Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

GA review

Hi there, I will be reviewing this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and for such a long and potentially contentious article I will be doing it as part of a multi stage review. I have read through the article once, and I think its very good but still has one or two minor issues to be addressed. I will list below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I will also append a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.

Should the contributors disagree with any of my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. If something I raise has been discussed and agreed upon on this talk page in the past then please mention it as I do not have time to read though all 41 archives. Once the review is finished (and it may take a couple of days to complete), the contributors will have seven days to effect changes to the article, although further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems. As long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.

I am aware that my standards at GA Review are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally or maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here.

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

  • The Lead.
  • I notice that several citations are used throughout the lead. This is not normal standard practice except for quotations as anything mentioned in the lead should also be cited further down the page. Is there any specific reason that the facts cited in the lead are especially controversial or requiring citation? And if there is why are only the first three of five paragraphs cited?
  •  Done Per this discussion and this discussion, editors of this article have conceded to cite several of the most "controversial" areas of the lead. Specifically, the fact that it was nineteen hijackers and that the attacks were suicide ones. As for -- VegitaU (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's fine, as long as consensus has been established on this issue then those references are appropriate.
  • "Excluding the hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead; the number of immediate victims totaled 2,998, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians." There is no need to give the figure twice, it's a little confusing as is: instead I suggest simply removing part of the sentance: "Excluding the hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians."
  • Throughout the article, make sure that all citations come after punctuation and not in the middle of a sentance.
  •  Done Done as far as I can see. Please let me know if I've missed any. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the bombs were probably fake." I can't see any mention of a bomb before this sentance, what bomb is it referring to?
  • Why is "List of tenants in One World Trade Center" linked and List of tenants in Two World Trade Center not? Better to put them both at the top of the section in italics, or even include the little box at List of World Trade Center tenants somewhere.
  • Is there any particular reason Timothy Maude and John O'Neill are especially mentioned as casualties? I'm not saying they shouldn't be, just questioning why they have been over anyone else? Isn't there a seperate sub-article discussing casualties of the attacks which might be a better place to mention individual people (as well as the nationalities of those killed which appears in the lead but not further down). If it is to stay is needs to be slightly rephrased because it looks like a short prose list at the moment i.e. "Two of the most significant fatalities of the attacks were . . ."
  • "All of the fatalities were civilians except for some of the 125 victims in the Pentagon.[55]" - Better to give the exact number of military personnel killed (I think I remember reading somewhere that it was 55 Army and Navy personnel).
  • "and undergoing deconstruction." Missing an "is"?
  • "Communications equipment, such as broadcast radio, television and two-way radio antenna towers, were damaged beyond repair." Where was this communications equipment and what was the effect of it's destruction?
Update: Still unclear of the effects - if any - of this destruction.
 Done I've added a source noting that communications were not severely effected. TV and radio stations were able to reroute signals within hours and resume normal broadcasts. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The origins of al-Qaeda date back to 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Soon after the invasion, Osama bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan and with American government assistance where he helped organize Arab mujahideen and established the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) organization to resist the Soviets" - sentance is unclear, please clarify a bit: did the American government help OBL go to Afghanistan, organise the Mujhaideen or both?
  • "Lawrence Wright explains Atta as committing martyrdom in immediate response to the Israeli strikes at the beginning of Operation Grapes of Wrath.[98]" - Why is Lawrence Wright's opinion on this so important? Either give the evidence he used to back up this claim or rephrase it, I'm especially concerned about the "committing martyrdom", which doesn't sound very NPOV.
  •  Done Tried to rephrase as best as possible, but I don't have The Looming Tower to quote from. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "explains that foreign policy decisions including" - whose foreign policy decisions? I'm assuming the United States', but it should be clear.
  •  Done Fixed. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Canada, one of the main recipients of diverted flights launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.[116]" - Should this be "Canada WAS one of the main . . ."?
  •  Done Corrected wording. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added a [citation needed] tag to the Domestic Response section, please address it.
  •  Done I have addressed it with three varying citations reflecting the challenges and views against the Patriot Act -- VegitaU (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The "See Also" section requires severe trimmming I suggest that:
  • 2004 Madrid train bombings & 2005 London bombings should be removed - they are already covered by the War on Terrorism navigation box and are not otherwise closely co-ordinated (in the way that the anthrax attacks were for example).
  •  Done Done.
  •  Done Done.
  •  Done Done.
  •  Done Done. "...memorials and services" is already linked within the article so I didn't add it here.
  •  Done Done.
  •  Done Done, though I have to say some of that stuff is very interesting and those little-known facts are good to know. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, and they may well deserve places in some of the sub-articles or categories associated with this topic, but none (with the possible exception of the USS Cole Bombing now I come to think about it (which should be linked in the main text if at all)) are in my opinion of significant relevance for the main article on 911.
  • Once these are dealt with then I will look at this section again. It maybe that there is no need for any of these links because there is a handy sidebar with the most important links on it already.

Additional point: Please add something on the international range of the victims to the main body of the article because at the moment it only appears in the lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Fixed with a different citation. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

  • "The attacks created widespread confusion across the United States." Confusion in what - it might be better to be more specific i.e. in air traffic control, media, government etc.
  •  Done I tried to specify the wording with regards to the examples in the paragraph that followed. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "To witnesses watching, a few of the people falling from the towers seemed to have stumbled out of broken windows." - What is the relevance of this sentance? Is it implying they were pushed, became disorientated in the smoke or something else?
  • "The roof access doors were locked and thick smoke and intense heat would have prevented rescue helicopters from landing." - Theres something disjointed here, I suggest adding "even had they been open" to the end of the sentance.
  • ". . . but was unable to identify the rest (about 1,100 people)." - Is it 1,100 people they could not find or 1,100 remains they could not identify? Clarify this please.
  • "Others, such as Jason Burke," - when citing experts, always indicate their job so that their commentary is better contextualised i.e. "Others, such as journalist Jason Burke," or "For instance, terrorism analyst Peter Bergen argues that". I also have no clue who Michael Scott Doren is as there is no link to him.
  •  Done I've added titles to these figures
  • Bergen still lacks one, otherwise good.
  •  Done Added one to Bergen. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the sentance "Immediately after the September 11 attacks U.S. officials[117] speculated on possible involvement by Saddam Hussein; although unfounded, the association contributed to public acceptance for the 2003 invasion of Iraq." should come at the end of the paragraph as it deals primarily with events that came after the rest of the paragraph. The citation should be at the end of the sentance unless it does not source the whole sentance in which case a new source should be found.
  •  Done I reworked the paragraph for better flow and moved the sentence as requested.
  • Is there anyway to link to Article 5 of the NATO Charter? Wikisource?
  •  Done I've quoted the entire Article within the citation. A little bulky and awkward, but it works. I'm not sure familiar with Wikisource.
  • Who is Mark Sigmund?
  •  Done He's the son of the reporter who wrote the article cited at the end of the quote. So basically, an unnotable person. I deleted the name and smoothed the quotation transition. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I will continue the review from where I left off soon, meanwhile you can be getting on with the above. Good work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, done. Once all the above are addressed I will look over the article again and may well have more or supplementary comments to add. Its a good article and clearly there has been a lot of contention over this. Happily, it seems that this has now been navigated past and the article is ready to take the step to GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tried addressing issues you raise, except I haven't gotten as far as your "Other comments". In the lead, a few of the refs are needed (per extensive discussion on the talk page) for the word "terrorist" and for "Al Qaeda". I think these refs belong next to those words. I have also not totally checked all references for formatting, etc. Only have checked the lead and the "Attacks" sections. Will come back later to do more. --Aude (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, here is the casualties subarticle - User:Aude/Casulties of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I'm trying to cleanup and consolidate various subarticles, but this is not ready for the article mainspace. I cut some details from this article and moved to the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now addressed the other comments, except for clarifying the "The attacks created widespread confusion across the United States." sentence. I'm not sure how best to fix that. --Aude (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the confusion thing for now. When you feel you have addressed all the issues I have raised above please let me know. I will then read through the whole article once more and either pass it or raise any new or remaining points here. Thanks for the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Objection to Archiving

I'm dissapointed that the discussion on the FBI has been archived before resolution. The reason given was POV and the only reply to the editors questions was Synth and OR.

Quote: "Not sure what "Team Liberty" is or where they get their info, but the FBI itself states evidence linking bin Laden and 9/11 is clear and irrefutable. And you can't dismiss mutiple video confessions as "false" without some serious citations. I consider this matter closed."

1. The statement is accurate and is an official response by the FBI to the question of Bin Ladens involvement, there are reliable sources that repeat it (it's unfortunate he used a questionable one). 2. The source you provided to refute it does say that, but that is all it says...it provides no proof to back the claim and is a political response. 3. You cannot assume the video confessions are authentic as they are disputed so are not reliable as evidence. 4. YOU consider the matter closed? By what authority?
Regardless of whether the editor is a proponent of conspiracies or not he asked a relevant question in good faith and deserves an intelligent answer as to why it should not be mentioned which I can give him now: the statement is already in another 9/11 article (unless some POV warrior has deleted it there) and as the FBI opinion is only one of many it is not really relevant here as responsibility is only a minor part of this topic because it has it's own article. Please be careful when dismissing people who support conspiracies as you only feed them by over the top censorship and especially when false reasons for rejection are given. Wayne (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

False reasons? He says: "The FBI's page on bin Laden [1] does not mention the WTC attack at all. "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
"As for the confessions, bin Laden did not walk into a police station, get fingerprinted, and then confess. To assume that a video tape from dubious sources is the absolute truth is quite an asumption. I did not say it was false; I said there is no evidence to prove that it is not false. Repeatedly confessing does not make something true. Bin Laden's movement has benefited greatly from the presumption that he did it - so confessing to it had a definite profit for him, whether he did or did not."
Osama hasn't been indicted or charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks, but he's still sought after as a suspect. The fact that the Most Wanted page doesn't have 9/11 on it doesn't suddenly prove his innocence. There is evidence as cited in various articles that he's linked to the attacks. Stop misinterpreting evidence without clear citations.
  1. You admit the FBI's comments are accurate.
  2. The burden of proof isn't on me. Wikipedia doesn't have to prove Osama did it, we just cite reliable sources that say evidence linking him is "clear and irrefutable".
  3. Disputed by whom?
  4. This authority
Now, this talk page is not for discussing conspiracy theories. That's why I archived it and that's why I'm going to archive this. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly the FBI claim for the reason Bin Laden has not been charged is not a conspiracy theory. The claim "clear and irrefutable" is an outright lie in the context you have given it. That claim was made as a political statement without proof. The FBI was clear in that the reason Osama has not been charged is that none of the available evidence would be acceptable to a court. No one is disputing that Osama is a suspect. No one disputes that evidence points to him. Very few would even dispute that he is guilty. But then that is not what the editor you assumed bad faith for was claiming. He asked a relevant question that should have been answered. You are the one who turned it into a discussion on conspiracy theories instead of giving a coherant answer that would have ended the matter. This authority does not give you the power to dismiss legitimate questions just because you do not like the answer. Official theory POV pushers are no better than conspiracy theory POV pushers. Archive this section if you will but keep in mind that this is not about conspiracy theories but about the abuse of an Arbcom decision. Wayne (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well your views are noted. But unless you have some definitively verifiable sources that are relevant to the discussion, stop this argument. Osama not being taken and fingerprinted as a bearing on his taped confessions is simple speculation. No more, no less. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. I do not need to provide sources for two reasons. 1. As I stated earlier I oppose adding the information to this article and 2. The sources are already supplied in the 911 article where the information is presented. My sole objection is to the refusal to reply to an editor and archiving his question so others can't answer it. This in itself is not only a violation of WP policy but also a violation of the Arbcom and such actions, if continued, could and should result in a topic ban. Wayne (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue and other issues have already been covered again and again and again and again. Including discussions in which you participated in. Stop pretending to be some mediator in the middle, because your few contributions add little meaningful content to improving this article. Per this discussion, I have taken it upon myself to quickly archive any discussions that are merely repeats after I give a sufficient answer. If you think this is POV pushing or the arbcom decision and enforcement goes "too far", you're free to get a second opinion. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't expect every new editor/reader to read the archives before they read the article (I only have dialup and it takes hours to check an archive for something). If the question is not POV pushing then what is the problem with giving a reasonable answer no matter how many times it has been brought up in the past? The POV pushing I see is that in this case you did not give a "sufficient answer". Why attack me for making few edits to the article? I'm quite proud of the fact that of those "few" edits only one is not in the current version and that is due to it being moved to another article. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave a reasonable answer. You haven't explained how anything I said is unreasonable. As for bringing stuff up from the past, we have a {{subst:Round In Circles}} template up to notify readers about just that. It's the reason our archives are indexed continuously. Certainly, we don't expect people to go through archives one-by-one. I'm not "attacking" you for anything you've made to the article, but for the arguments I've had with you before. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This image

Let's add this image.

