians seem a majority, but this may be the result of that it's easier to "defend" one shared, false, story than dozens of potential alternative explanations. To be continued, I'm afraid... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, you misinterpret the point of this talk page and Wikipedia. We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. Okiefromokla questions? 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Notice this kind of off-topic discussion is exactly why I locked this section earlier. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Haemo and Okie, if you observe more accurately, I am doing the opposite: I am not pushing my belief, I am trying to stop you from pushing yours, so that this article may become a source of neutral information, and not cherry-picked facts which support the lies of the major perpetrators. I am not aiming for this page to say: "Bush did it." I want the page to have the bare facts -- all the facts -- and let the reader decide. It is my experience that the same facts will lead different people to different conclusions. I deplore that, but respect it. Let the facts speak. Stop interpreting. Stop censoring. Do wikipedia a favour. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Page must be tagged "neutrality disputed"

For formal reasons, this article (in the present VERY excentric) form, must be tagged to warn information seeking readers!
Compare to: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States!

Or do you even want to dispute the fact, that many of its details are controversial?
GH --125.24.208.245 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is not he same as neutrality. The fact that there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial is not sufficient for a demonstration that the article is non-neutral. Compare to evolution, where a much larger minority believe the factuality of the processes related on the page is also controversial, yet there is a featured article on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Haemo, your comparison does not work 100%. The dispute is not at the existence of the process of evolution, it is of the origin of life: Evolution#Origin_of_life which is in section 5.1 and is only four sentences long. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Even better, in Abiogenesis wikipedia uses the wording: the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. This is how I would like to see things frased. Can you point me to a place in wikipedia where it is said that life emerged from non-life, period? I would love to see the RS for that one! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)



You say:

...there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial..

  • You missed the point. The fact remains that, in America, there is a significant percentage of people who do not believe the process of evolution occurs. At all; period — to them, the claim that evolution occurs is controversial. Nonetheless, our article on evolution does not present it as anything other than fact, and that controversy does not make it non-neutral. Tenuous metaphorical appeals to a simile which I did not make does not change this fact. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware of the fact that even Fox and CNN have confirmed, a majority is convinced, that the official story is wrong. (Poll "Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence")
--81.169.155.23 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

agree we should tag it. Better would be to start attributing claims. A simple disclaimer in the lead, that this a majority view would also be helpful. For instance: this article describes the events from the point of view of government and mainstream sources. For alternate views, see...etc.etc. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "majority view" — is a view supported by reliable sources. There's a difference, which you fail to understand. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

definately should be tagged... It's a load of rubbish that terrorists did it.. Your friggin government did it to your own country to give themselves a reason to attack the world... Just think about it, an enemy without borders, What better way to give yourself reason to take on whatever country you wish.. I just hope us aussies get out of it before it blows up in our face as well... I feel sorry for americans.. their own government kills them, lies to them, and there are fools out there that still vote for them and back them up.. If the attacks happened 1: show me footage of a plane flying into the pentagon.. i might change my mind then.. I think its pretty clear that there is a large group of people Worldwide, not just in the US that dispute the attacks and thus it is unjust to try and brainwash school kids and society by feeding them articles like this as shear truth.. If this is what wikipedia has become, its a joke.. God Bless America, i hope your next president is a hell of alot better...Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • agree: NPOV tag — Dear Haemo (above), I agree the article is built on RS's but that does not make it neutral, since a lot of sources which oppose this article, which I call also reliable, are excluded. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank your grandfathers for risking or sacrificing their lives in WW-2 freeing the Netherlands from Hitler. Now that America does no longer exist, and has become part of the American Union, and the Netherlands has been conquered by the European Union via corrupting its politicians, defying the people's referendum to stop assimilating ... maybe we can again come to eachothers aid. What we need, is freedom of information. That is what wikipedia is about. Free information. This page is trying to keep half of the information hidden. Stop hiding, or tag it. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk FAQ needed

Talk:Muhammad has a FAQ subpage covering common suggestions that conflict with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps this article needs something similar: It could cover such arguments as "This article should be less biased towards the mainstream account and talk more about the cover-ups and conspiracy theories". We could then insert the usual consensus response to these arguments based on Wikipedia policy: original research, reliable sources, and so on. This way, hopefully, we can avoid such off-topic discussions in the future.

Stop hand.svg Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here.

The above is the banner on the Muhammad page, some form of which we could add here. Okiefromokla questions? 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why haven't you moved that out of your userspace yet? That FAQ is outstanding. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because there was much bemoaning and gnashing of teeth when I proposed it last time; plus it's not really finished. I frankly just use it as a Coles' Notes version of a reply for virtually any question. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's set a date to move it out. It still needs a little work, but it looks good. I just did a test edit, you can see what you think. How about Mid feb? Okiefromokla questions? 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem with this FAQ. It makes the mistaken suggestion that "minority" or "majority" points of view are determined by the number of reliable sources supporting that viewpoint. This is not accurate. Minority of majority viewpoints are determined by the number of adherents, not the number of sources espousing that particular view. In this particular case, some 38% of people believe in some kind of alternate theory. If even one reliable source can be found for an alternative theory, then that viewpoint needs to be given a weight according to the number of people that believe it (which in this case would be significant), not a minimal weight as given due to a single source. Bulbous (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad no reliable source can be found. That people believe in a theory without a reliable source is not reason enough to include it. --Golbez (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this particular matter is the overwhelming suppression of information related to the incidents. Hopefully, with regime change pending, more facts and information will come to light. This is what we need to be prepared for. Bulbous (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"There's no reliable sources because people are suppressing them" is not a valid reason to forego our requirement for reliable sources. Sorry. --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested anything of the sort. Reliable sources rule the day; I know that. My point was related to undue weight. Right now, there is a definite lack of reliable sources for a lot of the alternative theories. So they should not be included. But reliable sources will appear as time wears on and the information becomes more readily available. Bulbous (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Your faith is strong; what would have to occur to convince you that perhaps your view of a massive conspiracy being covered up by the U.S. government is wrong? --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of mindlessness that is paralyzing this article. But thanks, you have just solidly proven my point about the "Conspiracy Theories" section. The wording needs to be changed to "Alternative Theories", so that yokels like you can understand what that entails. Just because someone questions *some* aspect of 9/11, be it something as small as a question of timeline, does not automatically imply they believe in a conspiracy of any kind. Your attempt to paint me, without any basis in fact, as someone that believes in a "massive conspiracy being covered up by the U.S. government" is an insult, and an obvious attempt to obscure the truth. You're not helping. Bulbous (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hold on hold on, I wasn't trying to do that. I saw your line about ... "Hopefully, with regime change pending, more facts and information will come to light." I figured the only facts the current 'regime' would want to hide would be ones negative for it, and I was responding to that. Let's calm down here. Clearly I was mistaken and I apologize. --Golbez (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The point I am trying to make is that skepticism over any part of the "official" story does not automatically equate to "conspiracy". And my suggestion about regime change bringing more facts to light is merely one of politics. If one party is glossing over facts that might cast them in a negative light, it's just a matter of politics that another party might use that to their advantage. Isn't that a reasonable possibility? Bulbous (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, does it? Bulbous is being fairly reasonable in that he aknowledges there aren't reliable sources for these "alternate theories" so they can't be given creedence here. It doesn't affect this article whether Bulbous believes there will one day be reliable sources for a US government coverup or not. So let's move on. Okiefromokla questions? 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, this FAQ page would only seek to remind people of Wikipedia policy. For instance, one of the question I recently added was:

  • "What about alternate accounts of events? Most concerns include disputes over the roles played by Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, the United States Government, various ethnicities, and other organizations or individuals.
  • Answer: Wikipedia presents information only based on reputable sources that are widely accepted by scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified organizations or individuals. The article's account of the attacks is the only one supported by reliable, widely accepted information. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources."

In another example, calling the attacks terrorism, it is explained that the current credible sources (major world governments and the United Nations) consider it terrorism, so Wikipedia does as well. There would be nothing on this FAQ page that is not fundamentally based in Wikipedia's policy. It will simply seek to bring to light that some of the common arguments brought up on the talk page are in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. That way, we don't have to explain it over and over here. Okiefromokla questions? 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I was just pointing out what I feel is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy in the draft FAQ. Namely, that weight is given according to the number of sources that support a viewpoint, rather than the number of people that hold that viewpoint. The rest of it is rather good. Bulbous (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I approve of this. Sadly, people who constantly argue for changes don't seem to be the type to 'give up' in the face of common sense and logic. I can see it now... "I don't read FAQs created by government shills!" --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's actually neither of the two; it refers to adherence within its particular field of study. Given that this is a historical or journalistic event, the relevent experts are historical researchers on the subject and journalists — not "number of people". Otherwise, we'd see 50+% of the evolution article devoted to creationist criticisms of it. --02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest. I'm not sure what is being proposed by the last few comments. If someone wants to make helpful edits to the draft, feel free. I'm sure Haemo doesn't mind. I've been working on it some. Okiefromokla questions? 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Tarage, I would like you to consider that the debate between "loyalists" and "truthers" is completely symmetric, except that one of them is wrong: -both sides accuse the other of not thinking straight; -both sides accuse the other of selective fact picking and ignoring other facts. We should not write what a majority believes, but we should write that which is substantiated by trustworthy independent sources. On controversial topics, though, a little modesty might suit you well. If you wish not to spend so much time arguing about this and other articles, maybe it's time to self-reflect a little. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Xiutwel, have you ever tried to explain someonething to someone who simply doesn't understand? For example, lets use math. You try to explain how to solve a simple math problem to your friend, but every step along the way, they repeat the same questions over and over again. "What is this X for?" "How can you move that to the other side of the = sign?" "I don't believe you can add a negative number!". Eventually, you get tired of being nice and civil, and just simply wish to move on with your life. That is where we are right now. We've had so many pages, so many weeks and months spent arguing the same points over and over again because one or two people continue to come along and refuse to accept that we have already talked all of this to death. You may not like the answer you got, but Wikipedia has specific rules that must be followed. We have followed these rules to the 'T', and yet someone will always come in and start the same argument again. This FAQ is a nifty idea, as it might perswade some of these people, but you have to admit yourself that you know of those who will come in and just argue to argue. THAT is who I believe will ignore all of this. THAT is who I see completly skipping the archives and using the same tired defeated argument again and again. Yes, this is a controversial topic, but you have to admit that the vast VAST majority of the issues people have with this article have been debated and debated and debated to the point of resolution or stalemate. And it is the ones who don't understand this, who post the same diatribe, who soapbox, that I am refering to. And I have yet to see any from 'my' side who act this way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply don't see it. All I see is the same thing over and over again, and I'm sick of it. Sometimes, you just have to give up a lost cause. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am very grateful for the effort you make to illuminate your point. Yes, I know how it feels to unsuccesfully explain something, and I can well imagine your frustration! About ignoring the archives: it does not seem reasonable to me to ask a newcomer to read 37 talk pages before editing. Instead of a FAQ, which we will not reach consensus on just as on most other things, I would like to suggest you write an index of topics, referring to the correct archives. A "frequently made edits" (FME) . Then, when someone reopens a debate which YOU have seen many times, you can simply respond with: Please see e.g. 9/11 FME#FBI wanted poster which would list e.g. 5 occurrences in several archives. But don't presume the debates in the past have reached consensus. They haven't; they just died, killed by the Law of the strongest, as fire dies when the energy is spent. And they will keep rekindling forever, for you A-folk are sadly mistaken, I think. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ that Haemo has compiled already includes an archive such as what you described, directing the reader's attention to prior discussions on the topics. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my suggestion is to have no more than an index, so exclude the summary, which may be (seen as) unfair by some. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The summary simply directs the reader to policies relevant to the archived discussions. Our goal with the faq is not to circumvent policy. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why is not used more often? I am not very happy with the current version, see e.g. User_talk:Haemo#draft_911_faq. I can respect the ones using the faq being biased, but the faq ahould be neutral. The major problem will remain that discussions seldom end in consensus, ergo, they were not finished, ergo we will keep busy on this page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, you should not have brought that up on Haemo's main talk page. A better place to cite your concerns would have been at User Talk:Haemo/Draft FAQ. And that would be a good place for anyone who wants to discuss changes to the FAQ. Okiefromokla questions? 03:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

September 11th Task Force

For those who are interested, there is currently an ongoing proposal for a September 11th task force with-in WP:TERRORISM. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia wake-up call (6): reliable sources need to be independent

query

  • Where in wikipedia policy does it say you can delete whole sections of a talk page without any argument why you did so? (diff)

I strongly object to it.