Aerial view of the Pentagon during rescue operations post-September 11 attack.JPEG

--Ilhanli (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is already on Wikimedia Commons as Image:Pentagon crach site.jpg and does not have such a POV title. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it shows that Pentagon was under attack. You can see how much damage was made by the plane. You can see that the most defended building in USA was hitted. This is one of the most important pics of 9 11 Events.--Ilhanli (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Attacks Were Consistent With the Overall Mission Statement of the Terrorists

The article states "The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman declaring that it was the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere.""

In fact the attacks were not entirely consistent with the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere." The attacks were in fact more consistent with the overall mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, as set out in a 2000 fatwa issued by Jeb Bush and cronies (under whose watch the hijackers trained) declaring that "a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring "the process of transformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingingSenator (talkcontribs) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Attacks Were Consistent With the Overall Mission Statement of the Terrorists

The article states "The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman declaring that it was the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere.""

In fact the attacks were not entirely consistent with the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere." The attacks were in fact more consistent with the overall mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, as set out in a 2000 fatwa issued by Jeb Bush and cronies (under whose watch the hijackers trained) declaring that "a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring "the process of transformation". SingingSenator (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Final Comments

Great work, I've looked at all the relevant points above and will now read through the article again just to make sure. Anything I come up with I will list below this, but it is unlikely that any of the comments raised will hold up the GA nomination, they're just for future reference.

  • I think the primary contributors to the article should look very closely at the "See Also" section to make sure that all the links there are important and strictly relevant and that any that are are not missing.
  • The prose standard is good overall, but I'm noticing a few repetitions and slightly clumsy phrasing. Its good enough for GA, but might have a tough time at FAC. See if you can get a few uninvolved editors to run over the prose before attempting that (if you drop a line on my talk page I might be able to give it a go myself before you nominate).
  • Take a look at the hate crimes section, because it repeats itself about Sikhs and could perhaps be phrased a little better.
  • "The Commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism" - Give examples of this criticism.
  • "were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.[155][156] This was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue University.[157]" - What was confirmed? The stairwells thing or the seperate report?

None of these problems are significant enough to warrant any further delay of GA status. Congratulations, this is a well-written and properly sourced article on a hugely controversial and contentious issue that must have been a real challenge to maintain partly due to the sheer volume of information that could be added. Good luck working on the sub-articles and if you need any more input just drop me a line. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mouldy bread.jpg Congrats
Moldy sandwiches for all! Thanks to everyone's help
in achieving Good Article status! VegitaU (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WTC 7

The section on the cause of this building's collapse references a preliminary report. The findings in this report are presented in a way that is much more definite than the report says we can be. --RadioElectric (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How's that? The building was compromised by fires and collapsed. True. The investigation is ongoing. True. The current hypothesis is the collapse was caused by fire and debris induced structural damage. True. All true and cited, so tell me how it's supposedly more definite. Please read this and this regarding previous discussions on this topic. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I was saying that the article expresses it in stronger terms than the report does. I've seen the way you've been acting on here. Don't mind me if I wait for another editor to come along. --RadioElectric (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean the way I've been reworking the article tirelessly, finding sources, and expertly citing facts? Why thank you, it's good to be noticed. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem may be the way in which the paragraph is structured (If it's the one I'm looking at - in the Aftermath section under Investigations). I think that material from the published, final report on the Twin Towers collapse is being quoted immediately before a sentence about the ongoing investigation into WTC7. Is this the problem? It wouldn't be hard to make the distinction clearer. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Book references

A lot of good work is being done to format the references, add page numbers, etc. But, I am concerned about book references being replaced. If page numbers are needed, I can help with that. In general, books written by experts such as Yosri Fouda, Peter Bergen, Lawrence Wright, Terry McDermott, etc. are higher quality than news articles, provide more depth, more fact-checking, with more expertise going into them. Yosri Fouda's book, for example, is the best reference for citing about the interview Fouda did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. This part of the interview is also included in his documentary on the attacks - طريق إلى 11 سبتمبر (Road to September 11th). I think that something is being lost by taking these out. --Aude (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I saw the lack of page numbers as a problem and started replacing those sources with news organizations. I don't have any of the books, so if anyone here does, it would only improve the article further. My only concern would be this opening up to garbage like Debunking 9/11 Debunking and Painful Questions. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have accumulated numerous books which cover various aspects in-depth (though I'm going away for the summer and not taking them with). There are also some good documentaries, including ones that PBS produced, and the one I mentioned above by Fouda is excellent though not in English. A huge amount has been written on the attacks, so we need to filter through it and choose the best sources. Of course there is a lot of junk out there too. I'm starting a list here (User:Aude/9-11 sources) of what I have, what I think are best sources for various aspects. Maybe this would help? --Aude (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks good. It's odd though. This is the first lengthy article where a "further reading" section has been completely removed. I think I first showed up at this article when that happened. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out the following, which was in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed section. Although Lawrence Wright's book is an excellent source (and I have the page number), I think this sentence is overly detailed.

"Lawrence Wright, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, explains that Atta's commitment solidified in response to the Israeli strikes at the beginning of Operation Grapes of Wrath." - source: Wright, Lawrence (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-375-41486-X.

Simply saying "Mohamed Atta shared this same motivation." with one sentence to back that up is sufficient. I also swapped the sources for that, back to what was there before. What I put back is more specific (mentioning Israel) and goes with what the paragraph says about KSM. I realize the MSNBC TV documentary is not as widely available, but I still think it's best for now. --Aude (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think all the other changes look good. --Aude (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still have to get all the accessdates put on the web sources. What a pain that's been. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Drug connection ?

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.

  • Off topic discussion closed and moved to user talk. --Haemo (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What appears missing from many sources is a possible 'drug connection' to 9-11, even as part of a conspiracy theory ?

As Canadian troops, have found that Afghanistan is providing over 80% of the world's opium supply. [1]

Could it be that the attack on 'America' was in part due to America's war on drugs, and or elements intercepting drug shipments to America ?

Seems that the logic of the situation merits some reference to this.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I've never heard this one before. And since the Taliban had stopped opium growth before 9/11, no, it's not possible. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I too am surprised not to have heard of it before now. Do you have a reliable source for this, or is it just conjecture? We can't just add any editor's opinion to an article. Wikipedia policy forbids it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats the problem. No source. It was not ever mentioned that Afghanistan was the world's greatest Opium producer, all the talk was about oil.

Even though much of the conjecture was about oil, never was a drug connection mentioned.

Just last week the Canadian Foreign Minister was showcased on the CBC dating the former wife of a Drug Dealer.

So is there a connection ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No source. Nothing more to discuss. It isn't mentioned on the article. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Caesar, this page is not for discussing the attacks, or the possibility of drug connections. It's for discussing how to improve the article. The problem is, we can't do that without reliable sources (because of our verifiability policy). So I'm afraid that this topic isn't going to go anywhere, unless someone can find a published source discussing it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I look at the current "motives" for the attack and I don't see any logical motives ?

It is only conjecture, but if some part of the US establishment is interfering in your illegal activity, who are you going to report this to ?

There was a movie to this effect some years ago.

Seems like the other 'suggestions' in the thread are pure conjecture as well....

Just asking for a logical explanation to why "they' did what 'they' did...so far very little there that makes logical sense ?

Just asking for a logical explanation.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. If you don't feel the motives given by Al-Qaeda are logical, then that's your opinion — they clearly disagree. Nonetheless, this isn't a place to discuss which motives are, or are not, logical. Please confine your comments to the article, and not the subject. --Haemo (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Taliban Drug Connection Terroist link

Somehow a previous link has not shown up, but here is another.

Some truths no one wants printed ?

What does that have to do with anything 9/11 related? -- VegitaU (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to your question on my talk page, as I see an ambush approaching...( it is hoped that this will serve as a model for future cases)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion centralized. It's hard to follow, otherwise. --Haemo (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. That's where these off-tangent discussions belong. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Does this article mention the PBS special Frontline, that came to the conclusion that the Bush whitehouse needed something to invade Iraq, and built "Al-Quida", when in fact this was suppose to be about Bin Ladin...and whatever ?

(Just a quick note about a movie, anyone know the name that outlines how a 'special agent force' used Air forces to attack a drug cartel in Columbia, with the intent of making it appear like a drug war ?)

VegitaU what are your qualification about this issue ?

Anyway, I will leave this issue for now.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "this was suppose to be about Bin Ladin...and whatever"
Since you wrote a short story-length account here and came to this enthralling conclusion, let me just waste a sentence exclaiming how clear it is to me now why we're losing the war. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:26, 24 May 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.

Sep11 Template

This discussion should be in the template talk page, I know, but since few, if any, editors check it compared to this article (and since it affects all 9/11-related matter), I'll post it here. Is anyone else really put-off by that sidebar? It just clogs up one end of the article, moves everything out of its way, and prevents any right-sided images. So, if you want your article to be full of pictures, you have to jam them all in on the left side.

This isn't just a rant, however. A problem like this can be easily fixed, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in template syntax to do it. Editors should be able to choose what kind of format they want, vertical or horizontal. Something like {{{{ifeq:}}|horizontal=yes}} (this is just a guesstimate example) added to the template code would allow the template to be displayed horizontally along the bottom, much like the 9/11 hijackers template. And the damn thing should be able to hide in horizontal (not vertical) mode. Then, we could add a variety of images on both sides of the article.

BTW, this complaint arises from the Flight 11 page and its crowded right side. Can anyone help me with this? -- VegitaU (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I resolved the issue myself. I couldn't for the life of me figure out template syntax so I just made a new template. Feel free to change 9/11 articles to {{Sept11}} at your discretion. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Please add reliable sources. Many of the sources have sided arguments. The sources should be from "neutral" organizations according to Wikipedia Policies. Don't you question the sources?--Ilhanli (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please point out which sources are not reliable so we can assist you with this. --Haemo (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

I hope I'm putting this discussion in the appropriate place on the page. If not, feel free to move it. Anyway, VegitaU and I disagree on a point and I wanted to see what others think. In the memorial section, there is a quotation. I like the version of the quotation that includes the name of the person that said it:

In addition, pictures were placed all over Ground Zero. Mark Sigmund described it by saying, "In the nearby area, you can’t get away from faces of innocent victims who were killed. Their pictures are everywhere, on phone booths, street lights, walls of subway stations. Everything reminded me of a huge funeral, people quiet and sad, but also very nice. Before, New York gave me a cold feeling; now people were reaching out to help each other.”