When it was previously deleted for WP:BLP-reasons: no problem, point taken. But this seems to me to be undermining the good spirit of wikipedia.— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

independent RS

There exist, in the minds of the people on this planet, basically two paradigms concerning 9/11:

  • A) Some moslims, hating our freedoms, conspiring in Afghanistan, decided to liberate Saoudi Arabia from America by attacking the Pentagon using box-cutters. Luckely for the free world, they hit the part which was nearly empty. They had to be sentenced for this criminal act, but being suicide terrorists, they were dead. Therefore we tracked their leader into Afghanistan, "not distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida when it comes to terrorism".
  • B) A complex grid of corrupt (factions of) intelligence organisations, secret networks producing opposing Presidency candidates, and business interests who also dominate all the major editorial decisions of all major new media, desired a "new Pearl Harbor", a "War that will not end in our lifetimes", because anno 1990, with the Cold War gone, their absolute control might crumble.

What the wikipedia community has done, in my view, is: assume view A is correct, unless proven otherwise, and design a brilliant narrative based mostly on RS's, which happen mostly to be controlled by the very same people who are the prime suspects in paradigm B. What should have been done, is treating both paradigms with respect, giving fair (not equal) treatment to both, and stick to the bare facts, not the interpretations thereof.

Despite our media being centrally controlled to a large extent, view B has arisen and spread and grown over the years based almost exclusively on snippets of information found in those same controlled mass media, expanded by witness testimony like William Rodriguez, Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer etc.

Now, I had assumed our guidelines and policies would require that any RS used to claim Verifiability of a fact (an event or its interpretation) would have to independent of interests involved in the matter. Our rules say not so. Not that I can see.

  • Thus: I stand corrected: this 9/11 page is (in my opinion) a distortion of the truth, but fully compliant with wikipedia policy, which does not require independent sourcing.

Watch for example this interview given by Aaron Russo to Alex Jones:

...in which Russo describes how a member of a rich and well known family tells him in 2000 (!) about "an event that's gonna happen" leading to a war "in Afghanistan and Irak", and a man-hunt in caves, never finding the terrorists.

I STRONGLY object to the wording in view A. That is highly insulting, sarcastic, and scewed. If you wish to have an even sided debate, do not start with such rubbish. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if you feel insulted. I did not intend that. It can be taken as sarcastic, but most of the frases which make it look weird are direct quotes from famous politicians. It is hard for me to write neutrally on this. Please, however, formulate your version. I've stricken mine. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, Xiutwel, if you want your opinions here to be respected, please return the favor. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

enhance the guidelines

proposal: "if a RS has interests in the topic at hand, all claims made by that source must be attributed to it, and not taken for granted in writing wikipedia." — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to discuss this change to a fundamental policy on the policy's talk page — not here. We simply don't have authority to make that kind of change. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, will do! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See below what those same RS are also reporting, but which is carefully omitted from the article by wikipedians who are afraid of... what? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV / missing facts

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

I call upon wikipedia editors to help compile a list of facts which are omitted from the article. Most of these facts are called factoids because they do not support the view represented in the article, being that it was an external attack. Please include comments on the facts, such as sources, reasons for deleting of including, etc. Please sign any contribs to the list.

For general discussion on this idea, please use the second subsection.

list

meta discussion

First, you've provided no reliable sources for these items. Second, some of these items belong on the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 Attacks or 9/11 Commission discussion pages. Third, you've not said what changes you'd like to discuss making to the article. Remember this page is not for discussing the topic but for discussing what changes you'd like to incorporate into the article. Since, I'm sure you don't just want to add this list, is there some specific text you'd like to discuss adding to the article? --PTR (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of these "facts" would be useless even with a source. They are circumstantial and can be explained by any large number of things and don't obviously point to a coverup in the government. It constitutes orginal research to piece together even the few of these facts that you would be able to find reliable sources for and make a general claim based on those events. This is not what Wikipedia does. Xiutwel, since you are told at every turn that your constant pushing of this violates Wikipedia policy and you still push for it, it seems obvious that you have not actually read wikipedia's policies. I will put an excerpt of Wikipedia:No Original Research here:
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.
Okiefromokla questions? 16:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether you find them useless or not, if reliable sources could be found, then they could be included in the article - probably without any conclusions drawn (unless those were sourced as well). Bulbous (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
PTR, I will not trouble myself with finding RS for these facts, as they will be deleted according to Okie's reasoning: "circumstantial". Or as others would say: "this fact suggests a conspiracy". So, even when the wikipedian who includes them does not make an OR conclusion about it, the material gets deleted. Please note that it easy to find a reliable source which would claim any of the list of facts above to be "circumstantial", but then that would merely say that this is the opinion of such source. I feel it a sin to omit facts from the article if RS exist, when they (seem to) support "conspiracy" claims. Facts are facts. If we only include those facts which match our presupposed paradigm, then we are a snake biting its own tail (tale). — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They are all factoids with no meaning or context (many are not even true), continuing to push CT POV here is against consensus (and policy) and is at some point disruptive. They don't belong in the article and adding them here is just an attempt to debate the issues and advance a POV. Unless someone has a compelling reason not to, these sections should be removed (or moved to your talk page)...RxS (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear - these statements don't belong in the article because they are unsourced - not for POV or any other reason. If they can be sourced, then they can be added. If someone removes a reliably sourced edit, then we have recourse to mediation (where they will lose). But if you aren't interested in finding sources for the material and properly presenting it, I am going to have to agree that there is not much point in posting it in the first place. Bulbous (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't belong because they are just a list of factoids, there are hundreds...thousands of other factoids that could be added. These in particular are not random factoids, but factoids selected to advance a POV (conspiracy theories)...that's the heart of the matter and why they won't be added. RxS (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Strangelove, you say I select them to advance a theory. I say you deselect them to advance your theory: the current version of the article. Can you see a similar, but opposite, pattern here? The current article is way POV, in my perception. I could go and find RS for many of these facts, but you and others would start revert-warring. I suppose that you are so convinced about your 'truth', that based on that conviction you will dislike and renounce any information which contradicts it. If it is contradictory to "the Truth", it can hardly be irrelevant to this article — how wrong am I on this? Sometimes I don't expect we can reach agreement in our lifetimes... In the meantime, let's put the NPOV tag up. And, how about creating a list page for the fact(oid)s for which 'we' have no place in this article? Title: List of news reports concerning the events of 9/11. In respect for the 9/11 victims, nothing could be better than objective information about such facts, and (sourced) hypotheses of how they can be explained (other than a government conspiracy). Or will you prefer having these fruitless debates, even wishing to delete statements from talk pages, which would require other editors to do the same work (talk) over and over again? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, factoid is a good term for them. Paraphrasing wikt:-oid, "similar to, not necessarily exactly" a fact.
Those aren't news reports. If sourced (from news reports, or other reliable sources) they would be selected excerpts of news reports, which could still be refused a listing in the article under WP:SYNTH.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, you are pushing your POV. I've added some news reports, and I am putting the tag up. I predict someone will take it down pretty soon, as if there were consensus that the article is fine. But that's on his/her conscious, then. Please do not remove this [tag] until the dispute is resolved. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) // Arthur, I see now that the current article is, mutatis mutandis, in violation of WP:SYNTH. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Arthur is pushing policy. You are pushing disruptive nonsense. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Others have pointed something out well, I think: These "factoids" make up a small selection of information assembled by Xiutwel to push this POV. There are many facts that, when assembled with just the right ammount of certain facts ommited, can make anything seem possible. So, without going further, this discussion is moot. Xiutwel's proposals are always in violation of WP:OR and WP:RS and even WP:NPOV, and are frankly mildly disruptive. I second either removing this section or freezing it as an archive so others can see how it turned out. Okiefromokla questions? 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ice Cold Beer, I would like you to give some more elaborate rebuttal of my argument. Okie, what can be OR about saying that a passport was reported found? I have not provided all RS's yet, because I am assuming you know most of these facts, and the controversy is exactly as RxS is writing: "we will delete these facts whether they comply with policy or not, because we BELIEVE they are irrelevant" . I think this means there can be no consensus, not even when there are a dozen of you and only one of me. Please someone put the NPOV tag back up. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How many times do we have to keep arguing about the same tired soapboxes? If you can go through the entirity of the archives and prove to me that none of this has ever been brought up before, I'll step asside. However, if it has, and has been debated, and debated, and debated, as I suspect it has, then I expect you to let it go. Stop raising dead arguments already... --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that my points are new. My problem is that a majority just brushes aside valid arguments and by Law of the strongest has made the article into what it is now, and what I believe it should not be. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was naive enough some while ago to get involved in editing an article about 9/11. I found the whole experience so unpleasant that I didn't log into wikipedia for nearly a year. I know there have been other editors who have had similar experiences and have come away feeling bullied and abused. So when it comes to whether something has been debated before, let's just say that very often the standard of previous debates has had quite a lot to be desired. In any case, it is in the nature of wikipedia that editors come and editors go. Therefore it is not unreasonable to revisit particular issues. There are some guidelines to this effect and I can dig them up for you if anyone needs to see them. ireneshusband (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I got to the point about what Alex Jones has to say on this issue and decided then that what we have here is a whole lotta non-science..."disinfomation agents?"prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/280707fightback.htm]--MONGO 02:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you are no fan of Alex Jones, but are you denying he gave the warning? Do you think the video's of that warning are perhaps part of some conspiracy to discredit people, then? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All you've constructed here is a set of factoids which, if you put them all together and squint really hard might incline a thinking person to say "so what" — the only way they have any coherent relevance to the article is if you piece them together into a narrative which is a conspiracy theory. That's what you're asking us to do, and what you're asking us to change the article to reflect. Naturally, there are no reliable sources doing so, so it's basically an exercise in original research. Factoids which only make sense in the article if you weave conspiracy theory to explain them are not relevant unless you can find reliable sources doing said weaving. Otherwise, you're violating Wikipedia's fundamental policies. --Haemo (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You have voiced your opinion eloquently. I am not asking for the article to reflect a government conspiracy, I am asking for it to stop unduely reflecting the opposite. Would Condoleezza Rice make a claim which was reported in a RS, inclusion would not be a problem. Would former ministers of Britain and Germany --both G8 countries-- make a claim, reported in a RS, then what? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not only do the "factoids" need to be validated before they are fit to be included in the article, but there also needs to be a precedent for their use in an analysis of what happened. In some cases, in my personal opinion, the "factoids" are indeed just that. They are spurious. However in others they are easily verifiable and bring up very serious questions.

The passport-on-top-of-the-building story was not an obscure and barely noticed event. It was a significant factor in the public's acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative and is therefore of unquestionable historical importance. Moreover it cannot be dismissed as an innocent error on the part of the media because the story was provided by an assistant director of the FBI several days after the event. I don't think any conclusions should be drawn about this unless a reputable source is cited to support the point, but even so it should definitely be included in the article, albeit without comment.