VegitaU prefers the version with no attribution:

In addition, pictures were placed all over Ground Zero. A witness described being unable to "get away from faces of innocent victims who were killed. Their pictures are everywhere, on phone booths, street lights, walls of subway stations. Everything reminded me of a huge funeral, people quiet and sad, but also very nice. Before, New York gave me a cold feeling; now people were reaching out to help each other.”

The reason I like the first one better is that (1) I don't like it when people quote me without using my name. (I've had this happen.) I'm sure Mark Sigmund wouldn't like it either (2) If I were writing an essay or report, I would prefer to have the name of the person who said the quote and I would prefer to have the full quotation so that I could change it to suit my essay.

I just dislike anonymous quotes, because Wikipedia has an anonymous quote and then someone else quotes Wikipedia and someone else quotes that and pretty soon no one knows how to find out who originally said the quote. When I look up a quote on a Web site and it says, "anonymous" that bugs me.

But if most people agree with VegitaU, I will go along with that, because I believe in consensus. What do you guys think? Maurajbo (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point and well written comment. The reason I deleted it, though, was because of the GA reviewer's suggestions here. Mark was just the son of the reporter that wrote the article. We don't even mention that relationship (nor do I believe we should), so it came off oddly. Suddenly, as the reader goes on, Mark Sigmund appears and no one knows who he is. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename suggestion

There's been a rename suggestion made on Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Requested_move_2.
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Issue changed to a merge suggestion - Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Merge.3F. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

CT stuff? Reversion of my edit on options activity prior to 9/11

Why was my edit taken out (diff)? Also, what does CT mean? Please use clear, well-recognized acronyms if you're going to use acronyms in an edit summary. Please respond or I will revert. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, CT means conspiracy theory. Economic activity with no links to the attacks don't belong here. Lot's of stuff happened in the weeks before Sept 11th, 2001. RxS (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've warned the user. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you even glance at the article? This is an article specifically about 9/11, speculating that the terrorists traded options. Read it and then reply. If necessary, I will take this to wherever I have to, because it is not conspiracy theory and it fits in the article. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
FBI finds no proof of insider trading prior to 9/11. 9/11 Commission finds nothing. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we can note those papers as well. However, the paper I put in was done by an academic (Poteshman) in the field of business. It says that there was unusual activity. This is not the FBI's field; it is this academic's field. This stuff deserves to be mentioned in the article under motivations. It seems that both of you are entirely set in your opinion. Do you want me to open a RfC? Further, it seems that the NR paper outlining the 9/11 Commission's findings provides a very good balance to Poteshman's paper, showing that there was no insider trading. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it fits under motivations when I've given you specific sources renouncing that claim. Maybe it should go in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Here it is again: the State Department reiterates - no trading after an "exhaustive search". It's your privilege to take this issue wherever you want. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still a theorized motivation published in a RS by an author who has published at least 39 papers in finance. It doesn't matter if it has been contradicted; both will balance each other. Plus, it's not a "conspiracy" claim, unless by conspiracy you mean the general conspiracy by the terrorists to commit the action (which, technically, was a conspiracy, but is discussed in "responsibility", a strange name). ImpIn | (t - c) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And that reply illustrates exactly why it shouldn't be included. Of course it matters that is has been debunked. Otherwise I might as well copy the Loose Change script in here and then just write "lol, j/k!" Now you take an issue with the throughly proven and re-proven account we have written here as a "conspiracy"? You might as well take this up with the admins, because we're just going to argue back and forth here. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I finally found the diff. These allegations were discussed here and deleted here. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That was no discussion. That was a statement by one person -- I clearly see relevance to this article. If something has been claimed by a RS, and there is a subsequent debunking, it makes more sense to include both. Encyclopedias are here to record information. What surprises me is that you don't realize that by immediately settling the question of insider trading in the main article, you would actually decrease interest in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't take issue with the "conspiracy theory" label, which is well-accepted, but I don't like the "responsibility" title much (vague), and I don't think that insider trading can be categorized as "conspiracy theory" rather than "responsibility". The author of this paper clearly targets the terrorists as the ones trading. Do you dispute that? I do wonder why Poteshman didn't mention the work done by the government, however. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The claims that unusual options trading was observed have been widely reported, but also widely debunked. Since they are generally not accepted to have any credence or importance, it is inappropriate to claim they do. Encyclopedias record information, yes — but not indiscriminately, and especially not when that information is widely regarded to be false, misleading, or of no relevance to the topic. --Haemo (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The claims of unusual options activity have been confirmed by researchers in finance. The connection of this activity to the terrorists (or other parties) has been dismissed. Two separate things. However, it's not worth battling over; I see it is covered at the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the connection between this type of trading and the terrorists has been dismissed, then it doesn't belong here in the first place. If it's been dismissed it probably doesn't belong in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate either. RxS (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree it should not be in this article as the put options were rejected by the FBI and the 911 commision. However, it should be in the 911 conspiracy theories article or perhaps it is more approriate for the 911 advance-knowledge debate article. Don't be put off by the explanations you are given as to the claims being debunked. Financial experts are still virtually unanimous that the options are suspicious and should be properly investigated. Before the limited U.S. investigations even began the FBI had already stated (in Congress) that they saw nothing that was suspicious in the trades (10X is considered evidence of insider trading and for 911 it was 285X). The ONLY reason the claims were dismissed, according to the 911 commision, was because the company that made the majority of the options was not in any way connected to al Qaeda (they found it was coincidence). What makes it relevant for the other articles is that the manager of that company was the executive director of the CIA. It should also be noted that it was not just put options, there was also suspicious trading in 5-year bonds and oil and gold futures (in one case over $5 billion for a single transaction) and a surge of more than $100 million in illegal transactions on the WTC's own computors in the hours before the attack. Wayne (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RxS, you don't seem to understand that one RS does not immediately silence another RS, especially when each is equally (or uniquely) qualified to make claims. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a rejected theory, it clearly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps it belongs in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't belong in this article, but I don't know if it is the fact that it is rejected as much as it is the fact that it is of little significance in the main event. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A little bit of both. --Tarage (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, actually my statement doesn't make a lotta sense, especially considering that I tried to add this in earlier (before I knew about the 9/11 Commission's investigation). The fact that it was dismissed reduces its relevance -- although, like Kauffner, I think there's an argument to be made for mentioning it still. Like I said, illuminating this fact actually nips the conspiracy concerns in the bud. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone's heard of this insider trading stuff, so I think it should be mentioned in the article. But the 9/11 commission did a good job of debunking it. The company that purchased the suspicious put options was at same time purchasing airline stock. It strikes me as inheritently unlikely that the hijackers would give the names of the airlines they were targeting to stockbrokers. Most of the hijackers had no idea they were even on a suicide mission, so there seems to have been an usually strict "need to know" rule. Kauffner (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's heard of a lot of false information about 9/11. This is the place for factual information. No insider trading. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's rather frustrating that you and RxS seem to display a lack of understanding of the nature of facts and encyclopedic information. It is a fact that there was highly unusual trading (probability ~3%) preceding these attacks. It is a fact that this was noted by academics and traders, and highlighted in the news. It is a fact that the suspicious trading was investigated by the 9/11 commission and found to be innocuous. It is not a fact that there was no insider trading. Do I have to spell out the difference for you? We do not know that there was actually no insider trading. We just know that the 9/11 Commission believed there was not. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission investigated and found nothing. No one disagrees on this point. The 9/11 commission is a reliable source and their points and conclusions carry a heavy weight. I'm not sure how to prove to you that there was no insider trading, but since so few people seem to hold that point of view, it would be undue weight to add this point. If we had to list everything the 9/11 Commission investigated from insider trading to bombs in the building that were later proven to have no merit, we'd have an article that went nowhere. Fact or not, major reliable sources (FBI, 9/11 COM, State department) all say: no trading. And reliable sources are the ones that hold weight here on Wikipedia. This is about verifiability, not truth. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need it to be proven. I'm not asserting that insider trading happened. I'm just emphasizing the fact that widespread media speculation about a highly unusual phenomenon is encyclopedic information, as is its subsequent dismissal. These are facts relevant to the occurence. RxS, who expressed above that "since its debunked it shouldn't even be in the 9/11 advance knowledge debate", and yourself, both seem to not comprehend this, RxS especially. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There isn't widespread media speculation about insider trading. In fact, considering the enormous number of reliable and mainstream sources, there's hardly any at all. Reliable sources are the ones we draw from here. If you want to speculate about these things, there are plenty of web sites for you. This isn't one of them however. RxS (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There certainly was soon after the attacks. This article is largely a historical description of the event. The fact that Poteshman published a paper in 2006 on it is a testament to the fact that this interest remains to some degree -- although current interest, like I said, is somewhat irrelevant when we're discussing the historical event. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the wake of the attacks there was widespread speculation about everything. Now, seven years later, we have definitive answers to almost all that speculation and we've written those answers here and cited them. Speculation may be encyclopedic, but it doesn't go here where only factual cited information is written. Like I said above, you can put this in another subarticle about the attacks to your liking, but not here where we state cited facts. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, speculation about everything? Really. Some people were speculating that space invaders from the moon were doing the attack? I'd never heard that one. I doubt it reached CNN. No, your attempt to characterize this as wild speculation by a couple obscure people is clearly false. It was in the mainstream news repeatedly, continued to get attention, was investigated by the Commission, and recently had a paper published on it. I keep getting drawn back to this because of the assertion of blatant falsities. There was fairly limited speculation after the event, and this speculation, if notable enough, deserves to be mentioned in the article. I already ceded putting it in this particular article. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize your imagination was so wild. Please try to stay focused. News agencies were speculating on everything having to do with airliners smashing into buildings: what could have caused it, what exactly happened, whether there were bombs in the buildings, who the hijackers were, how they managed to break into the cockpit, who they were, who directed the attack, possible targets for Flight 93... it was endless. And now we have answers to all that and no reason to write "some organizations thought there might be more bombs in the building, but this was later proven false." -- VegitaU (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Insider trading is not completely dismissed.

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that he is initiating an investigation of the insider trading that took place leading up to 9/11, particularly in regards to put options placed on American Airlines and United Airlines stock."
February 22, 2008.

The insider trading issue has NEVER been disproved, only the connection of the trading to al Qaeda has. The conclusion from the 911 commission:
"Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example... a single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6".
The issue isn’t whether the guilty parties had "conceivable ties to Al Qaeda", it is whether they had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Having said that the topic is still not appropriate for this article. Take it to the fore knowledge page. Wayne (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
One member of Congress suggesting an investigation is not a source that holds up to NPOV; it is political grand-standing. Get ahold of yourself. XINOPH | TALK 16:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we so certain?

I personally believe that the article states that the only possible explanation for the atttacks is that Al-Qeuda and Usama Bin Laden carried it out. However, there has been sufficient evidence that they were not involved.

I'm not saying it should be completely changed, all I ask is that the beginning of the article state that it is "Believed to have been commited by Usama Bin Laden and Al-Queda".

-User:Magicman710 —Preceding comment was added at 04:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe you should read the archives and discover that we have had this debate before, and the consensus is to leave it as it is. --Tarage (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it consensus. There is a core group of editors that are very good at keeping CT (Conspiracy Theory) ideas out of this article. They have been doing a lot of work, regardless of the reliable sources and arguments surrounding it. That kind of information normally gets reverted very quickly. Dscotese (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Excluding the hijackers..."

  • I was reading this article today and found this part in the lead paragraphs odd. Why are the hijackers excluded from the fatality count? JuJube (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously it's important to distinguish perpetrators from victims, but I see no reason to omit the number of hijackers (which is already included in the sidebar), so...changed "Excluding the hijackers" to "Excluding the 19 hijackers." Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles

I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I'm planning to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon. Being a huge article on such a major event, it'll probably take over a month to get through and will undoubtedly run into opposition. If you have any concerns, please address them now. Also, when an opposing point comes up on the FA-review board, please address it immediately if I'm not around. Thanks.

In other news, American Airlines Flight 11 was recently nominated for FA and American Airlines Flight 77 is up right now for review. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one has any objections then, I'm going to nominate this for FA-review tomorrow. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's finish addressing the outstanding issues on the American Airlines Flight 77 article. For this article, I do have concerns that it's not quite ready for FA, but not time (I am on wikibreak) to address them or give detailed comments. --Aude (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It's already FA. If you have the knowledge and sources to improve it, go ahead and do so, but I don't have any books or sources beyond the ones I researched to cite from. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
AA77 is a FA because I didn't put "oppose" (to hold it up) but rather put "comments". That article still needs work to address the issues. Once I'm done with that and done with my wikibreak, then I can work on this article and help ensure it's in the best shape possible before going to FA. One of my concerns is that the article does not follow summary style and jive with the subarticles as well as could be done. I'm willing to help with that, but not while on wikibreak and not while still working on AA77. --Aude (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has a lengthy section entitled "motives." Bin Laden's famous 1998 fatwa gives the Koranic injunction to kill non-Muslims as his No. 1 rationale. Iraq figures prominently in this document as well. Saddam seems to be Bin Laden's hero. (Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state.) Bin Laden was living peacefully in Saudi Arabia until 1992 and left because he opposed the Gulf War against Saddam. None of this is in the article, which instead focuses on U.S. aid to Israel as a motive. Kauffner (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We do mention this as a motive. "...confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives." The fatwa is mentioned as evidence that he had motive to commit the act because he had said that Muslims should kill Americans. Saddam isn't mentioned at all in the document so your assertion that he's bin Laden's "hero" is speculation. "Living peacefully in Saudi Arabia"? He was a mujahadeen fighter during the Afghan War, he returned to Saudi Arabia and when Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, bin Laden offered to muster his mujahadeen fighters to defend the country. The Saudi Family chose American support instead and bin Laden, infuriated and convinced that the Saudi Family is corrupt and must be overthrown, left for Sudan in 1992 to continue his terrorist operations. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Iraq is that bin Laden did offer to defend Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait. When the Saudis chose American support, the U.S. military established military bases in Saudi Arabia (the holy land of Mecca). Bin Laden objected to "infidels" in the holy land, and objected to the corrupt Saudi regime which has American support. --Aude (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"fight and slay the pagans"; "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped." This is Koranic scripture quoted right on top of Bin Laden's 1998 statement -- which also has the word "jihad" (holy war) in the title. Of course, Bin Laden is also a man of many grievances. To go by his post-9/11 video, he's got beefs ranging from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire to the Reconquista of Spain to sanctions against Iraq. I think the article needs to address the idea of religion as a motive. "Jihad" is mentioned once, but only as Bin Laden's response to U.S. policy. In fact, I would describe the "motives" section as a thinly disguised critique of U.S. foreign policy. Kauffner (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
U.S. foreign policy is exactly the why to bin Laden's argument. Islam is the how. Through the teachings of radical Islam, and because of the U.S.'s behaviors, he feels it is justified to kill Americans. If bin Laden wanted to wage war on America because of the reconquista, he'd be leading an army of zero. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
So Bin Laden's real motive is....that he agrees with your views on U.S. foreign policy?? This is solipsism. You come up with the most favorable possible interpretion for everything the guy does, like you're his lawyer. He went to back to Saudi, not because people in Afghanistan suspected him of murdering Azzam, but because he's such a patriot and wanted to fight Saddam. Jihad means killing people who refuse to worship Allah. It's unlikely that a murderers' real motives are as noble as the ones he claims. This article looks behind Bin Laden's stated motives to discover more palatable ones. Kauffner (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
He went back to Saudi Arabia to fight Saddam. You keep contradicting yourself. You first said he was "living peacefully". Then you said Saddam was his hero. And I never said anything about Azzam. Kauffner, I've been studying this for years; including the testimony, remarks, and speeches by Michael Scheuer. You're trying to find something otherworldy to this guy and there isn't any. You don't know what you're talking about. But that's nothing new. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the contradiction? You can't peacefully admire Saddam? Bin Laden was already back in Saudi before Saddam invaded Kuwait. Not counting Azzam, bin Laden's first terrorist attack was a December 1992 bombing of a hotel in Yemen, i.e. after he moved to Sudan. Yeah, Scheuer.....The CIA must be one screwed up place if the guy in charge of tracking bin Laden down is a bin Laden fan. To get back to article, IMO, the "motives" section should simply summarize Bin Laden's 1996 and 1998 statements. Right now, it quotes some authors who never even met Bin Laden and are just speculating wildly. Kauffner (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How many were pulled from the rubble?

I think the article needs to state how many living people were pulled from the rubble after the buildings' collapse. The article Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11, 2001 attacks makes the curious statement that 11 people were rescued from the rubble on September 12, but the cited source is a televised Larry King show, and it isn't stated how many were rescued from the rubble on September 11. (I presume it was 0 people on September 13 and afterwards.)

If anyone could find this data with a citable source, then I'd appreciate it being added to the "Rescue and recovery" section, which currently doesn't actually discuss the level of success of the rescue and recovery. Tempshill (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Twenty. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Now that we are moving forward with improving 9/11 topic articles, I have setup a new WikiProject to allow us to coordinate things and help each other. I think that might help. --Aude (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Collapse7WTC

There is content in "Collapse of the World Trade Center" that appears to merit either substantial modification or complete removal from this article. For example, the article section states in relevant part:

  • the collapse of 7 WTC will appear in a separate report ...;
  • This was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue University ...;
  • The NIST report to be released in the summer of 2008 [...] will reportedly conclude that ...;
  • Reportedly the report will conclude that [...];

These and other items included in this section of the article appear to be inconsistent with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. None of the references cited provide details either "confirming" or "concluding" facts or evidence in question in this article subsection. None of the references demonstrate that any prospective reports will include observations based on direct examination. There is mention of "working hypotheses" and "computer models":

   "Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires [...] that may  
   have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

Additionally, the references cited assert the validity of these hypotheses as being responsive to unofficial conspiracy theorists, but this article is not about those non-official conspiracy theorist accounts. There's already a separate article for that.

Consequently, because this section: 1) asserts items not directly supported by the references; 2) contains assertions that are forward-looking and prospective; and 3) casts forward-looking interpretations in a light not consistent with the references used for support; it would seem appropriate that this content be removed from the article unless and until someone can address these deficiencies. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See no reason to delete reported conclusions of the summer 2008 NIST report. The official government report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is a notable event almost certain to take place in a time frame noted as possibly ok in the No Crystal ball section. The BBC by any stretch of the imagination is considered a reliable source. The reporting comes out of a special series they are running called the conspiracy files. This installment of the series deals with conspiracy theories dealing with the WTC7 collapse. That is why the articles note conspiracy theories. Of course as you say the conspiracy theories have there own article that plus the fact that this is a summary section is why conspiracy theories are correctly not mentioned here. This is a section of about the "official" investigations and the BBC News reporting about the upcoming report investigations is credible research into what the conclusions one "official investigation" the very topic of this section will reach. The fact that the cite also contains information not germane to this section is irrelevant. "Working hypothesis" "computer modeling" are direct quotes the BBC claims are from the lead investigator. The conclusions are all that matter as far as inclusion into the section. The techniques used to reach them are irrelevant for this summary section. Edkollin (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


The official government report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is a notable event
almost certain to take place
That's good. We agree that the expected release of a report in Summer 2008 (i.e., any day now) is sufficiently probable to merit mention. Now all that's left is to either derive the rest of the analysis directly from cited references, or otherwise clarify the apparently unsubstantiated claims.
For just one example, the article asserts "This was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue University" ... what was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue University, the fact that a report is expected in Summer 2008?
If that's what this is intended to convey, such "confirmation" is unsubstantiated, let alone too trivial to be worth mentioning in the first place. None of the cites offered even address this. If the statement is claiming that the prospective conclusions have been independently corroborated by separate bodies, this is wholly unsupported by the cites.
Moreover, the cite which you yourself support as "a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination" includes the following details, none of which is enumerated in this section of the article:
Officially-recognized conclusions:
* With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models
* the analysis that has never been done before
* FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires [...] had "only a low probability of occurrence"
* collapse potentially made architectural history, [yet] all steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down

---

Please note carefully, none of the above enumerated salient facts appear in this article section, yet all of them are apparently undisputed by any official source. All of them are presented as officially-recognized facts in the cite. All of them vitiate the probability of a "conclusive, corroborated and definitive investigation".
Let's ignore that a one-or-two-time never-before-done workup of a hypothesis based on computer-generated models with zero direct analysis of physical evidence might lack credibility as a "conclusive and corroborated investigation". Even then, the selection of 'officially-recognized' facts as presented in this subsection is clearly an incomplete presentation of all relevant facts. Even if one is to deliberately omit any mention of "non-official conspiracy theories", the article treatment clearly appears to present an unbalanced treatment of referenced and relevant details.
To be comprehensive and non-speculative, this section calls for either: 1) significant reduction of the material currently presented; or 2) inclusion of relevant claims (both in support of and mitigating) the probability of a "conclusive, corroborated and definitive investigation". dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Everything has been cited. Doesn't matter what you think is a valid source or not, these are cited facts. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what he is getting at he thought the way the NIST WTC7 investigation was conducted sucked. How the investigation was conducted is of huge impotence but irrelevant for the narrow purposes of inclusion in this section. If the BBC reported they came to a conclusion based on a coin toss it is article worthy because the BBC is a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination as far as Wikipedia is concerned (See below). If this investigation is eventually criticized by "reliable sources" it should be noted ala 9/11 commission. What I do not understand is what VegitaU is getting at. He seems to me in agreement that cite is reliable the but then deleted it anyway because of "repetitive wordiness with unacceptable reference format". That is all well and good but the approach to me would seem to be to fix it not delete it. Edkollin (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone has to decide what sources are reliable. My reading of history suggests that the method wiki has been using (mainstream news media and official reports from the government) provides a means to present a coherent and acceptable account. "Reliable" used this way doesn't matter to me, so I don't post on articles here any more. "Thought provoking" is far more illuminating, so I only use the talk pages. Dscotese (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for Edkollin

Edkollin, you were sorta close to what I was "getting at", but there's one very important qualification. As you know, personal opinions of "suckiness" really don't mean squat and don't belong in WP articles. What does belong, however, is a balanced, NPOV, and reliable representation of what appears in cited references to the extent relevant to the article.

Nowhere in the article is there any mention of the "uniqueness" of the study methodologies here, even though such mention is included in the cited reference.