I appreciate the importance of the "no original research" rule and in general I support it. However when it becomes "original research" to say that the fact that a building can still be seen standing behind a reporter who is describing its unexpected collapse is evidence of prior knowledge, then one has to acknowledge that there is something wrong with how our society evaluates information and that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps the reality is that such a fact may have to be put on hold as far as the article is concerned, but there is no reason why it should not at least be put on a to-do list of potential contents waiting for someone to find an authority figure who has managed to bring him or herself to state the obvious. Therefore this list is useful and should be taken seriously. ireneshusband (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken solely as a list, these "factoids" as some have called them, push an overall POV. But properly sourced statements that are worked into the appropriate section do not push a POV. Any inference you draw from that is your own. Let's deal with the merits of each edit on its sources. If you want to revert it based on the fact you disagree with it, then you have recourses under WP policy. Reversion isn't one of them. Bulbous (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In these discussions we run again and again in epistemological questions that are dificult to tackle without proper training. Analisis of a fact needs a balance between induction and deduction (i.e. the selection of relevant facts must be guided by the heuristic hypotesis but the heuristic hypothesis must be based on the relevant facts and coherent with any other fact). Once this process from particular to general and from general to particular is iterated many times we obtain a theory that is self-coherent and fits with every known fact (relevant and irrelevant). What conspirationist people do is to hide their heuristic hypotesis, then to simulate that they are gathering facts in a non biased way, and finally use these arbitrarily gathered facts -while ignoring any other- to confirm the hidden hypotesis. Then they come to this page to claim and rant. Please, read "The looming tower" from Lawerence Wright and once you manage to explain how the proven facts explained in the book can be included in your theories, then come back.--Igor21 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop working on your list on this page, move it to your userspace. There's clearly no consensus for it's inclusion and it's just disrupting this page. I'll move it for you if you'd like...RxS (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that some of these editors are correct. If you are looking to get the list into the article as a list, I'm afraid you are not going to have much luck. However, if that is merely a collection of individual items that you intend to source and work in to the article (each in the relevant sections), then you should be able to. Step one would be to impeccably source the items. I'd do it one item at a time. But you should use your own talk page as a sandbox until such time as you edit or intend to edit the actual article. Bulbous (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Move them, please. But keep in mind that I have been doing research on most of these claims that have been cited so far, and feel that many shouldn't be included. For example, the BBC reporting that the building was collapsed is not a relevant part of the 9/11 attacks. It was just a hiccup in the press coverage due to chaos that ensued that day. Others are like that, as well: They are not relevant to the article. When put alone outside of this conspiracy theory idea, some of these facts/factoids are of little importance, and don't need to be included. Okiefromokla questions? 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also found some problems with the sources themselves, some of which are pretty bias and tell one snipit of fact without the whole story, which I discovered upon looking further. So upon such research, it's obvious that even put together, these "sourced" factoids aren't very convincing of a conspiracy theory. Some of the more radical claims are not ever going to be sourced, so I need not even bother talking about those. Also, citing commentary from the people who "don't believe the official story is true" has notability and RS issues, even when it's the German prime minister. Is he an expert? (though that partcular fact, if sourced, could fit into the "International Reaction" section.) Again, these should be moved to Xiutwel's userspace. Okiefromokla questions? 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"For example, the BBC reporting that the building was collapsed is not a relevant part of the 9/11 attacks. It was just a hiccup in the press coverage due to chaos that ensued that day."
Yes, I agree with you and Bulbous and you about putting the list on a user page, but I can't let you get away with dismissing a serious argument so casually and without providing a coherent argument of your own. ireneshusband (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[[:Image:Deweytruman12.jpg|right|thumb|The media gets breaking news wrong all the time -RxS (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]]
Sounds pretty coherent to me. Breaking news makes mistakes all the time, see Florida, circa November 2000. Perhaps someone told the BBC that all WTC buildings had collapsed, not knowing there was a seventh across the street. The fact that they reported it doesn't actually ... mean anything. Who would warn the BBC? For what reason? Why the BBC? None of it makes sense, and the significance of the mistake is nil. --Golbez (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Your theory is interesting! But you seem to claim the BBC reported that all the WTC buildings collapsed. They didn't. They said: Salomon Brothers building =nr7. But, years after the fact, when it was "big news" that this error was made, they did think of a plausable explanation for their error (see my sources above). But then again they would, wouldn't they: if they would not do so, they would have to report that someone had foreknowledge. Which no one could have, because WTC7 collapsed at an unpredictable time due to damage. (But demolition experts, when seeing the collapse, recognize it as demolition. They can be wrong.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Xiutwel here: I've been away a while. In any simple discussion such as this, there are 3 viewpoints: pro, contra and undetermined. Let's call these: A, B and C. "A" would be one viewpoint, "B" the opposite, and "C" would describe both viewpoints, examing their merits perhaps but not reaching a conclusion. In wikipedia, we usually adopt approach C unless view A or B is seen as insignificant. Now assume that on a given topic X, not necessarily being the current 9/11 page, has historically been written in the narrative "A", assuming it was correct. Any fact "F" which at first hand might seem to conflicting with "A" will now been examined and some explanation will be searched and found to understand it. Since A is correct, it will follow that "F" is not very important. This process will repeat itsself over and over. Now suppose that "A" was a mistake, and "B", which was not known at first, turns out to be more correct. After years and years, view "A" will have evolved into a complete paradigm. How can such a paradigm shift? It is next to impossible: any new fact will keep being dismissed. Turning back to 9/11, I will now quote some remarks from the above — please let me know when you think they're pulled out of context:

  • Haemo (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC): ...set of factoids...the only way they have any coherent relevance to the article is if you piece them together into a narrative...
  • RxS (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC): they don't belong because they are just a list of factoids, there are hundreds...thousands of other factoids ... not random factoids, but factoids selected to advance a POV (conspiracy theories)...and why they won't be added.

(end quotes) This is how wikipedia operates, which is professional, and which is the same way the major media operate. This is why our reliable sources keep repeating their narrative which is also reflected in the narrative of the current version of the article. In this narrative it is not so very interesting when some people refuse to testify under oath. Or that the crime of the century, for which we went to war to avenge it, is not mentioned on the search warrent for the culperite. But suppose now, this is not on 9/11, would it not theoretically be possible that a view is wrong? Over the centuries, we have had to flip hundreds of times in our mindset on issues which had been stable and accepted for generations. Wikipedia is a very important source of information. Even journalists often start at wikipedia when they need to know something. Would our articles not benefit by including all information, not only that which we believe to be relevant, but also what is only deemed relevant by some? By the mechanism which is worded above, wikipedia is selectively excluding all fact(oid)s which might lead someone into creating conspiracy theories. But i.m.o. that makes the article biased. This bias is based on the assumption (which may be a correct one) that the paradigm expressed in the article corresponds to reality. But what if "we" 're wrong? What if? We would never find out, would we? Compare the article on Abiogenesis; it says: [It is] the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. Because there is no absolute certainty to any scientific theory. Certainty is only found in math, and even there we sometimes err. The bottom line is: if we want to uphold narrative "A", in stead of position "C", we need a RS which says so. A RS which is independent, has no vested interests, and is (for practical purposes) infallable. If such a RS cannot be found, I propose to abandon narrative A as being the only possible one. Make some room for B, and with it, the corresponding facts, sourced and counterbalanced by possible explanations other than conspiracy. But let the judge, the reader, see the complete files, and not that we choose for him/her. That would be OR. Agree? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We are selectively excluding content by filtering them through reliable witnesses and experts working in their field. That does make it biased, biased toward reliable and expert article content. We would not be better off by including all information: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a publisher of original thought. Inclusion of everything someone thinks is a fact would make Wikipedia useless. RxS (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; Wikipedia is not a collection of facts which may, or may not, be relevant to a given subjects. Part of the job of an encyclopedia is to determine which facts are relevant, and which ones aren't — however, we aren't the individuals to make those judgment calls. Instead, we rely on reliable sources to connect facts to subjects; if you want to include a fact, find a reliable source which connects it as relevant and important to the subject. Because you cannot do this, you have instead changed tactics to argue that we need a different standard of sources — naturally, this level of sourcing is inherently impossible to ascribe to, thus you argue that we should just abandon our requirements for reliable sources. This is at adds with Wikipedia policy in a number of ways, and is fundamentally unacceptable. In the many, many times you have argued this, or other similar points, it's clear that you don't have a problem with this article — you have a fundamental problem with the policies laid out for Wikipedia as a whole by its owners. I might then suggest that this is untenable, and you might find it a more productive use of your time to edit elsewhere, where your efforts can be accepted. --Haemo (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is never going to end is it? Even if the 'god' of Wikipedia came down himself and said "Let it go", this is going to continue, isn't it? How depressing... --Tarage (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is depresingly one sided - even mainstream news is censored with OR as argument. "a hiccup in the press coverage due to chaos that ensued that day"? Give me a break... you have a source for that? Sickening, but i don't expect better from wikipedia anymore. (btw, don't take that as a personal attack, the behavior is symtomatic.) --Striver - talk 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source? That's the point here: There are reliable sources for the most widely-accepted view of 9/11. About the BBC coverage issue: It's the easy (and, frankly, the most logical) explanation that one person overheard a fireman say "this building looks like it's going to collapse" and eventually BBC got something that says "this buildings has collapsed." It's ridiculous to speculate that BBC is part of a some world-wide conspiracy to take down the twin towers, start the new world order and convince everyone that UFOs and happy Iranians don't exist. Forgive the sarcasm, but I am tired of this discussion. To those who want to push an "alternate theory," please read carefully Wikipedia's Policies, and don't discuss policy changes on this page. There are ways to propose changes to policies, so feel free to contact an established editor on their talk page if you need to know what to do, or if you want clarification on a policy. At this point, I would suggest that we deny recognition to editors who don't wish to take Wikipedia's policies seriously, or who refuse to actually read Wikipedia's policies after being directed to them on numerous occasions. I propose we close this section with an archive template. All in favor? Okiefromokla questions? 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. I'm sick of the ignorance of Wikipedia policy and refusal to cease the pointless soapboxing and tired old arguments. It's time we just say enough. Then again, I've said this before, and no one ever listens... --Tarage (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Aye. The whole BBC thing is symptomatic of the whole thing. The reporter was probably freaking out, while surrounded by people freaking out, in the middle of a global freakout...and people want to assign some deep meaning to a mistake they made. More editors should read WP:V and how Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. And we need to start enforcing the This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. warning at the top of the page. RxS (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. There will always be those who refuse to get the point. If there had been reliable sources provided to support these arguments instead of just complaints that Wikipedia policy was itself part of the conspiracy, the topic might have warranted more discussion, but this is clearly not the case. Wikipedia cannot be expected to lower its expectations on source validity in order to accommodate these theories. And as far as the BBC ordeal goes, consider Occam's Razor. What is more likely: a globally-coordinated effort to fabricate an international incident, relying on hundreds of military personnel, government agents, and/or journalists worldwide to carry it out who have all remained either tight-lipped or completely ignorant of their own involvement for the last six and a half years; or a miscommunication due to widespread panic in the wake of the fact that half of lower Manhattan had just been destroyed? I seem to remember reports on that day that the Sears Tower had also been targeted by a hijacked plane out of Milwaukee,[1] but I suppose that being as records of such miscommunication do not fit into the world-spanning conspiracy which was weaved together after the fact, the mention of such counterexamples will fall on deaf ears. I say so, because it would certainly seem the same attitude has been displayed towards WP policy. I vote to close this topic immediately. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
<<<comment here was deleted by Haemo (diff)  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)>>>

NPOV / missing facts (2)

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

(subsection to make editing easier) ; defining consensus

Hi all! ; Okie archived the section above. I feel happy about that, because the discussion was not really going anywhere new — yet, and became rather lengthy for me to grasp, let alone for newcomers.

  • However, I see the reasons given are:
  1. per consensus,
  2. WP:SOAP, and
  3. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
When I look at the section above, I do not see what I would call consensus. I see a majority of wikipedians satifsfied with the current status of the article, and a minority displeased. I would not call that consensus. If anyone can point me to a definition of consensus in wikipedia guidelines which is applicable to the present situation on this talk page, please let us know here: &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(subsection to make editing easier) ; agree to disagree

The best consensus I hope to achieve in the short term, is to agree to disagree. That would give us all a lot of rest on this talk page! In the article, I would like to see that reflected as such:

  1. preferrably, by attributing all interpretations in the article to RS, in stead of to wikipedia. (Currently, major interpretations such as "who carried out the attack, and why" are in the narrative, thus attributing these interpretational claims to the wikipedia community (and therefor even also to myself, for which I will not stand.))
  2. alternatively, by a preamble to the article, saying: "This article reflects the mainstream account of the events, as is widely accepted and as reported by reliable sources."
  3. the bad option: the dispute flag

Are there more options? I propose to start by option 2, a preamble, I really strongly wish such a preamble and will try to make such edit in the week or so to come; please give me your suggestions for the wording? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(subsection to make editing easier) ; fact picking

I was "accused" (no insult taken) earlier of fact picking. I admit to listing very specific facts, namely those that have made me doubt the official version. On the other hand, there is fact selection on the other side, admittedly so; let's call that the Narrative-driven Fact Selection Mechanism (NFSM).

In principle, my highest excitement would be to include in, any article, any fact which I feel is true; but I understand this gives rise to edit-warring, so I abondon that and I fully concur with the Wikipedia rule that facts must be sourced by a RS — when they are (likely to be) challenged. Second, I also understand, for clarity and readability, that certain facts MUST be omitted. If we were to include "all known facts to mankind" on a given subject in its corresponding article, the article would become too long and unreadable.

But, arisen from these noble intentions, I think something has now gone wrong. The article may be biased.

Sources for selecting viewpoint A, B, C
:

Suppose that on a given matter, there is a view A and an opposing view B. This leaves us 3 choices: taking stance on side A, taking stance on side B, or remaining neutral, C.

I wrote earlier: if we want to uphold narrative "A", in stead of position "C", we need a RS which says so.

In order to justify continuing to use the NFSM which is currently complied with —both by wikipedia and other professional reliable sources— I believe we need some reliable source which gives us the authority to do so; either:

  • which reliable source can give certainty that "narrative A" would be the correct one; or
  • which reliable source can give us certainty that the NFSM itself will lead us to a correct narrative?

(By correct I mean: "corresponding" to reality — I am assuming there is an objective reality outthere, independent of the observer.) I have never been able to find such a source; has anyone? Who could have the absolute authority to determine which narrative is the correct one? Please list the sources you can find here: — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(subsection to make editing easier) ; pledge / further discussion

I hereby commit myself to refrain from making derogative remarks towards views or behaviour by other wikipedians. (Please remind me of this when I falter.)

For brevity sake, I would like to make a request, which I believe could enrich our stay on wikipedia: "let's not utter our frustrations too much on article talk pages; it takes the focus away form the discussion." Feel free to do so or to not do so: it is just a request, not a demand. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will userfy the list I was making above at User:Xiutwel/List of information for the 9/11 article. I am also considering rewriting the 9/11 article in userspace, but that will be for a later month. Better not on wikipedia, it would be deleted for soapboxing; you can see it here and contribute: http://www.talk2000.nl/mediawiki/index.php/911

I hope I do not offend anyone with my edits today. I am concerned that some of you might feel angry or frustrated reading such a lot of text you might disagree with, but I saw no better way at the moment than this one. In good spirit, I wish all of you: happy editing and go for a walk in the sunshine.— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xiutwel. The vagueness is, I think, is what is frustrating to people. You posted a list but didn't say where or how, in the article, you wanted the information presented and, at first, didn't provide sources. The tone of this section is that you want some changes made or the NPOV flag added - the previous section seemed to say you want to use non RS sources or the NPOV flag added. It's all a complete mystery to me what paragraphs/sections/text you want changed or what, in the article as written, you believe to be POV.
You need to say what specific paragraphs or sections you consider to be POV and present a possible rewrite section by section, one at a time, on this talk page with your explanation of what makes them POV/incorrect and what you would like to change/include. This will make it possible for others to collaborate with you on the article and will make for a much better experience for all. --PTR (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, PTR. I am sorry to hear my intent was not clear before. Let me try again: #1 the article presents a single narrative, "outside job", narrative "A". I think we should give fair treatment to narrative "B" as well ("inside job"), thus as Wikipedia shifting to viewpoint "C", neutral. My concrete complaint is, that facts which support narrative "B" in stead of "A" are systematically being banned from the article. Because they do not support or fit into the narrative, they are deemed "obsolete", even when Reliable sources make mention of them. Those same reliable sources which are cited are upholding the same narrative as Wikipedia, so they too, will always deem these facts as insignificant. By the NFSM this article is a very intelligent narrative of what may be a total fantasy. I want our readers to make up their own mind. I appreciate your proposal to make in concrete, and work on one section at a time, but that is exactly what has been tried for years and did not work. We need consensus on a high, abstract level on how to proceed with this narrative issue, before discussing details in implementation. Agree? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that narrative "B" as you call it is not supported by neutral third party sources, experts working in their field or considered notable by reliable sources. And when I say not considered notable, I mean mainstream media, experts etc do not consider it a real alternative explanation of the events. When they talk about it, it's mostly as a cultural phenomenon (like Elvis sightings)...they are not investigating it, or presenting it as a live option. You seem like a reasonable person, but this has been gone over and over...I just don't see any value in repeating ourselves over and over. RxS (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"not supported" ... that's why I do not advocate putting narrative "B" into the article, but narrative "A" out of it. At least, attribute the narrative to sources, and not to Wikipedia. "experts working in their field" ... I do not know many of them off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some: Sibel Edmonds, translator for an anti-terrorist unit; Anthony Shaffer; Andreas von Bülow, as a Parlementarian involved in investigating the East-German Secret Service and the Western counterparts, who in 1999 wrote a book about it (im Namen des Staates); several demolition experts. I am surprised you could yourself name none, and I'm curious whether any of these names would be acceptable to you? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can present reliable sources that support narrative "B" in and of themselves (no need for connecting the dots by the reader) then they would be welcome. It's not that the editors here are inflexible but that the sources have to be extraordinary for extraordinary claims and there can be no original research or synthesis of facts to present a particular view. So you can't say, for example, "Jill says she hates red, however; Jill wore a red sweater on Tuesday. Therefore, Jill is a liar.", you can say, "The Washington Post reported, 'Jill hates red but wore a red sweater on Tuesday. On questioning, Jill said it's a gift from her grandmother.'" --PTR (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You are asking for a RS. I doubt I could find one which meets your satisfaction. I have high regard for Michael Ruppert, a former policeman, who wrote a 600 page book on the attacks. Policemen have a good reputation for fact checking. Personally, I believe there are some minor errors in his reasoning, but most of it seems sound to me. But others will deem him a conspiracy nutter. He is NO WAY a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. And similar things go for everyone who investigates and publishes around narrative "B": they are looked at as nutters by the RS. It is simply not done for a RS to challenge "A", let alone endorse "B". The sources which Wikipedia calls reliable, are sources which rely on reliable sources themselves. There is a whole network of reliable sources reporting what other RS have reported. Repeating. Repeating. Repeating. Therefor, we have to realise that the narrative A is not the result of the information of the reliable sources, the narrative is also their origin: All these sources are taking "A" for granted, and then examining and explaining the facts in this line, disregarding anomalies, or inventing explanations for them, which in my ears sound far-fetched. For example, the passport found (which someone mentioned in the archived section above): I'm curious to any explanation on how that could have happened. But more important, we're losing track: now I am being asked to prove "B". I do not need to prove B, because I have no intention (within the first few years at least) to argue for inclusion of version "B" in this article. We need to include the facts without narrative B, but simply stating that a fact X seems strange in the light of "A" and the explanation is unknown. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)

back to the heart (section break to make editing easier)

What I was saying in the before-previous section #(fact picking) is: if we are to accept narrative "A" as leading in fact selection, (NFSM), then first we need a RS that either "A" is true or NFSM is leading to truth. I have seen neither. Anyone? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please present areas where you have not seen the text supported by reliable sources and we can work from there. Wikipedia does not determine truth but reports what reliable sources have reported. --PTR (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, we on Wikipedia do not determine "truth", but our average reader does not realise that ! Most students will simply take wikipedia's information as "the truth" and not as "a narrative supported by reliable sources". That's why I would like to make this issue more clear to our readers, either by attributing or a preamble. You ask: "areas where you have not seen the text supported" this is not really the issue, I know the text is supported by RS. I am saying, the RS could be mistaken because they are all part of the same NFSM. For instance, if we look at the current preamble, I have problems with sentences 1-7, where the last (nr 8) is fine by me. They all make claims suggesting narrative "A" is correct. These claims are referenced with sources, but they are not attributed to the sources in the wording of the sentence; they just have footnotes. Two questions: am I getting my point across, via this last sentence, what it is that I would like to see different than it is now? Secondly, do you agree on changing the wording? Thx &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you write an example of how you would like the first 7 sentences to read? Keeping in mind that the introduction to the article is a summary of the article. All the information and support should be contained in the article. If it isn't, please indicate here where the information for the summary is not included in the main body of the article. --PTR (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I make a proposal below and then ask you to provide RS I am asking for: &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)
Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on the contributor. It is not our job to find citations for your content. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Jc-S0CO, I see I have not been as clear as I was trying to be. I am not asking for RS for my content, but for the present content of the article, which was compiled using the NFSM. I am concerned it is turning POV. See #(fact picking) above. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States on that date, generally presumed to have been suicide attacks by al-Qaeda.
On that morning, according to reliable sources, nineteen terrorists[1] affiliated with al-Qaeda[2] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers including a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashing two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), presumed to have been the cause of the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings.[3] The hijackers crashing a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) are believed to have attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;[4] that plane crashing into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Aside from the 19 alleged hijackers, [...]