We see referenced here a purportedly forensic analysis that doesn't even include the inspection of physical evidence. ... Regardless of whether you or I think that "sucks" ... the fact that such approach is not only unique, but cited in the reference as "perhaps historic" ... it seems amazing that a balanced and neutral reading of the cited source would permit such a detail to be entirely omitted from this article. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it? "This investigation is unique in that it used computer modeling to simulate physical stresses." -- VegitaU (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The article section in question seems to omit a certain cross-section of facts from the cited reference. So far, the rationales offered for excluding those facts do not seem compelling. That's why this request for discussion was initiated.
In such cases we can: 1) balance the presentation by inclusion; or 2) balance the presentation by removal. The alternate option, sustaining the status quo, seems inadequate. You are, of course, free to disagree. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you want it to say exactly. Write it here. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I will decline that proposal at this time and defer to the many other eyeballs looking at this article; and come back to the issue if time and priorities permit. A quick course of action would have been to "balance by removal", but that does not appear likely to lead to any quick resolution. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008
But balance by removal has already occurred. The NIST conclusions by the reported by the BBC have been deleted and I still do not understand why (UTC).Edkollin (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Government or government paid sources seem highly dubious. Slipgrid (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Burrial Claims

Alvin Hellerstein, on July 7, 2008 ruling is the biggest thing ever since 9/11. It is so notable and controversial, since it put to the trash the memories of those who lived and suffered.nysun.com, Judge Rules for City on Search for September 11 Victim Remainsbbc.co.uk, Judge rejects 9/11 burial claimsThese links or reference show the grief untold.--Florentino floro (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about biggest thing ever but agree it is notable enough for article. Edkollin (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Upon the United States" VS. "Upon Targets Inside the United States"

This article currently begins with a phrase reading in part: "..suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." I would like to change this to read "suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon targets inside the United States." The former phrasing assumes and foregrounds America as a cohesive entity which can be "attacked" rather than a complex and shifting arrangement of discourses, alliances, values, and people characterized by diversity and contestation. Also, the former phrasing doesn't differentiate between America as a nation-state (polity) and America as a socio-cultural entity. I think this is a mistake because it claims coevality between the state (system of government) and its citizens, and it also serves to mystify the attacks by removing them from their political context rooted in specific conditions. I believe the suggested revision offers a more accurate and balanced description of the attacks. What do you think?

Lllbllll (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)lllbllll, 07-11-2008Lllbllll (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. There isn't definate consensus that the United States, as a whole, was the intended target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Osama bin Laden didn't release a video or issue a fatwā detailing his grievances against the-WTC-and-the-Pentagon-and-possibly-the-White-House. We could report on a whole spectrum of opinions regarding the attacks, all the way from "US = Great Satan" to "an attack on democracy and freedom"; the one thing I don't see on that spectrum is "a bunch of targets that just happened to be within the borders of the US". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think that through, sorry. Recalling bin Laden's fatwā, we can conclude the United States was the target. Stating that the targets were in the US opens up the door to adding assertions that bin Laden wasn't behind it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree - It would be naive to think bin Laden wanted to attack architectural structures without any further implications. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I think the notion of "The United States" needs to be problematized by making that statement more specific and balanced. Bin Laden certainly attacked an "idea" of America, not merely structures, but saying an "attack upon the United States" suggests it actually exists as a stable, consensual whole. "Attack upon targets" foregrounds the acts as political and directed at the government / institutions of power (global capital industries) rather than an ill-defined and ostensibly unified populace. Lllbllll (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what "problematized" means but it does not sound helpful. I think that Lllbllll is reading meaning into the phrase "United States" which is making this seem like a far more complex philosophical problem than it really is. I also think that mentioning the word "targets" implies less strongly that the attacks were political than simply mentioning the name of the country. Every attack is against a target, more or less by definition. It isn't necessary to say so explicitly, and the lead paragraph is supposed to be concise. If anyone else if following, I'd welcome other input. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification I think I need to restate my argument a bit. What I'm trying to say is that if there were an attack upon the Toledo, OH courthouse, it wouldn't be considered an "attack upon Ohio." Saying that it does suggests that everyone in Ohio considers themselves an "Ohioian" and smudges over diversity and disagreement and the divisions within a culture. It incorportates them into an ideology without their consent. If Bin Laden had attacked just the Pentagon, would it have been an "attack on America?" What if a plane crashed into a local library? I'm just suggesting that the idea of WTC = America is a mystification that conceals the natural fissures within America and serves the status quo. Lllbllll (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reason for 911 it was definately not an attack on the United States in the general meaning of the phrase. The most consistant reasons are that they were an attack on the government rather than the people of the U.S. If you read these quotes by bin Laden and others you might be able to work out the correct wording.
  • Mir Aimal Kasi: "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel"
  • Letter claiming responsibility for 1993 WTC attack: "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism"
  • Bin Laden: "The fatwah is general and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims"
  • Atta's motivation as quoted by a friend: "about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics"
  • Bin Laden: "we are striking them because of their evil and injustice".
The government pushes the erronous idea that it is a war which is reinforced by saying "upon the United States" when it is clear no war was intended. Perhaps.."suicide attacks by al-Qaeda within the United States, targeting what they believed to be symbols of American political and economic policy" would be a more factual statement?Wayne (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of a Fatwa as well as a Jihad are that they are the Muslim equals to a declaration of war. Lest we forget that the attacks, not just 9/11, have been against anyone opposing, them that they can follow through on. They have had a number of planned attacks fail as well, not just against the U.S. and/or its entities, but against other entities in other countries as well.--MONGO 07:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You could not be more wrong.
  • A Fatwa is only an opinion by a cleric and is not binding. People choose to follow it or not based on their opinion of the person issuing it and their own conscience. For westerners a Fatwa can be considered as similar in authority to your doctor telling you to give up smoking (and in fact a Fatwa against smoking has been issued and is largely ignored by Muslims).
  • A Jihad is considered a declaration of war if the subject has made an unprovoked attack on an Islamic country and it allows only defence. Jihad forbids "beginning hostilities, acts of aggression, violation of the rights of others, or harming innocents". Terrorism cannot be justified under Jihad so if some Muslims choose to view Jihad as a war of aggression then this can hardly be applied to an entire country so does not fit the definition of war. Wayne (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I see...so that means that they wouldn't be waging all out war if they had the means to do so? They did as much as they could...if they had the means to do more to get the U.S. out of the middle east and to erase Israel off the map, they would surely do it. But thanks anyway for the clarification on Fatwas and Jihads...--MONGO 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt any terrorist organisation would ever have the means to wage all out war. These groups misrepresent their religion to justify their actions the same way many Christian groups, such as the KKK, did. We should never equate terrorist actions as being representative of a religion any more than we would do for the KKK. 911 was a terrorist attack not a war but because some claim it is we are fighting wars against countries and religions while the terrorists are free to carry on unhindered. Wayne (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you figure the attack was against the US government...the WTC was a private and state run enterprise. In addition, most of the quotes above aren't government specific or really specific enough to narrow it down any further. RxS (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
And you forgot the quote-of-all-quotes: "We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim ... to comply with God's order to kill Americans." Not kill government officials or military personnel. In fact, the interview with Peter Bergen, bin Laden said "We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians." It is clear he's talking about the American people and the people are America. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Good Point Lllbllll (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point. The "kill americans" quote (if you read the entire interview) refers to Americans directly helping Israel, it is only later he says they should take the fight to the U.S. and this conflicts with Islamic law so this last part is not valid. This view is reinforced by the second quote "We do not differentiate---" as it is from a Fatwah and thus a single persons opinion not binding on the community or even his own followers. It is irrelevant who Bin Laden is talking about. Imagine....a racist statement by the grand whatever of the KKK and then every single American being held responsible for it, that is no different. The terrorists are responsible for their own actions not Muslims. The current wording "against the US" is possibly too political as the term is used to justify an illegal war. It's really only a minor point that I'm not too bothered by but for accuracy it needs to be addressed. Wayne (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW...in that interview Bin Laden first stated America does not distinguish between killing civilians and military and even kills women and children so Muslims should do the same which changes the relevance of what he said. Context is important. Then at the very end of the interview he says none of his followers are obligated to do anything he says which is interesting. Wayne (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me theological question of justification is one we don't need to answer here and now. The stated motivation for the attacks was the actions of the US government; the means was to strike against military, economic, and government institutions within the US; and the immediate effect of the attack was damage to buildings and loss of citizens and military personnel (all US except for a minority of the civilians). The question is how best to represent that information briefly and concisely in the lead. Perhaps "against the US" does over-simplify, but at least it does encompass all of the above, and more specific information is provided later in the article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A country is more than it's government, particularly a country that, at least formally, is a democracy. The World Trade Center was not attacked because of an accident of geography. Seven years later the hysteria over the World Trade Center has yet to die down - no-one anywhere on the planet thinks of it as just another office building. It was highly symbolic of the US and US corporations, which run the US government and determine US foreign policy. Peter Grey (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The most airtight phrase to avoid any hint of OR and POV would say that it was an attack in the United States or East Coast of the U.S. This is merely descriptive. "Upon" is a judgement that the intented effect of the attack was against the U.S. Such statement would be better later in the article if there is discussion about the motives of bin Laden (which would need references / we know bin Laden did it and he hates the U.S. but any mention needs references) Presumptive (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From Kaaskop6666

Anyways, the United States has been in a Cold War with the USSR empire since 1945. The Russians have SS-20 rockets, which can fly over US territory and carry atomic warheads. It is well known that the USA has a semi-automated defence against this. Now, the Russians do not equipe their rockets with transponders. It follows that objects without transponder can still be detected by the military. I feel the article should address the issue how Civilian airliners would have been able to evade detection and interception for 50 minutes after the first building was ever hit. It should also take into account the testimony of your Minister of Transport to the 9/11 Commission, who overheard your Vice President being updated on the progress of an airliner prior to the destruction of the Pentagon.

Greetings from Holland, and thanks for this great project, I like it! Kaaskop6666 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The preceding post was actually made by Da monster under your bed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

use of the word terrorist

Can someone explain why the use of the word terrorist, is acceptable in this article? I only ask this as I have been editing a few Northern Ireland/Ireland/IRA related articles, and it seemed to be the case that the use of the word terrorist was frowned upon. Are there some boxes that need to be ticked before using the word? Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The preponderance of mainstream and reliable sources call them terrorists, that's where we draw from so it makes sense to use that term. RxS (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If you consider mainstream to be sources in the western world, then yes - they are terrorists, but in the eyes of millions of other people they are not terrorists, perhaps a more neutral term would be suitable? Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the archives and the FAQ for the article. This has been discussed many times and consensus has been to leave the wording as is. --PTR (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I did try looking through the archives, there are a lot of them. I am merely going along with standard wikipedia guidelines..there is no reason why this article should have special treatment. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the FAQ? I see no FAQ.. also if there has been some form of consensus regarding the word in question, can you link me to it, I can't be bothered with 10 plus pages of archives Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We were working on one but I guess it didn't get put up yet. All the discussions are in the archives. --PTR (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Where in the archives ? I see lots of discussions repeated time after time regarding the use of this word, I don't see any clear consensus. Infact I would suggest that as this is brought time and time again, then as it stands, there is no consensus, so it should revert back to original wikipedia guidelines, ie. only use the word terrorist when you are quoting someone - he said she was a terrorist, for example. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Several places in the archives. The reliable sources use the term "terrorist". We can't attribute to just one of the sources and we can't list all the sources that use the term terrorist without having a long list of refs which violates undue. There have been many discussions so please read the archives. --PTR (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In several places there seems to be no consensus achieved, if you are not using the word terrorist without quoting someone, then don't use it, as per wikipedia guidelines. "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan."