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes you want to make to the lead, because, for example, it is taken by experts as fact that the planes caused the collapse of the towers. However, I am not opposed to removing the "affiliated with al-qaeda" phrase and rephrasing the first sentence to say that Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks. It can also be added in the lead that Osama Bin Laden has not been legally charged by the U.S. government with his role in 9/11.[2] If this is included, however, it should also be noted that there is substantial evidence linking bin laden to 9/11 (sources in the bin laden section of the article). That's as far as I think this needs to go. On one note to Xiutwel, I would suggest that you leave this discussion for a day or so, and let others have a chance to reply before you add to it. Others need a chance to catch up, so give them a while. Okiefromokla questions? 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above text is unacceptable. The repeated use of the terms "presumed" and "believed" gives undue weight to theories that Al Qaeda was not involved, something else caused the collapse of the towers, or that something else happened to Flight 93. The qualification "reliable sources" is unnecessary, since all Wikipedia articles are "according to reliable sources". This extended debate has become incredibly tiresome, since you have, at no point, produced reliable sources to support the narrative you are trying to present — instead, you have focused on adding weasel words and collected a wide variety of facts which you believe tell us something about the attacks which is not covered in reliable sources. At no point have you presented a source which supports an alternative narrative, nor have you presented sources which assert the facts (even when they are in context, and represented properly) have any relevance to the article. It's not going anywhere because you simply refuse to work within the guidelines and policies Wikipedia functions under; at this point in time, after months of repeating the same arguments, your comments are becoming incredibly tendentious and totally unproductive. --Haemo (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Haemo, this discussion is past the point of getting old, and Xiutwel's rewrite is far from acceptable. However, I see no problem with what I suggested above, do you? At the very least, it should be included that bin laden hasn't been officially charged with the attacks, despite the evidence against him, and that could be added to the "Osama Bin Laden" section in the body. Okiefromokla questions? 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

back to the heart (2)

if we are to accept narrative "A" as leading in fact selection, (NFSM), then first we need a RS that either "A" is true or NFSM is leading to truth. Please provide one or the other? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (I'm wikibreaking a few days now, at least where this talk page is concerned. --X 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't understand what you're asking here. --Haemo (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am repeating the question I posed above at #(fact picking), to which I would like a reply. If the text above is unclear, would you please ask in that section, since this is only a summary? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have reliable sources that "Narrative A" is true. Okiefromokla questions? 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of that. I am only aware of reliable sources presuming the narrative "A", based on other reliable sources, which also presume it. In my opinion, that makes the RS all tertiary sources, citing eachother; we need secondary ones. And for us to adopt "A", the required secondary source(s) would need to be giving an explanation for all RS-reported facts which wikipedians now "want excluded from this article, because they might suggest B". We are committed to writing the truth. It is just that we've agreed to not promote our own beliefs as long as they are not supported by RS, but the current text is not supported by RS. Not so much for what it states, but for what it leaves out: facts which strongly suggest that the official version cannot be reality. The guidelines were written to build reliable articles, USING sources, not to spam their information onto the net regardlessly. So, what is the best secondary source we have?; the 911 Commission report? (The Commission was appointed and directed by the prime, or if you will secondary suspects!)  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that we are supposed to disregard every mainstream source we have on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent?" The problem here is the unmoving assertion that the government (your "secondary suspects!") is guilty, and thus that anything they have suggested can be ignored. It's not our job to cast blame here, and a couple of factoids strung together with politically-motivated conspiratorial overtones does not overshadow the professional opinions of the many experts who have come to agree with the official story. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Not: "disregard", but: "fairly quote" in stead of "selectively". We should not "cast blame" - on anyone - unless we prove it.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the crux of the problem: it is not our place to prove anything. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is confusing to me. The issue is, that facts were being deleted when they WERE sourced BUT in apparent contradiction of narrative A. I would say we can only proceed in such manner, when we are sure about the correctness of the narrative. So: if you want to delete sourced facts, you should prove the narrative first. If we do not want to prove the narrative, we should stop removing facts which contradict the narrative, so other editors can make the article NPOV, neutral and fair. Would you be willing to promise to let these in?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See, there you go again. "Apparent contradiction of narrative A" — the only reason you think these facts are relevant to the article is because you believe that they can be strung together to contradict the mainstream narrative. You have no reliable sources to back up this synthesis of unconnected facts, and are once again pushing original research. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See a bit below: it is not synthesis, it is "presenting the complete picture" without writing a single word which is not backed by RS. No unbacked conclusions or speculations. On the other hand: fact-picking as it has been done in the current article can distort a neutral and balanced encyclopedic article, even if it is backed by the opinion of multiple reliable sources.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel : Please read my post above dated 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC). Your comitement for the true truth is admirable but you should prepare yourself harder since your apparently trivial ABC problem is part of a philosophical conundrum called infinite recursivity that has been the center of epistemological debates for millenia. So your doubts are legitimate but go much further than "9/11 in wikipedia". Your line of reasoning (painfully correct) jeopardizes any certainty about the very existence of anything. The only certain thing that someone can have is that himself exists. Al the rest is conjectured.--Igor21 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Did the facts have WP:RS reliable sources? Were they specifying points made in the reliable sources themselves or was there a point being made that source A said "fact1" and source B said "fact2" and therefore "factC" is true? Could you point to diff of something you added to the article that was deleted so someone can let you know why it was deleted? --PTR (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am speaking here about the adding of simple facts, without conclusion, e.g.: 1: person X declared on this date: "A" and 2:on that date, declared: "B". Period. The fact "C" that the two statements are contradictory should not be allowed in, if and only if there is no RS making this observation "C".  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We keep talking about issues but we have stopped talking about the article. Please, if you have some changes you would like to propose, specifically, present them on the talk page for discussion. I understand you want to place facts into the article but the article cannot be just a list of facts. --PTR (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree: the article cannot be just a list of facts. We should have a narrative. I think it is reasonable to use the mainstream view as the main narrative, provided (a) it is explicitly acknowledged to be a view instead of the absolute truth, and (b) facts which (seemingly) contradicted are allowed in. I've #listed 30+ possible facts to include, I agree we maybe should not add all of them, but most of them, when supported by RS, should be included. Can you agree? I would like the article to primarily reflect the factual events, and not the government theory about them. All theories must be attributed to their sources, including the mainstream one.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say. We don't say it's a view that the reliable source have unless the reliable sources say it's a view. All the text in the article is attributed to reliable sources which is how wikipedia works. As to your inclusion of your list of facts, I have no idea what/how/where you want to add the information. It would be impossible for you to get agreement to do something before showing the other editors exactly what you want to change/include. If your goal is to add some of your listed facts, put the text here of how you would add them, preferably one at a time, and get consensus. --PTR (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The argument is basically "fact A" is true, and "fact B" is true. On their own, they have no apparent relevance to the article, nor have any reliable sources connected them to the subject of the article. However, if you take facts A-Z, you can weave a story which connects those facts, and contradicts the reliable sources. Naturally, this is a clear synthesis argument, and totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, no. I have no need to include any story which is not based on RS. The facts alone speak louder than words for some, and will seem insignificant to others. They should be let in, so each can make up his own mind. This is not synthesis, this is presenting facts neutrally. If there is any synthesis, it's in the mind of the reader, which is not subject to Wikipedia policy. So, how can you justify leaving them out, without depending on your narrative, which is not proven, but assumed?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point entirely. At no point did I state the facts where not based on reliable sources — their relevance and signifigance to the subject is not established by reliable sources, and it is synthesis to argue that, as a collection, they have relevance because in your opinion they support certain theories about what happened. The "narrative" which is reflected in the article right now is based on reliable sources reporting it as factual and true; the narrative which you are attempting to insert into the article is not supported by any reliable sources, and so you are instead trying to synthesize support by collecting facts which you believe support it and adding them to the article. Naturally, the original synthesis of reported, but judged irrelevant by reliable sources, facts is a form of original research and is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. You don't seem to understand this point, and instead have repeatedly ignored or misunderstood it, when it has been repeatedly presented to you. --Haemo (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you certain I am missing your point, or is it just that we are not yet in agreement on the matter? Your second sentence is ambiguous to me: what is it that "you did not state", and what is it that you are stating now?; would you please clarify that to me? I agree the RS are supporting the current narrative as factual and true, but ... because it is their view. They have never proven it. As an independent encyclopedia, we should not follow their approach; we should give each view fair and sympathetic treatment, including significant minority views. I am not trying to synthesize support for a partical view B, I am trying to let facts back into the article, erased over the years, which show that view A might be less solid than the current article is suggesting. I am afraid your opposing this might be emotional rather than rational? If the facts I suggest to include now were deemed irrelevant by RS, they would not have reported them in the first place, would they have? Is it more clear to you what I'm saying now? (It is not yet exactly clear to me what point you were trying to make, so I hope if you refrase your second sentence I can understand.)  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) The narrative you speak of are the recorded facts of what happened, when, where, and why. We rely on reliable sources for telling us which facts are verifiable, and which reported facts are relevant to the subject. The onus is not on us to evaluate, as you say, whether or not they have "proven" that the facts they report are relevant, or what-have-you. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. To put it bluntly:
  • Editorial evaluation of the "proof" or veracity of a view expressed by reliable sources is original research.
  • Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research.
  • The inclusion of facts which you, and no reliable source, believe undermine the "mainstream account" of the events on this page is original research.
  • Judging facts as relevant to a subject, simply because they are published is both wrong, and original research. Simply because a fact is published — for instance, the number of windows in WTC7 — does not make it relevant to a subject unless a reliable source makes the connection before we as editors do.
  • The entire purpose of all non-experimental sciences (and even in some situations experimental science) is first the decision of which facts are, and are not, relevant to a given topic, then the addition of those facts into a cohesive whole. You are arguing that Wikipedia editors usurp that first role and perform original research on this, and any other article.
This is not based on emotion, it's based on a simple and clear interpretation of our underlying guidelines. The entire 9/11 conspiracy movement, which you are a proponent of, is based on exactly the type of research that you are trying to make Wikipedia a party to — put this way, it should be clear why it's totally unacceptable. --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

archive 38

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

  1. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#NFSM
  2. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#list

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

Isn't it a bit?

Isn't it a little late to protect September 11, 2001 attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.101.81 (talkcontribs) 20:21, 8 February 2008

Cute; but, no — the article is protected due to persistent vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What idiot would vandalize this article? 84.13.101.81 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The list is (at least has been) endless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists ROUTINELY vandalize this article and, at times, the talk pages, disrupting the presentation of factual scientific information that has reliable sources. (And they call themselves the "truth" movement. heh.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.49.76 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sneha Anne Philip

Bringing to everyone's attention this news, which has a small effect on the death totals for the day. I am reticent to change the numbers myself, because I cannot seem to make all the numbers fit. The September11victims.com site has apparently removed one victim from Flight 11 since it was last consulted for reference in Sept. 2007, bringing the total number of victims out of line with what is provided here even before the news of the court's decision regarding Ms. Philip. It strikes as odd that the site should do this. Someone with a longer history of involvement and knowledge in the minutiae of this topic should be careful to recheck the numbers. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories name change

Since it's a subarticle of this article, I thought it would be sensible to note that there is (yet another) move proposal at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories to change the title of the article to 9/11 alternative theories or 9/11 non-mainstream theories. Since this affects how we name the sections in this article, editors here should take note. --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious... why wouldn't citing "WP:NAME:Use common names of persons and things" take care of this immediately? These concepts are obviously most commonly known as conspiracy theories.71.204.49.76 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question, and the only answer I have is that nothing takes care of debates immediately on Wikipedia. Okiefromokla questions? 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the section should be named "Alternate 9/11 theories" or "Alternate Perspectives" since the word "conspiracy" implies they can be proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Work Cited (References) vs. Bibliography (and footnotes)

I think the reference section is great, however this article should have a bibliography. According to www.aresearchguideforstudents.com, who based there MLA style on the authoritative publication from the Modern Language Association of America, (Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook. 6th ed. New York: MLA, 2003.), there are differences between a bibliography and a works cited. It is stated that "In Works Cited you only list items you have actually cited. In a Bibliography you list all of the material you have consulted in preparing your essay whether or not you have actually cited the work." I would like to see all the works that where used for writting this article. This means any information that was removed, along with there said "reference". should be placed in the bibliography.