The guidelines are pretty clear on the subject, I see no reason as to why this article should have special treatment, some people view them as terrorists, some don't - so don't use the word. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That is a guideline - not a policy. There, to date, has been no consensus to remove the word terrorist. --PTR (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing the amount of people that have complained about the use of the term, there is no consensus either way. It is a guideline, to use the word terrorist is merely copying western media, just because it happened to USA does not make it terrorism, they were terrorists to Americans, just as Bush is a terrorist to many Muslims. It's a leading term and most certainly POV. Leave it and let the readers make their minds up. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool it, guys I think someone's about to violate a 3RR -- VegitaU (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call, Vegita. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is bullshit, if you want to be personal about it, then yes they were terrorists, they were also total assholes - but neither term is suitable for wikipedia. If you want to use the word, there are enough citable sources you can use to quote people calling them terrorists. Let people make up their own minds, they read the article, they understand the facts and the background, they make up their own mind if they were terrorists, freedom fighters, militants, or assholes. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Two reverts is my max always unless it's a BLP issue. This is not personal. There are wikipedia guidelines and then there are policies. We haven't been able to figure a good way to quote the reliable sources in X says Y format without violating WP:Undo - which is a policy. If you read the archives you'll see there are good arguments on both sides but there has never been consensus to remove the word terrorist. --PTR (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

there does not seem to be consensus either way, I hope we get a little more input on this talk page, so I can stop caring about this article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TERRORIST, I would support removal of "terrorist"; however, I really don't like "militant" as a substitute. It seems like most instances of terrorist could be replaced with the neutral and factually correct term "hijackers". We've recently had discussions on Mohamed Atta and Osama bin Laden about this issue, and I believe both discussions ended in favor of words other than terrorist. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the most famous terrorist attack in history. Why are we debating this (again)? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick summary of my take on it; in order to source "terrorist", we'd need to have hundreds of sources just to give a sampling of the types of reliable sources which call them "terrorists". (And there does seem to be consensus for inclusion; there's only one or two editors opposing it at any given time, with little indication that those who previously oppose inclusion now oppose it.)
We need to get that FAQ up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "terrorist" has a defined meaning. Anyone who meets that definition is a terrorist. If an editor can cite a reliable source for each fact necessary to support the contention that a particular person fits that definition, then the editor is entitled to identify that person as a terrorist. Nobody has any business changing that identification without first showing that one or more of the necessary facts is not supported by a reliable source. The fact that people aren't comfortable with the use of a certain term in a certain context is not relevant. Thefactis (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is possible to define "terrorist" and that those in the article fit that definition - however they also fit the definition of "freedom fighter" and "martyr" (not that I suggest those terms are used). What is far more important is that the term terrorist is a leading term, it implies that what they did was wrong, as opposed to freedom fighter/martyr which imply that they did something morally correct - we should not be using terms that imply anything, we should be using purely factual terms, that allow the reader to make their own minds up based on the facts. In addition to that, it seems very western/US based to call them terrorists, in other cultures they certainly not terrorists, depending on your location/beliefs Nelson Mandela and George Washington could easily fit the definition of terrorist. The IRA article seems to have set the standards, as someone English I felt very strongly that the term terrorist should be used in the article, however I had to concede that to others they are not terrorists, and therefore a more neutral term is used. I don't see consensus as being a vote - sheer numbers do not make consensus - just because the majority of people who edit this article are from the US, and are in favour of the term terrorist, does not equal consensus. There are many other articles that avoid the use of terrorist, there is no reason why this article should be the same. The claims of consensus are for want of another word, bullshit - merely fitting the definition is not enough, there are other definitions they fit, and other people who fit the definition, as for saying he is the most famous terrorist, that does not really have any effect on this article or wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
User: Ice Cold Beer, seems to be confused as to why we are discussing this again, the fact that it's being discussed again should show you that there is no consensus over the use of the word terrorist, if there was consensus, this issue would not occur time and time again. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You see this argument a lot here. A small number of editors (or even a single editor) objects to something and claims that by that very objection there isn't consensus for something. But the truth is that while consensus isn't a vote, a small minority of editors can't block consensus. Imagine if you got your way here, at that point there would be a bunch of editors that don't agree with you, thus blocking consensus in that direction. Round and round. Bottom line is that just because an editor happens by once in a while that disagrees with something, it doesn't mean there isn't a valid consensus. In any case, considering the number of times you've used the word bullshit in regards to this subject, I don't really feel like putting any time in arguing with you. We get enough uncivil bullies through here as it is. RxS (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm only confused as to why some people choose to ignore Wikipedia policy. Also, using dirty words doesn't help your case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets keep these two issues separate
1. I agree, one editor should not be able to come into an discussion and claim that their disagreement with the point in question is enough to make the original consensus invalid, however from what I can see on the discussion page, its not as if I am in a minority of one - however I do feel strongly that consensus should not be claimed based purely on strength of numbers, certain articles attract certain people, I would hate to think that due to the mere fact that the majority of editors on this article are American that consensus was claimed in the favour of using a certain term - this article despite being English language, should represent worldwide opinion.
2. Without being rude, you not liking my language is your problem, not mine. If you are unwilling to enter discussion with an editor because of his language, then perhaps you should strike-through your comments on this article, and play no further part in editing this article. If you are unwilling to discuss this article with me, then I doubt your ability to fairly contribute to the article. I am very interested in what you considered to be bullying, in what I said - I made no threats, I used a commonly used mildly obscene word "bullshit", to object to that is a touch prudish. I would be happy if you reconsidered your willingness to cooperate with my on this article and welcome your input, but if you are unable to cooperate with me, then so be it. This second point seems to be more of a personal issue than related to this article, so feel free to reply on my talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Using that word to refer to other people's edits is not civil. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks, you using bullshit to describe my edits/arguments effectively ends this for now. I don't need to put up with this, and my disengagement doesn't mean acceptance, see my initial comments at the beginning of this section. Until you bring something new to this argument in a civil manner there's really no need to keep going round and round on this. RxS (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict:

Ice cold, which wikipedia policy is being ignored? Dirty words? LOL. Shit/Fuck/Cunt - does that make my point any more or less valid? The points are the same, no matter what words are used. I am sorry if that offended you, but I feel strongly that these words are part of daily life, and no more/less suitable than formal English. But dont let that cloud your judgement, please tell me which wikipedia policies are being ignored. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The policies you are ignoring are: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:CIVIL. Please read those. Thanks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is absurd, I am not putting forward any original research, I am not making any claims that require verification or reliable sources and as for civility, if you are offended by the words I have used, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#CENSOR

All I am suggesting is that non-leading terms are used, in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fightereditors on other articles have no problem with refraining from using the term terrorist, is this article so sacred that you choose to ignore NPOV? Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED refers to articles. It doesn't give you license act inappropriately. It isn't the the swearing that frustrates me; the incivility is what I find frustrating. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I am more than willing to apologise when I mess up, please point out exactly what I said that was in breach of wikipedia civility regulations, and I will take a look. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
[2] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I see, I am sorry if me saying that PTR's edit was bullshit offended you, it's what I considered the edit to be. It was bullshit, it was absurd - I would not use the term wrong, because that implies an honest mistake to me. After having it explained to him, he still reverted my edit despite obvious NPOV issues and guidelines on the use of the word terrorist. Hmmmm perhaps cynical would have been a better term, however in the heat of the moment, I don't spend time searching for an ideal word. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Better not call the terrorists terrorists! They could get angry and do something crazy, like, I don't know, fly a plane into a skyscraper. Kauffner (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Seeing that no-one has shown any obvious consensus for keeping the term "terrorist", wikipedia guidelines are clearly against using the term "terrorist" in situations such as this, other articles relating to 9/11 refrain from using the term "terrorist", it is a clearly leading statement, it is not NPOV, and that most of the arguments against my original edit consist most of "you said Bullshit, that makes you a bad person" - can anyone give me a valid reason why I should not remove the term terrorist? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The first response you received in this section explains why we use terrorist. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
no offence, but not good enough, it says I should read the FAQ (there is no FAQ for this article) it says you have discussed this many times..true, but that means nothing, and it claims consensus - when I asked where consensus was achieved to be pointed out to me, no one has managed to show me any form of consensus. If you can address my concerns, then we can move on, otherwise I see no reason as to why the term terrorist should not be removed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources say terrorist; unless there is dissent among the sources, that is the word to be used. Personal taste is not a factor. If there is a better term that could be substituted, please feel free to make the suggestion. Peter Grey (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me just remind everyone that consensus can change. Also, I've looked through the archives and the following discussions have come up (bolded the last as it came to a lengthy discussion and vote):

All Archived Discussions on "Terrorists"
Discussions Conclusion Consensus?
First Continue using terrorist No
Second Continue using terrorist No
Third Continue using terrorist Poor
Fourth Continue using terrorist Yes
Fifth Continue using terrorist No
Sixth Ongoing... No
Seventh Ongoing... No
Eight Ongoing... No
Ninth Continue using terrorist Yes
Tenth Continue using terrorist Yes
Eleventh Continue using terrorist Yes
Twelfth Continue using terrorist Yes
Thirteenth Continue using terrorist Yes
Fourteenth Continue using terrorist Yes
Fifteenth Continue using terrorist Yes
Sixteenth Continue using terrorist Yes

I'm done researching. There are plenty more discussions on this topic and I'm willing to bet they all arrived at the conclusion that, although "terrorist" is a word to be avoided, it cannot be totally abolished in circumstances like these. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the archives reflect that POV, but many opinions and votes from the archives were purged. At one time, admins who didn't like the researched and valid opinions of editors, just purged their comments from the archives. I asked them not to do it at the time, but they did. Given that many of the archives with differing POV or consensus were purged by admins, the validity and usefulness of referencing them is lessened. Slipgrid (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Cite? The only removals I ever recall seeing were those from socks of banned editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Socks? Do you mean former admins that were canvasing or taking orders from others? No, I'm sure their post are still here. I'm not sure it's policy, or good policy, to delete anything but spam.
Anyway, large portions of the archives are deleted and missing. There were parts of the archives where I and others asked questions as to why much of it was being purged. The archive page then became protected, and more was removed. This may have been '05 or '06, but you'll have to read them to find out for sure. Slipgrid (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the matter at hand? That's a removal of an entire section of the remover's own talk page, perfectly allowable unless the user was blocked at the time and it contained an unblock request. If that's the best you can do, I have to assume that you have no evidence for your assertion, and, although you believe it, and your claim that relevant material from the archives has been removed should be disregarded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about that removal. I'm pointing out that there are two different types of socks.
As to archives being purged, I'm just noting that it happened, and I don't trust the results above. I'm not offering to do research for you. Don't believe me? Think I'm making something up or telling a lie? I don't care. I'm just saying it happened, and for a period of time, about two years back, it happened very often. I looked for my comment on it, and it now seems to be missing. But, if you care, it's kind of important. Do some research (I'm not). Controlling the past provides great power. Slipgrid (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The archive wasn't purged. Your comments of appoximately 1 September 2006 were removed before the text was archived, for use of the word "bullshit". As far as I can tell, you had adequate opportunity to add WP:CIVIL comments. (You also didn't sign your name with ~~~~, but with ~~~, so it's very difficult to tell exactly when your comments were made, even if not excized.) I see no reason to believe that your comments had anything to do with the "terrorism" issue, so I don't know why you're talking about it here. See archive #21 for the removal note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The archive was purged. I'm not talking about my comments.
I don't get the sensitivity here on Wikipedia. Bullshit is bullshit, and should be noted. You just used the word. Should I delete that comment? Of course not.
Anyway, I don't want to debate the civil policy, or anything at all. I just want to note that large paragraphs were deleted by admins, from the archives, or from the talk pages before they were archived. Large threads, of which I contributed nothing. It was done, because, as they said, the arguments had been made before. Now, the number of arguments are being counted, and I'm telling you it's not accurate. I don't care to research what was deleted, and when. I'm just saying that's not a valid way to debate this topic, because the archive is not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipgrid (talkcontribs) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you are unable to provide documentation that the archive was purged, other than a recollection that your comments disappeared (which I've traced to removal for civility, although I really can't agree with that removal), we'll have to assume that my recollection that no such purge occured is as reliable. Unless you can find that one of the "purged" threads showed WP:CONSENSUS that terrorist should not be included, then the most recent consensus for inclusion still should stand, although it could be debated in a WP:CIVIL manner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to the use of the term "terrorist"...

Sennen goroshi wrote: "I agree with you that... those in the article fit that definition - however they also fit the definition of "freedom fighter" and "martyr" ..."

They can't be martyrs, because martyrs don't commit suicide. And how do you figure they fit the definition of freedom fighters? Whose freedom were they fighting for?

Sennen goroshi wrote: "...we should not be using terms that imply anything, we should be using purely factual terms..."

Quite a task, as most words carry some connotations.

Sennen goroshi wrote: "...depending on your location/beliefs Nelson Mandela and George Washington could easily fit the definition of terrorist..."

Can you identify a terrorist act by Washington? Also, if everything is relative then why strive to be factual?

Sennen goroshi wrote: "...sheer numbers do not make consensus ..."

Maybe so, but what does?Thefactis (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing to much about American history but i'm sure at the time of the War of Independence the acts carried out by George Washington were considered terrorist actions by the British. No one is claiming that Washington or Mandela were terrorists but you must see the point being raised. It is a loaded word which gives a POV and therefore is not neutral. BigDuncTalk 23:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I was not for one moment suggesting that we use the term martyrs, as that would be totally against the aim of not using leading terms,, re freedom fighters, you could argue that they were fighting for the freedom of Iraq and/or Palestine. (not that I suggest using freedom fighter either)
Using NPOV terms is easy - the word hijacker can be used for every "terrorist" on the plane, there are many options.
A Terrorist act involving George Washington? didn't he take part in a revolution against Britain? but not really relevant, as I am not proposing the term terrorist be used for his article.
Consensus, should be people either accepting that they are wrong, or having no valid arguments against points raised. 500 people saying that apples are made of cheese, does not make it so, and does not equal consensus.
I really can understand the motives behind the lack of enthusiasm for any term other than terrorist, if someone had flown a plane into a major building in my country, I would be pushing for the term "bastard" - but it is quite clearly a leading statement, there are other alternatives and I am reluctant to accept that consensus has been achieved when there seem to be so many legitimate arguments against using the term. Sennen goroshi (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You're comparing the 9/11 terrorists to George Washington? Is there no line you won't cross? Have you no sense of decency? If you are trying to get on al-Qaeda's good side, there is something you should know. Unless you convert to Islam, they still want you dead. Kauffner (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If 500 reliable sources say the moon is made out of cheese, the Wikipedia article, Moon, will say this natural satellite is made of cheese. We're here for verifiability, not truth. I don't really care about this either way, but you're arguments are a tad weak in light of the sources that others have provided. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are weak? are you joking? I have quoted wikipedia guidelines that are specifically against the use of the word terrorism, I have made it clear that other 9/11 related articles do not use the term, and I have pointed out the obvious - ie. the word terrorist is POV and leading. My arguments have been flawless. I see no reason why I should not revert the article - if someone does not agree with me, then they are welcome to take it to the village pump, or wherever they wish. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner that type of argument that you are using above is spurious to say the least. In no way is a comparison being made between Washington and the hijackers you are just trying to deflect from the point that terrorist is a loaded word. I'm sure you would have problems with the word being used on the Washington article but as I stated above his actions would have been considered as such by the British at that time. Oh and before someone jumps in I am not saying it should be used on his article. BigDuncTalk 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed you were kidding. But to answer your question, no, the British never called Washington a "terrorist." (The word was coined in reference to the shooting of hostages by the Communards in 1871.) Kauffner (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am still trying to work out how serious Kauffner is with his statements, either he is a fan of black humour - in which case, I will laugh - or he is serious, and I will still laugh. Either way, I am not suggesting that Washington has terrorist put on his article, in the same way that it does not belong on any article, including this one. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So this like a deal that your offering? The 9/11 T-worders for Washington? Thanks, but no thanks. Kauffner (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the word terrorist could be used, but in the proper context. That is, person X or government X calls person Y or group Y terrorist. Anything less seems unencyclopedic. Slipgrid (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Slipgrid thats is the way it should be done for example could On that morning, terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners could it not be wrote as, On that morning hijackers affiliated with al-Qaeda took control of four commercial passenger jet airliners. But even still a little concerned with affiliated. BigDuncTalk 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That's much more descriptive. The only thing that using the word terrorist adds is the POV of the person or group that wrote the article. Using the word hijackers is descriptive of the event. The word terrorist is descriptive of an American corporate media point of view. It describes the authors beliefs, but it does not describe or give any context to the event. Slipgrid (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not even close to being a strictly American usage. It's a term used 'round the world in this context. Which is why we use it here. RxS (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
See when you use terms like around the world you are giving the implication that the whole world use the phrase to describe them. Do you want a list of countries that i'm sure dont use it? That doesn't help it is without doubt POV as much as if someone said holy warriors or freedom fighters, they are all POV and should not be used. BigDuncTalk 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not that 'terrorist' should be used willy-nilly, but in this circumstance, al-Qaeda operatives have been branded terrorists globally, not just by Americans or westerners. It's offensive to say that in the Middle East they are seen as freedom fighters. Some might see them that way, but the mainstream, reliable sources across the world do not. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So with your reply you have just stated that the whole Middle East are incapable of providing reliable sources. Just because it doesn't suit your POV. Editors have to rise above the feelings they have on this issue and try to look at it from a neutral point of view. BigDuncTalk 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So with your reply you have just stated that you can't read. I said it would be offensive to say that Middle Easterners see them as freedom fighters—as in, mainstream Middle East sources concur with most of the else of the world. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, and Slipgrid claimed that it was a solely "American corporate media point of view"...it clearly isn't. RxS (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up for me and could I remind you to remain civil thanks. BigDuncTalk 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't agree with that as that is clearly untrue. Lets not deflect here from the issue and that is terrorist is not NPOV. BigDuncTalk 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you made that claim to support your view that the term is not NPOV. So no one's deflecting anything here. The point is that the preponderance of mainstream and reliable sources use the word and as long as that's the case we'll use it here. Does that mean every single mainstream and reliable source use it? No, but that's not the standard we have to meet. RxS (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You are getting way off. I said, "the word terrorist is descriptive of an American corporate media point of view." I did NOT say it's ONLY a corporate media point of view. It's also the POV of the viewers of that media, along with many other groups, I'm sure.
You keep trying to tie mainstream and reliable together. How do they relate?
Right now, the article looks like it's written with a western POV. That should be fixed, and a very good way was proposed. The term hijacker is much better! It implies terrorist, while giving more context. It's truthful and offends no one. Slipgrid (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
With regard to mainstream media they too are tending to move away from 'terrorist' BBC and Reuters and as wiki states in WP:TERRORIST we shouldn't use terrorist without attribution. BigDuncTalk 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
What do either of those links have to with 9/11? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious that the term terrorist is a POV term and its usage depends on your political feelings - same with freedom fighter. Just because there are some sources, does not mean it is suitable. I am sure I could hunt down enough sources, stating that the ANC was a terrorist organisation (if I checked old apartheid era, South African sources) - I have no issue with statements such as "X said they were terrorists" - however to label them as terrorists without attributing it to a source is obvious POV, because there are neutral terms that are available. There are terms which imply neither good nor bad which are being used on other similar articles, considering the amount of times that people have complained about the use of the word terrorist on this article, and the fact that there are clear guidelines against using that term, there seems to be no reason not to remove the word. I would suggest that if we cannot come to an agreement, we should have some 3 party input on this - as it stands all I see are editors who are for using the term, due to their nationality/political beliefs. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that the term "terrorist" is the most neutral description. Yes, the ANC were considered to be terrorists by the South African government, who went so far as to imprison and/or kill many of their members. However, the rest of the world (with a few notable exceptions) referred to them differently, and that is why we do so here - because to do otherwise would give undue weight to the minority position. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you expalin to me SheffieldSteel how 'terrorist' is a neutral term? BigDuncTalk 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter
Terrorist is most certain not a neutral description, the fact that someone can be either a terrorist or a freedom fighter depending on your political point of view, makes it very clear that it is not a neutral term. Hijacker is a term that relies purely on fact - the people involved are most notable for hijacking a place - and that term implies nothing, it states a fact. I am still confused why anyone who wants NPOV in wikipedia would support the use of such an obviously leading term as terrorist. There are clear guidelines, and there have been enough complaints about the use of the term - it would take nothing away from the article to use the term hijacker, it is certainly not going to give any approval to their actions. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments would carry more water if you weren't so "flexible" on what situations you were concerned about using pejorative terms [3]. Certainly "hate site" is a quite strong pejorative term yet you fought to include it elsewhere. Your POV is showing I'm afraid. RxS (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sennen's discussion on some other topic, or her thoughts on this one are not really relevant. Everyone has a POV, but the article should not. The articles POV is showing, and that's the only thing that matters. Wikipedia has guidelines. They should be followed. Sennen's discussion somewhere else is not a valid reason to dismiss the guidelines. Slipgrid (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant actually. Editors in good faith can disagree on policy/guidelines and come to a compromise. But in this case an editor is edit warring for the inclusion of a pejorative term on one article and edit warring to exclude what he claims is a pejorative term on another article. Before continuing to edit war on both sides of an issue like this he should read this. Like I said, editors can disagree in good faith about policy and can have extended discussions. Editors pushing a POV over a series of articles will find that they don't get that same effort extended to them and may run into sanctions if they push it to far. RxS (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you continue explaining what happened in that article? - why not explain that someone removed the term "hate-site" from my edit, and replaced it with a quote stating who said it was a hate-site, and in response to their compromise, I complimented them? Weird that, in the end because it is a pejorative term, I was happy to see it used in a situation when the use was attributed to someone - exactly what I would like to see on this article. And honestly, I don't see what any previous edit of mine, on a totally unrelated article has anything to do with my edits here.also nice to see you confirm to me that you consider the word terrorist to be pejorative. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You have a problem with understanding consensus. You're disregarding everyone else's opinion based strictly on WP:TERRORIST. Let me just mention the lead of that policy: There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article, but some words may mark contentious or unclear presentation. Such words can, if misused, convey different meanings than intended. Stop making changes against consensus and stop pretending that "terrorist" is banned in Wikipedia. We have not misused the word in the mainstream, reliable sense. You have not made any argument that we have. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Are we promoting history by majority rule?
Of course, no word is banned; but, the word must be used correctly. For instance, "President Bush calls the hijackers terrorist," would be a proper use of the word. For an improper use, reference the article. Slipgrid (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We're promoting history by mainstream, reliable references. How many times do I have to repeat this? It would be senseless to write "men who mainstream, reliable sources consider terrorists hijacked four planes and...". Your arguments might work in cases where many sources are split as to the tactics and morals and actions, but in this case they are not and that makes "terrorist" and "terrorism" properly-used words and acceptable on this article. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Have to be clear, because it seems that you were promoting history by "consensus," and frankly, that's how the article reads.
You say, "It would be senseless to write 'men who mainstream, reliable sources consider terrorists hijacked four planes,'" and I agree. How about saying, "the men who hijacked four planes," or perhaps even, "the hijackers?" That seems reasonable; in fact, that seems the correct way for an encyclopedia to state it. Slipgrid (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You're the one arguing against the term "terrorist". The burden is on you to argue why terrorist is unacceptable as it is right now. We've had dozens of discussions regarding this and the term has remained "terrorist". You still haven't made any convincing argument to remove it. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"Terrorist", in its literal, non-pejorative meaning, characterizes the tactics used. Perhaps, instead of directing identifying the perpetrators as terrorists, the article could say something to the effect that the attacks are universally considered terrorist acts, which would actually be a stronger statement. Peter Grey (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If they're universally considered terrorists, then there's no point in stating what everyone universally knows. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Universally? Really? This book review calls them the perfect soldiers, and when they use the word terrorist, they do it in the form of X calls Y a terrorist. Wikipedia has the same standards, and this article does not follow them. Slipgrid (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Soldier is not inconsistent with terrorism tactics.
Sennen Goroshi, you still haven't cited any facts to support your claims that the 9/11 terrorists also fit the definitions of "martyrs" or "freedom fighters", nor that "... George Washington could easily fit the definition of terrorist." Shall we take it that you contend that those words deal strictly with matters of opinion, all equally valid? Or that everything is ultimately a matter of opinion?Thefactis (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
None of this matters, and it's an irrelevant waste of time. If you are really looking for a dictionary, try answers.com. If you are being serious, then plenty of tapes were released that make them look like martyrs. Just stating your request asking for a cite for that makes it seem that you do not know your history and you are trying to waste time. Regardless, it's not a matter of opinion. There are many videos that show them as martyrs, and lots of US media coverage that demonizes the media organizations that broadcast those videos. Please, do a Google query before asking for a cite here.
Wikipedia has guidelines. They follow the lead of reputable sources of news and academics. Follow the guidelines, and the article improves. Follow your emotions, and you get dribble. Slipgrid (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no desire for anyone to be called a freedom fighter or a martyr, neither am I about to edit George Washington's article and make him a terrorist. All of the above terms are about as valid as saying Osama was a bad, bad man - yes, they are all opinions - but I imagine you could dig up a citation to back up any of the above - and they would all remain unsuitable for wikipedia.
The fact that we are having this discussion shows that they are not universally considered terrorists, I for one consider them to be hijackers as to call them terrorists or freedom fighters would be me acting on my POV. There is no clear consensus on this article, and until there is clear consensus, would should be using the most neutral terms we can. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand here can we pull it back a little, can editors please not start pulling diffs out about you said this and you said that and accusing editors of having a POV. IMO no editor is trying to say that these men weren't terrorists using the dictionary definition of the word. But still the fact remains that terrorist is used when hijacker could easily replace it and loose nothing from the article. BigDuncTalk 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The 9/11 attackers may well fit the definition of "hijacker," or even "passenger." But it's generally preferable to use the more specific pertinent term. If the term "terrorist" is loaded, isn't "hijacker" also loaded? Doesn't it also carry a moral judgement and POV? Thefactis (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No not at all they were hijackers in as such they were someone who uses force to take over a vehicle (especially an airplane) in order to reach an alternative destination nothing loaded abot it at all. Were as terrorist is a negative term and not neutral. BigDuncTalk 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
And yet, in the thousands of words here, no one has been able to successfully explain how "terrorist" is a negative term in this circumstance. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok a simple question then as Washington was mentioned above I'll use him, would you object to a sentence like Washingtons terrorist actions against the British or some such. BigDuncTalk 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Washington and his actions are not seen as terrorist in mainstream, reliable sources—so, yes, I would object. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Washington did not use terror and was therefore not a terrorist. He was, of course, a rebel and a traitor, but not a terrorist. Peter Grey (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So your criteria for the use of the word is mainstream, reliable sources would that be inline citations too? BigDuncTalk 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sign, please. My criteria would be reliable sources. Simple as that. Inline citations are merely formatting issues. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Dunc, let me get this straight: you seriously believe that the term "hijacker" is neutral, purely a matter of fact and expresses no moral judgement? So you contend that someone might say "Yes, my daughter is a hijacker," as easily he might state that "she is an accountant"? Or do you mean that there's only one definition of "hijacker," and reasonable people don't differ about whether someone meets it or not? Please clarify. Thefactis (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats exactly what I am saying a hijacker one who hijacks and an accountant one who does accounts no moral judgement it is a statement of fact. BigDuncTalk 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No VegitaU, it does not matter if mainstream, reliable sources call these guys "terrorists," what matters is if they verify that these guys fit the definition of the word. If reliable sources verify each element of the definition, the word is appropriate whether not the sources use that word. To illustrate, think of the word "servant." If reliable sources verify that a certain actor pays someone to live in his house, pick up after him, drive him around, and generally do his bidding, could anyone reasonably object to the use of the word "servant" in a Wiki article on the grounds that the sources hadn't used it? Of course not. The facts shown in the reliable sources verify that this employee is a servant, whether or not those sources use the term. It's the same way with the word "terrorist." Thefactis (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The word terrorist is seen as negative, because there are other terms which can be used that are seen to be positive - people call those involved in acts which could be seen as terrorism, freedom fighters, if they approve of the reasons behind the acts. I cannot think of an alternative word for hijacker - and in this case it is better because it is more specific. The people involved did not plant bombs, they did shoot people, they did not as for a ransom - they hijacked a plane - so not only is the word factual/neutral, it is also far more specific in this case. And in response to Thefactis, yes the word hijacker is purely neutral, it does not imply disapproval or approval of the act, it merely describes the act. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi, sure someone might call them freedom fighters, but then again someone might call them fraternity boys or acrobats, or even debutantes. That wouldn't justify using those terms in Wikipedia. We need terms that are founded on facts reflected in reliable sources. I know of none that support the contention that they were fighting for anyone's freedom. Unless you can cite some, we are left with "hijacker" and "terrorist." Both are defined terms, both fit the facts in this case, and both carry negative connotations. The key difference is that although hijacking is a crime and nobody appreciates being hijacked, a "hijacker" could be an otherwise law-abiding guy who just once snaps and diverts an airplane to escape a bad situation and does it without harming anyone or destroying property, while a terrorist is deliberately trying to hurt people or at least destroy property.Thefactis (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Dunc, I cannot understand your contention that "hijacker" is neutral. Do you know of any nation where hijacking is not deemed a crime? Also, does the fact that someone might say that Washington was a terrorist make it just as valid as saying that he was president of the US? Of course not. Thefactis (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Authority