Secondely, according to this same article our References are not properly formated. They should be placed in alphabetical order. It is stated that "All references are placed in ONE ALPHABETICAL LIST by first words of citations, regardless of where citations come from." Currently I believe what we have are footnotes. Hence the reason I have or will change the name from reference to footnotes.[3]. (Also refer to The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 6th edition by Joseph Gibaldi, Appendix B.1, pp. 298-313 for additional detailed instructions on footnotes.)(Or this paper here). --CyclePat (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MLA standards are not applicable to Wikipedia. We have our own set of standards here: WP:MOS. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello MisterHand, thank you for the link. You are right... Wikipedia does have its "own set of standards." However, the above statement: "MLA standards are not applicable to Wikipedia", is wrong. It is contradicted by WP:CITE#HOW which states "...Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent..." Also, wikipedia has what I believe is called "concensus" rule. I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, appear to concur with my aforementioned statement regarding proper formatting. You may also infer from my previous statement that the status quo does not represent MLA standards or, for the matter of fact, "our own [Wikipedia’s] set of standards here: WP:MOS" --CyclePat (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Individual references may be coded using MLA standards, but the reference list is written using our standards, which are different from the MLA standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please work on adding a proper reference (work cited) section and bibliography. Having a bibliography would not only be an important element to know what resources where read (but not used), but may help maintain an NPOV article via allowing independant research on various points and presenting what most of our editors have read. --CyclePat (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


You have a strange idea as to what a bibliography is. It's not in keeping with our WP:MOS, nor the MLA standards, to have a list of books generally relevant to the topic with page numbers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, that's correct, as you stated, "It's not in keeping with our MOS...". That's because MOS does not specifically address this issue. As I have stated, you must look into WP:Citing sources and WP:Footnotes. Specifically, MOS makes reference to these important guidelines. Once you find these sub-guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide page numbers, you may find the statements that recommend we provide page numbers. In short: By example: If you've read the entire book then put all the page numbers... if you didn't, then add the page numbers or chapters. ex. : "The Green Apple. pp.504-512, 565-680, etc..." My thoughts on a bibliography are reflected by the authoritative facts Modern Language Association of America as referenced by www.aresearcheguide.com, hence I believe it is wrong to state that this is "not in keeping with... the MLA standards, to have a list of books... with page numbers." As per common teaching practice in schools for writing essays... In short: If you read a certain book, and you contribute to this article, even if it's a fact that is not listed, is later removed, or whatever, that book should be listed somehow. (Whether it be on a separate page called September 11, 2001 attacks (section)/Bibliography (because of the possibility of extreme length or incorporated within the article) An added benefit to this bibliography is that if someone read more pages from a book or resource then the bibliography could be updated to reflect the information that was already read. This in turn will help editors determine if the information they want to include may not have already been included, removed or discussed for removal. Hence this method could help reduce possible conflicts. --CyclePat (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a substantial change from what our guidelines request, or suggest is necessary. You might want to bring it up there, instead. --Haemo (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Haemo, We may be correct regarding the original request (ie.: alphabetical order, bibliography, references, vs work cited, etc...) On the secondary issues (ie.: the page number in the references) this issue is fairly well documented in our wikipedia policies or guidelines. Thank you for the advice on bringing some of these issues (perhaps one of them) to the "guidleines request". --CyclePat (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers in the references seem necessary (although the tag would not be near where the work would need to be done.) Page numbers in lists of reference works (you've redefined "bibliography" since I wrote my comment about it) are clearly inappropriate. And your definition of "bibliography" is impossible for a Wikipedia article, as most editors don't keep track of their sources for background information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, your definition of "bibliography" is impossible in the academic context, as well. NO ONE lists all the books they use for background information on an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"If you read a certain book, and you contribute to this article, ... that book should be listed somehow." is not sensible in any context that I can think of. If that's a quote from the MLA, we may need to consider rejecting more of their recommendations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, it appears as though we are both on the defensive. This is understandable given the fact that our recent statements are contradictory. Now that I think about it, I must agree with you in part. Take a look at the various definitions of bibliography. None of them are quite consistent asides from the fact that a bibliography is a list of sources. However, it is important to find an authorative source. Yes! Some may argue that a bibliography is "The list of works cited by an author..." (at type of work cited) and others may say the opposite. The opposite is supported by the fact that it can be defined as "a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production." (bibliography)
Obviously, I believe in the later, since my school of thought has been that a bibliography is "related in some way" with all the information that has been consulted or is the "list of sources used in the preparation of academic work." Hence adding the page numbers of the pages consulted would not be out of line. Furthermore, I would like to point out, that this is not my "Strange idea of a bibliography" but one which, if I clearly remember, was advocated and thought through school. (i.e: Telling us to place the various chapters or page numbers which we have read in alphabetical order... and also having a work cited with specific passage cited.)
The template I placed in the article earlier Template:Pagenumbers, was placed above the book section. This template in of itself substantiates this idea requiring page numbers but do take a look at the bold text above. This point, I believe we agree upon. Correct? In short: For the books section we should place the pages that where consulted. For the work cited (or references as we now have), I believe, where applicable we must place the specific page number of the citation. (Where applicable (This appears to be supported by [MLA].)(I'm going to buy the book! And I'll get back to you with an official authorative answer on that though) Finally, again, for the Bibliography we place the pages consulted, because that's the way it's always been done for essays and my recommendations may be inferred through the previously mentioned sources as well as the information on what a "bibliography is" found through MLA.org with their example of the MLA International bibliography.) --CyclePat (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I believe the books section should contain those chapters or sections believed to be relevant, rather than those actually consulted. (Page numbers may depend on the format (hardcover, paperback, "trade paperback", etc.), which most editors will forget to record.) After all, one may have to read through a book to find the relevant sections. I still say that those sections of a work read or even read while researching the article are not appropriate for inclusion. I would note also that our < ref> templates do not seem to allow placing the references in alphabetical, or even in "first reference" order if you consider the ref name= options. A "bibliography", in the sense of sections read, is not appropriate in the case of multiple editors who may be loons less rational than ourselves. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a sad commentary on our recent debates that I find this section more intresting to read than the entirity of the previous few months? --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it's about improving the article, which is a surprising and welcome change. --Golbez (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. It's the wrong venue, though, although I'm not entirely sure where the right venue is.... WT:CITE? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:CITE is the most relevant guideline, I believe. This is a MOS change which goes way further than what we, as editors of a single page, have the authority to implement. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart of NPOV (3)

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.

This continues from the archived section

Related: Wikipedia_talk:NPOV.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PTR, you ask for a concrete proposal for textual change to discuss. I will oblige, but am reluctant to do so, because I see no point in this, as long as Heamo and others believe we should not include facts even when reported once by RS, but no longer deemed very important by those same RS. So, here is such a fact which I would like included:

A passport of one of the hijackers was reported found intact near the WTC.< ref>Las Vegas Review Journal, September 16, 2001.< /ref> Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble earlier discovered a passport belonging to one of the suspected hijackers a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.< ref>BBC, September 16, 2001< /ref>A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.< ref>http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm< /ref>

This fact was then paramount in gaining acceptance for the claim that the attack was done by Al Qaeda. The existence of these reports is undisputed. Why is it not in the article?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everything can be included in the main article which is why there are sub articles. This fact is already included in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks which this article links to. --PTR (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. You're right, some minor facts belong in subarticles. But facts in subarticles are not balancing this article. Each article on Wikipedia must be balanced in itself. The NPOV article does not prescribe to balance POV articles with counter POV articles. So I would like this fact included. The news travelled the world then, it cannot have lost its significance now.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There should then be some reliable sources that discuss the finding of the passport in more depth than just that it was found. Do you have any more sources on this? --PTR (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See below  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, I propose the following reasoning: (let me know if you want me to address more specific #any of the five points you made )

  • We (Wikipedia) only include those facts which have been reported by RS.
  • RS have reported on the existence of a minority view, let's label it B. (This view is indeed mentioned in the article.)
  • We (Wikipedia) are to remain neutral: not engage in the debate, but describe it.
  • RS are themselves expressing their view (A), presuming it is the truth.
  • Nor they, nor you have, to my knowledge, offered a final proof that "A" is the truth.
  • It was claimed it is not up to us to decide whether "A" is true or not.
  • We need a way to agree on how to balance the presenting of facts.
  • Views should be attributed. This holds for the majority RS view as well as the minority view.
  • For practicle purposes, I can agree to not using "alleged" and "according" in every other sentence of the article, it would make it ugly to read, and I would like the article to read pleasantly as it does now. But to compensate, it should be made clear in the beginning of the article that the article is describing a view in stead of an unchallenged account of factual events, which it sort of suggests in its current form.

Haemo's view that we are to omit any fact which is not deemed important by RS (who themselves hold view A) is not acceptable to me, when these facts could shine a new light on view A. Selective omission distorts the balance of the article in favor of a single view. We rely on RS for our facts, but not for unattributed opinions, and therefore not for fact selection. So we need to reach consensus unaided.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But when you say that selective omission distorts the balance of the article, you forget the other side of the coin which is selective inclusion also distorts the balance of the article...which is the problem here. It's true that we should be describing debates and not participating, but in this case there really isn't a debate. There's a small group of people claiming that some conspiracy or another was the real cause of the events, but no one is engaging them in a debate about it. In other words, there's no public conversation/debate about what really happened, no political debate...no mainstream debate among scholars, civil engineers or architects. There's no debate among those expert reliable sources that we draw content from...the coverage that exists is limited to a description of a cultural artifact and doesn't go beyond that.
Wikipedia's job is to describe the truth as reliable sources see it, and to describe the debate/discussion of that truth among experts. But it's not our job or obligation to include every POV when describing something. RxS (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I had not forgotten that we cannot include all facts; we have to reach consensus which facts to include, in what balance. You are partially right as far as I'm concerned. I agree that selective inclusion could distort neutrality. When an article is Neutral point of view, subsequent inclusion can distort it. When an article is biased by point of view to begin with, inclusion can correct it. You are right that the Reliable sources are not debating among each other. They are debating "outsiders". They hold view A; the outsiders (without exception all of them non-reliable sources) are holding views B. And wikipedia should be impartial (perspective C), not follow the Reliable sources.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not follow the RS? ... I believe you're looking for Unencyclopedia. Okiefromokla questions? 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Reliable sources are good for Verifiability but not for Neutral point of view.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing can be published in Wikipedia without a reliable source to back it up. This is a very simple concept. Providing disjointed factoids (yes, even reliably sourced factoids) in a manner which encourages readers to synthesize a non reliably-sourced conclusion is no better than including a synthesis itself. If a reliable source existed to link these things together then it might have been worth noting; but if one does not then it cannot be included, plain and simple. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jc-S0CO, I am wondering, are you saying that the Reliable sources are following Neutral point of view in regard to alleged government involvement in 9/11 ? (In case the RS are not following Wikipedia guidelines, should we not depart from their approach?)  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I'm just going to restate this, because apparently you still don't understand our guidelines. We rely on reliable sources for telling us which facts are verifiable, and which reported facts are relevant to the subject. The onus is not on us to evaluate, as you say, whether or not they have "proven" that the facts they report are relevant, or what-have-you. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. To put it bluntly:
  • Editorial evaluation of the "proof" or veracity of a reported facts expressed by reliable sources is original research.
  • Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research.
  • The inclusion of facts which you, and no reliable source, believe undermine the "mainstream account" of the events on this page is original research.
  • Judging facts as relevant to a subject, simply because they are published is both wrong, and original research. Simply because a fact is published — for instance, the number of windows in WTC7 — does not make it relevant to a subject unless a reliable source makes the connection before we as editors do.
  • The entire purpose of all non-experimental sciences (and even in some situations experimental science) is first the decision of which facts are, and are not, relevant to a given topic, then the addition of those facts into a cohesive whole. You are arguing that Wikipedia editors usurp that first role and perform original research on this, and any other article.
Including facts, opinions, events, etc. which are reported on solely because, as you say "these facts could shine a new light on view A" yet, as you say are "not deemed important by RS" is original research, and that's what's unacceptable, and why this proposal has failed approximately six times by my count. This isn't getting any less "totally contradictory to our guidelines" each time you say it, and it's not getting any more acceptable to the other editors here. I've suggested before that, since you have a fundamental problem with Wikipedia's underlying policies that this might not be a good place to expend your effort — because it's certainly wasted a lot of other people's time. --Haemo (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (quoting Haemo) "Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research." ... I cannot find this second claim of yours in the guidelines, would you please provide a citation?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, Xiutwel, it would be wrong to publish "John Hinkley Junior shot President Ronald Reagan; Reagan later died." While both of these statements are true with a multitude of reliable sources to back them up, when placed together they draw a conclusion for readers which is fallacious: that Reagan died as a result of being shot. The same thing applies here: we cannot invite readers to come to their own conclusions by presenting disjointed facts. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree your quote would be misleading, but such additions are not my intention, naturally.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
To expand, you could believe really, super-strongly that death of Hitler was caused by his vegetarianism. Adding facts — reported, reliable facts — to the death of Hitler article about, for instance, Hitler's vegetarianism, his reported manic behavior prior to his death, bizarre vegetarian statements he made reported by some people familiar with his last days in the bunker, clinical studies showing that some forms of vegetarianism can lead to manic behavior, etc. is what you're arguing. No reliable source thinks these facts are relevant to Hitler's death, but you are arguing to include them nonetheless. You have just performed an original synthesis to imply that Hitler's death was related to his love of vegetables. --Haemo (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree this would be misleading, but such additions are not my intention, naturally. We do not write about vegetarianism in death of Hitler, but I assume it deserves mentioning in Hitler. Sorry, but you are giving examples which do not apply here.
I would welcome an answer to my question above: do you think the RS are NPOV ?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what you're arguing we do here; include factoids which "contradict the mainstream account" (of Hitler's death) and which are reported by reliable sources, but not deemed important or relevant to the subject by reliable sources. Reliable sources are not necessarily neutral; this is a truism, but unpopular views still must be reported on by them, and facts minority views point to must be reported on as deemed relevant, either by reliable sources directly, or as party to the minority view. For instance, suppose a reliable source reported that certain "vegetarian theorists" believed that Hitler's manic behavior was caused by his vegetarianism, which lead to his death. We could then include those facts, since a reliable source has explained that they are believed to be relevant. We can also attribute the relevancy to a particular view, possibly in a section called "Vegetarian theories". However, without that reliable source, it's against our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you agree to leave the fictional Hitler analogies for a moment and let's discuss (again): do you think that the Reliable sources are following Neutral point of view in regard to alleged government involvement in 9/11 ? and what unsourced conclusion might our readers draw when we simply report that the passport was found?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Or are you saying that we could include the passport discovery in this article (which on September 16, 2001 was deemed relevant by RS to establishing the identities of the culprites) were it not for the fact that since then, conspiracy theorists have been building a case on it?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The fictional Hitler analogies are useful, because they disassociate the subject from one which you have a very strong point of view on. Indeed, you disagree with your own suggestions when applied to articles where you don't have a strong prior opinion about the material! The question "are reliable sources following neutral point of view" doesn't make any sense — because "the neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources". It's a policy for tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, not primary or secondary sources; reliable sources often cannot meet our guidelines, because in that case our guidelines would be self-referential! I'm not sure what context your insertion of the passport will be, so I can't really speak to it. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

split: passport issue

(deindent, and adding a subsection to make editing easier) Haemo, I suggest the passport text above be included at the end of the section 2.1 - The hijackers  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PTR, you asked above: "There should then be some reliable sources that discuss the finding of the passport in more depth than just that it was found. Do you have any more sources on this? " — I do not see why any RS should discuss any more than that. The passport was found, ergo its owner was a hijacker, just as the authorities already claimed. What would you expect them to write?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated, but just as a request: please note that this is the 22nd section/subsection you have created on this page. It would really be better if we could focus on one thing at a time in a single section instead of branching like this, without as many section breaks. Let's tackle these issues one at a time. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How could a passport survive if most of the black boxes ("indestuctable") did not survive? That seems impossible. Also, at the WTC, the steel was reduced to molten scrap. How could a passport be found there? Highly unlikely if not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

split: NPOV issue

(deindent) Haemo, I think the Hitler analogies were indeed useful to show a point; but we agree on that point! What we differ on, however, is that the two cases would be largely analogous. I think they are not at all. Any fact which has been in the 9/11 commission or in newspaper articles regarding the 9/11 commission, 9/11 investigation or responsibility, is automatically relevant to the issue of balancing between views A and B. (War exercises. Molten metal. Cut beams. Removed debries.) I am not saying that any fact which is relevant should be put in; we should try to balance the amount of facts pro and con fairly. When you say that my question "Are the RS NPOV regarding 9/11" is irrelevant, you are in fact almost saying they are POV. And that is why we can rely on them for producing Verifiable facts, but not for selecting those facts in a NPOV manner. So, we have to devise an other way to agree on that. If you can read the NPOV policy another way, please quote it.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not; neutrality in the context of Wikipedia does not apply to reliable sources. It is a way of weighting the views expressed by reliable sources; it cannot be a property of a reliable source, since that would make the guideline incoherent and self-referential. You don't seem to get this. --Haemo (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To be clear: I do not demand of any reliable source to be neutral in order to be used. But I do demand that we distinguish between the alternate (significant minority-) views which RS do report on, versus the majority views which they themselves hold. I think we should balance those two views, and not unquestioningly follow in our narrative (and in our fact selection) the particular view that the RS themselves hold and therefore promote in their fact selection. Once facts or theories have been reported on by RS, they remain part of the debate, which then must be represented in a balanced way by Wikipedia. No self-referential incoherence here that I can see. On the other hand: I have not seen any quotes from you which address the problems of Circular reasoning, Selection bias, or a citation from the WP:Guidelines for your claim "Editorial evaluation, without reliable sources to support it, of which facts are relevant to a subject is original research." Would you be willing to try and provide at least one out of those three, for a start?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If a minority view, of a fact or theory is relevant, then it will have a reliable source reporting on its relevance. Wikipedia does not report on the debate, as editors, we report on the debate when (and ONLY when) reliable sources do so. You have a fundamental disagreement with our policies here, and no amount of restating that disagreement will change it. The statement I have made, above, is not circular or biased — it is textbook guidance from our guidelines on original research. You disagree with them — so I suggest you either try to get them changed, or do something else with your time. Because you have wasted a lot of people's time with this already — not the least of all, your own. --Haemo (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide us a quote from the guidelines, asking us to use RS in determining relevance? I would say relevance is for the editors to decide. Common sense tells me that, when describing two sides of a debate neutrally, we should also include the (agreed upon) facts that side B uses. How could we omit them and be neutral?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. [...] If the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research". The problem you have in your suggestion is that there are no 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. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that I and others have copied and pasted that exact quote to this page before, to no avail. This user has been told these things many times, over and over, but does not understand or refuses to understand. Okiefromokla questions? 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what I've been trying to say. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Haemo and Jc-S0CO, I am not pursuing narrative B - there is more than one "B", in fact: each theorist may have his/her own theory - but I am suggesting that we should discontinue pursuing view A as the narrative for our article. That would not be neutral. Facts about 9/11 which have ever been published in RS are potentially relevant for our article on 9/11, and I believe we make our own editorial choices thereafter. You still have not provided to convince me otherwise a quote from the guidelines I am looking for, i.e. that RS should be determining which facts we select - instead of our own WP:Common sense. If you look at the full quote which you did give (below), you can see that that text is about editors making claims using A+B => C, where C is invented by the wikipedian, using seperate sources for fact A and fact B. I am not inventing any C (though I have my own private opinion), I am just saying you cannot leave out all the facts which make narrative A look plausible. I am not putting facts together. I would like to put facts in, standalone, without narrative A to support them. For instance: the passport which was found. What could be synthesis about that? Currently, only facts which support narrative A are allowed in: That i.m.o. amounts to synthesis: fact-picking to support a narrative.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.
Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
- from WP:SYNTH,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you please let me know to which of the 11 attempted summery points below you disagree?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

some quotes from the discussions above

I would like to give some quotes which rather highlight my concerns about this 9/11 page being NPOV, and about it unduly presenting opinions as if they were facts:
 &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Here you've done it again: by cherry-picking pieces of comments, you can twist what is being said into whatever you want it to be. Both of my quotes which you have listed above exclude the parts of the comments you made which they were addressing, changing their meaning into something which was neither stated nor implied. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, I am not presuming to summarize the debate, I am summerizing MY concern regarding the POV of the article; In no way do I intend to distort the debate or anyone's words. Please feel free to include the quotes you think I should have included, into the archived section. I only made it "archived" to avoid new editors replying to these quotes, which would make the whole thing incomprehensible.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As it is, this cherry-picked archive is incomprehensible to look at and no clear conclusions are drawn from it. It should really be removed, being as this talk page has already degraded into an impossible maze of topics and subtopics as a result of this ongoing debate. The root cause of our problem here appears to be disagreement over what is the definition of a reliable source. The current consensus is against the inclusion of the material you are proposing, because individually these factiods you have provided are not notable enough to warrant inclusion. However, your concern appears to be that the "mainstream account" is not WP:NPOV. These issues really do not belong on this talk page. If you dispute what can be considered a reliable source (ie: on the basis of if the source itself is POV, and what is considered POV to begin with), you should take it elsewhere -- such as to the policies themselves. As it is, continuing to add on to this talk page is going nowhere and (whether intentional or not) has clearly crossed the line into disruptive editing. I don't mean to sound rude, but that's the way it is. I would appreciate if you would please either replace the above archive section with a single concise argument or take this debate elsewhere, because as it stands, it accomplishes nothing and wastes a lot of people's time. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel, after looking at your discussions from almost 2 years ago on 9/11-related material, I have to wonder: If Wikipedians have always disagreed with you on these points, will there come a time when you stop pushing them? At the very least, I respect your determination, but your issue seems to be with Wikipedia itself — you want to change the nature of Wikipedia because, obviously, you have a slant that violates fundamental policies, and people have told you many times. Though I strongly disagree with you and your precieved problems with Wikipedia, I have all the respect in the world for your efforts. Nevertheless, its time to realize (after more than a year of being told) that Wikipedia isn't the place to do this. If you get a PhD and write a paper that garners support from the scientific community, then maybe we will have a reliable source to give credence to your views here. In the mean time, continuing to clutter talk pages with massive drawn-out arguments about this "Narrative based fact selection mechanism" and your related concerns that violate Wikipedia policy is just wasting time. Take up policy changes elsewhere, or maybe, after 2 years, it could be time to stop. Really. And if you ever need help with anything in your future endeavors on Wikipedia, I'm happy to do what I can. Just ask. Okiefromokla questions? 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jc-S0CO, Okiefromokla, it is not all Wikipedians that disagree with me; it may be a majority perhaps, but as you can see from the 37 page archive, I am not alone, I am representing the interest of a significant minority view against a majority view because I value neutrality.
    I hear you are frustrated with this ongoing debate; I can imagine it is frustrating for all of us. I for one would love to make progress towards consensus faster than we are, but I am not complaining (only to my wife). Since you refuse to correct my summary, I will strike it, especially when you think it is only confusing things more.
    I do not believe as you do that we differ on what a RS is. We differ on how the RS should be used by Wikipedia. I say we can only use them for finding verifiable facts, not for copying their opinion as if that were the neutral opinion. You appear to say that we should use their opinions to select the reliable, verifiable facts we omit. I cannot see a basis for this in policy. If you can, would you quote it? Our policy is to be neutral: Describe both sides of any debate fairly and sympathatically. Even when the RS are not doing so, then we still should.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the issue further by misrepresenting our positions: I have not at any time said that all Wikipedians disagree with you. But to date, you would appear to be the only steady contributor on your side of the debate. I am not discouraging you in any way from further discussion, but it's safe to say that the present consensus on this page is against including your material. Now, as a rule, I do not alter other people's contributions to the talk page unless I am removing vandalism or trite topics in violation of WP:FORUM. It's a bad idea to do otherwise and can lead to unnecessary unpleasantness; hence I did not want to touch your summary lest I be accused of distorting your meaning. The point I was trying to make was that the collection of quotes you provided did not lay out a clear case for anything in particular, and there was no need to confuse the topic more than it already has been.
To be clear:
  • I don't know where you're getting the idea that I support thrusting opinion into Wikipedia. I was not aware that I had suggested anything of the sort.
  • It appeared to me that you wanted do to exactly that, albeit indirectly, by posting a series of disjointed facts in a manner which would encourage a reader to synthesize a conclusion which was not directly supported by a reliable source.
  • The facts we omit are omitted on the basis of notability, not on the opinions which may or may not be present in the sources used.
~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for pointing out to me that my attempt to further discussion in this manner was clumsy. I see now that it was not helpful, rather the contrary. I apologize and suggest we try again in the "attempted summary" section below. Please add additional points when necessary or strike the ones which I have mis-interpreted as consensus.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:00, 18 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.

POV

I have added a POV tag. There has been an ongoing dispute since it's start, and it's an obvious rule violation that it has been removed wihout having that incredibly long, continuing, multiple independent user and heated dispute settled in a fashion that would end the constant feeding the archive. --Striver - talk 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"there is no legitimate dispute here" ?

05:13, 17 February 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (185,122 bytes) (revert. there is no legitimate dispute here)

That's a very "interesting" viewpoint, ICBeer: now, after 3 weeks of discussing, it appears there is not even consensus on whether there is a dispute here. The article is (admittedly so) representing a single view, and not neutral. We are discussing on how to resolve this. Please note that I only placed the POV category on the talk page, not in the article, where it belongs, in order to avoid an unfruitful edit war over that. I would appreciate it when the tag stays on the talk page. I feel very sad that it was removed, because I would like to see wikipedia as a collaborative effort. Were you feeling frustrated by this ongoing discussion?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
When I say legitimate dispute, I mean that arguments from both sides of the dispute are made using policy. In this case, the folks who would like conspiracy language added to the article are ignoring the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are saying that including facts which reliable sources reported on in 2001, but are not reporting anymore, would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT? I disagree, it is not that simple. Equitable treatment of a minority point of view, albeit just mentioning some facts, can hardly amount to 0%. How many facts would you deem equitable? The current article seems to have 196 references in accordance with narrative A. Does that leave room for inclusion of a view facts which neutralize the A-bias in the article?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Narrative A = Factual. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Okiefromokla questions? 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ice, Okie: That is your opinion. It may well be correct. And you are entitled to it. But pushing your opinion as factual is the definition of POV, when there exists a significant minority view. So, even when you are correct about it, you are violating NEUTRAL. See?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No. "Narrative A" is the only one supported by reliable sources. I don't care if 80% of people believe something — it's useless here without documentation. You are misunderstanding notability, and most Wikipedia policy, for that matter. The fact alone that many people believe something does not mean we give it the same level of respect as sourced material. We cover it as a social phenomenon, not plausible fact, which is what the conspiracy section and article are about. Okiefromokla questions? 02:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

video link for inclusion

I noticed the following link was added and removed, I put it here for discussion:

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That description is hardly representative. The video, titled "Rise and Shine" (notably not "Comprehensive coverage of the 9/11 attacks") is accompanied by the following note left by the poster of the video:
"An ever growing number of people around the world are starting to see the blindingly obvious - Big Brother is riding into town on the back of 'Terrorism'."
Very NPOV. And then there are the first words which come out of the narrator's mouth:
"The notion of a U.S. war on terrorism is simply a fraud. There is no war on terrorism. The anglo-americans are backing terrorists exactly when and where it suits them..."
A conspiracy theorist rant which is not even primarily related to the 9/11 attacks is unpresentable. A rant misleadingly labeled as something else is completely unacceptable. This video has no place on this page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also external linking guidelines; how is a link to someone's YouTube channel an encyclopedic purpose which contains "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail"? It's a channel; it contains a dynamic list of the videos they think are interesting. Why is this channel special, important, or encyclopedic? --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

attempted summary / Heart of NPOV (4)

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(Xiutwel) will make an attempt to summarize the debate of the past weeks so far. Would you all please correct me, and/or add? This is what I hope and think we editors are all agreeing on:

  1. There exist in the world several views on the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks; let's call the dominant view: "A" and all the other views: "B". When describing 9/11, one can assume that view A is correct (perspective A), or take a neutral perspective: "C". (Perspective "B" would be out of the question for Wikipedia to use.)
  2. View A is held by most, if not all, Reliable sources (RS).
  3. The RS are usually presenting facts which they deem relevant in their perspective.
  4. The proponents of view B, in the world, form a significant minority (not a tiny minority).
  5. Wikipedia policy dictates to use for establishing notability only reliable sources; this holds for article topics and for facts.
  6. Wikipedia policy dictates to have verifiable sources for each statement or fact in an article.
  7. Notability is eternal: something cannot suddenly stop being notable.
  8. Wikipedia is bound to use the narrative in the neutral fashion: describe all sides of the debate fairly and sympathetically.
  9. Coverage of views should be proportionate: a significant minoriy view should not receive as much attention as the majority view.
  10. There is difference of opinion between editors on what the above means for the selection method of: which facts to include in this article and which facts to omit.
  11. The current 9/11 article is written from perspective A. 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: after we have all agreed on the above (or a variant thereof), we can discuss further how to proceed in achieving consensus.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

addition; disagreement

We seem to be in disagreement on:

  1. The way WP:SYNTH should be interpreted. DEBATE: Is it forbidden by wikipedia policy to mention facts in an article, when no RS using them to form a conclusion in line with the article, or is including such facts "#good editing" and is it only forbidden to draw conclusions yourself, cherry-picking facts to substantiate a non-RS based claim?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
further discussion
ad 10., quoting Jc-S0CO 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC) : The facts we omit are omitted on the basis of "notability", not on the opinions which may or may not be present in the sources used.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, that this is what is happening. But I believe firstly that using this method of establishing notability is in error, see WP:N#TEMP, and secondly: because this error is opinion-related (#NFSM) due to bias present in the RS, it is i.m.o. leading to a violation of our WP:NEUTRAL policy.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with the above synopsis. However, I tend to question the term "Reliable Sources". We have seen, historically, that the major media have at times been anything but reliable, especially when large-scale power-political interests have been at stake. The uncritical hyping for war against Spain with the Maine incident as a pretext is one example; the uncritical acceptance of the weapons of mass destruction propaganda is another. (Many "fringe media" were more reliable in that respect.) What adds to the difficulty in cases like WMD and 9/11 are the close ties between major media, the government, and the military-industrial complex for which war (or the possibility thereof) can even be seen as a raison d'être. A relativization of the concept of "reliable sources" would be one step toward a truly neutral point of view. Another step would be a healthy critical attitude toward information coming from all sources - including official ones. I contend that currently Wikipedia is not doing a good job from that perspective. In particular, an official explanation should not be automatically presented as fact regardless of all or any evidence to the contrary just because it is promoted by authorities or the predominant media. Vesku (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If your objective is to challenge Wikipedia:Reliable sources, an existing and long-standing policy, then you should discuss your objections at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and not here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Vesku, I agree that the name is confusing, but it I believe it is accepted among wikipedians that reliable sources are not necessarily trustworthy. I interpret it as: they can be relied upon to have a certain level of trustworthiness (over which opinions will differ), but which does not vary much. The essence is the predictability of it. If there is some blogger on a farm, we cannot predict the trustworthiness of his articles. That difference, i.m.o., makes a reliable source.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to hear what others are telling you. This violates Wikipedia policy. We cannot consider a view unsupported by reliable sources to be equal to a view that is supported. There is, as you say, a significant minority who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that's covered here. We have a section in this article for that, which links to another article about that entirely. You have shown an obvious bias in this matter and have pushed relentlessly for inclusion of a slant based on your conspiracy theory, despite good faith efforts for God knows how long to help you understand Wikipedia policy. So, I will not agree with your list. It's another obvious, transparent, and rather bad attempt to pursuade people to bypass Wikipedia policy by misleading them, nothing more. I will not be participating in these discussions further, and I hope other editors on this page will follow my example. Please do not clutter this talk page with these proposals again. Okiefromokla questions? 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie, I've replied on your talk page.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(copied from User Talk:Okiefromokla):
I am sorry to hear you feel this way. I was not at all implying that we should resort to non-RS sources. I am just saying they can be wrong. They are only human.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't agree with your "points of consensus" because the root of them is your disagreement with fundamental policy to push a belief, and that's not what the 9/11 talk page is for. Your list is an obvious attempt to disguise the bypass of policy to make a case that your conspiracy theory should be treated equally in the article despite the lack of reliable sources. There isn't a point to discussing it any further. Okiefromokla questions? 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Okiefromokla, I am not trying to trick you into anything with my "points list" above. I am trying to find out what we agree on, so we can focus our discussion. Hoping to reach full consensus soon on how to proceed with the article, and end this tedious discussion. That's why I would like you and Haemo and others to let us know which of the 11 points you disagree on, and which you agree on. Then we can stop debating things we agree on. Currently, I am certain on one issue of dissent, and I've added it above. (Please add or refrase points when you dislike my wording.) Are you still disagreeing? Of the list itself? Of all the points on it? Of some points on it?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop this. The list you have made has nothing to do with what you are trying to change our fundamental policies. If you want them changed, then do so on the correct talk page. Stop wasting our time here — it's totally unproductive. --Haemo (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to change policy. With all respect, you are violating WP:NEUTRAL because you misread WP:SYNTH. If you deny this, point out in the above list where I am wrong.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It is quite the opposite. You are trying to fundamentally change how Wikipedia deals with original research. The guidelines are in plain English, yet you do not seem to understand them — this may be because English is not your first language, but at this point I no longer care. Do you understand why you are the only one who has this novel interpretation of guidelines? Does that surprise you? Does that make you think "maybe I'm wrong and need to go think about what I'm arguing". Specifically, I disagree with this "There is difference of opinion between editors on what the above means for the selection method of: which facts to include in this article and which facts to omit." There is not a disagreement — there is one editor (you) who simply refuses to understand, or abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. This isn't a disagreement — it's you not being able to work within guidelines. I suggest you either decide to work within them, or get them changed — but regardless, stop wasting everyone's time. You might want to read tendentious editing for a spot-check on your behavior, because it fits you to a tee. --Haemo (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is written as the known evidence and facts can be determined. I haven't seen any new additions that are needed in well over a year. If anything, several sections need to be streamlined to make the article more of a summary of the events of that day. There certainly isn't any reason to expand on conspiracy theories, especially since we already have several articles that already expand on these silly notions.--MONGO 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one question/comment linked to the statement about determined facts. What about, say, the flight path data and animation of flight 77 provided by the NTSB as a result of a FOIA request by Pilots for 911 Truth? The flight path animation stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (the official impact time being 09:37:45), just short of the impact, when the plane is shown to be several hundreds of feet above (almost directly above) the street whose light poles it is supposed to have knocked down. In other words, there is a discrepancy of several hundreds of feet to the official flight path, but the NTSB has reportedly simply refused to comment. See "Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html This is just one example of how much there still is to "determine". Perscurator (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No comment. What about this, then? A contributor to the History Commons project has recently obtained a 298-page document entitled "Hijackers Timeline" (redacted) from the FBI, also based on a Freedom of Information Act request. Some examples of the new revelations: some of the hijackers were evidently assisted by employees of the Saudi government; hijackers Marwan Alshehhi and Hamza Alghamdi purchased hundreds of dollars' worth of "pornographic video and sex toys" during the summer of 2001; and hijacker Hamza Alghamdi booked several flights after 9/11 - a continuation flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco later on the day of the attacks, and on September 20, he seems to have planned to fly "from Rome to Casablanca, to Riyadh, to Damman, Saudi Arabia".
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423
Perscurator (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Perscurator, very interesting news for me!  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, as you contacted me to do so, I have addressed each of these points at my talk page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE: According to User:Vesku's talk page, Vesku and User:Perscurator are the same person. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:02, 20 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
: Please add further comments outside the archived bit, if necessary.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page semiprotected for 48 hrs

I have semi-protected (no new account, no IP edit) this talk page for 48 hrs due to the ongoing sockpuppetry / block evasion noted above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)