Who has the final authority when it comes to this article? Surely, the entire thing cannot go without any mention of alternative theories. Have alternative theories made NO progress as far as consideration in the wording goes? For it to be considered neutral, as just a passerby, I would expect there to be a little less certainty and definitiveness in the wording, especially in the first few sentences. Phrases like "thought to have been" and "believed to be" could really go a long way. The way it is now is far from neutral and far from encyclopedic. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, no editor has "final say" on this or any other article. Nonetheless, conspiracy theories have been a major point of contention for years here, with several editors stonewalling on the subject to the point of disrupting the article. As you are new, I would strongly suggest you see this Arbitration Committee resolution, along with performing a cursory inspection of the discussion archives before pushing too hard on the subject - just about every conceivable 9/11 conspiracy theory has been discussed here ad nauseum, and none of us are really eager to start it up again. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cloaked Info - Quick Decision

I would like a decision made on what to do about some possible information added. I cloaked it because it was improperly formatted and read too much like an essay, but I didn't want to delete it outright. What does everyone think? We can't leave it cloaked—too unprofessional. Suggestions? -- VegitaU (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is good, but you can't start a section with a rhetorical question. The part about WTC targetted as a symbol of Jews -- that's coming out of left field there. But I would recommend using this part:
In his "Letter to the American People," Osama bin Laden accused the United States of being "the worst civilization witnessed in the history of mankind...Because you are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, have chosen to invent your own laws...." Bin Laden blames America's institutions on "the Jews," who have allegedly corrupted society through encouraging "fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest." Kauffner (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Dr Kuntzel's views are not mainstream and are too narrowly focused to be credible. I'd not use any as it all comes across as racist propaganda rather than encyclopaedic content. I'm not accusing him of racism but how and where his views are used can lead to that perception. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Matthias Kuntzel's ideas are new, but he is being invited to present them at prestigious and reputable places. The paper I quoted from was first presented at these places: Stanford University, Palo Alto, March 10, 2008 under the auspices of the University’s Department of Comparative Literature, at a lunch event of the Anti Defamation League in New York (March 21, 2008) and finally in the Cooper Union, New York on March 22, 2008.

from the wiki article on him: Küntzel was a senior advisor of the Federal Parliamentary Fraction of Germany’s Green Party. In 1991, he received his doctorate, summa cum laude, in Political Science at the University of Hamburg. His thesis Bonn & the Bomb. German Politics and the Nuclear Option, London: Pluto Press was in English in 1995. In 2004, he has been named a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since 2001, his main field of research and writing have been anti-Semitism in current Islamic thinking, Islamism, Islamism and National Socialism, Iran, German and European policies towards the Middle East and Iran. Among others, he wrote for The New Republic, the Wall Street Journal and Internationale Politik. In 2006 he became a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.


In 2003, he delivered the Keynote Address at the Conference on "Genocide and Terrorism – Probing the Mind of the Perpetrator" at Yale University. In 2004, he was a panelist at the "Lessons & Legacies VIII International Conference on the Holocaust: From Generation to Generation" at Brown University. In 2005, he discovered antisemitic tracts at the Iranian stands at the Frankfurt Book Fair: an incident he wrote about in the Wall Street Journal. He was a panelist at the 2006 Paris conference "Les démocraties face au défi islamiste" (The democracies in the face of the Islamist challenge) organised by the Center for Security Policy and L’institut pour la Défense de la Démocratie. He organized the 1999 conference "Die Goldhagen-Debatte: Bilanz und Perspektiven" (The Goldhagen-Debate: results and perspectives) of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany, with Daniel Goldhagen, Andrei Markovits, Wolfgang Wippermann, Jürgen Elsässer, et al. at Potsdam/Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedora (talkcontribs) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing his credentials but his theory. He links Islamic anti semitism directly to Nazi anti semitism and totally ignores two points.... anti semitism had been around for centuries before WW2 so it is simplistic to say Islam is only anti semitic because they got it from Nazi's and secondly he ignores Israel taking Palestinian land as a cause which begs the question as to why anti semitism was almost unknown in the Middle East before 1948 if Nazi's were the source. Much Islamic anti semitism is rhetoric for propaganda reasons rather than real which is actually the only relationship with Nazi propaganda. To link Nazi's and Islam is no different and no less valid than linking Nazi behavour and Israeli behavour...while there may be elements of truth to both, it can be offensive or even racist to use the comparisons when presented as an absolute. Wayne (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)--waldenpond (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wayne. You seem to be unfamiliar with the voluminous literature on antisemitism in Islam starting from Mohammed, and then the huge, direct, personal connections that occured in the 20th century between Nazism and Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists. Having a religious or nationalist agenda doesn't preclude someone from also integrating Nazism into the ideology, and that is what has happened. I don't know if you have a closed mind on this subject, as you have it mixed in with your opionions about Israel, but you might want to read up on this. The Mufti of Jerusalem worked directly for HItler in WWII, reported to Eichman, was funded by the Nazi party, raised Wafen SS Troops that butchered the Jews of Bosnia, did radio broadcasts urging Arabs to join the Nazi program, organzied Arab youth groups that wore swastikas and did goose step marches and killed Jews - so, yes, the general opinion is that there was a direct connection. After the war, German Nazis fled to Egypt in somethiing called Project Odessa and helped set up military and propaganda in that country. The founder of the Muslim brotherhood - grandfather of Al Quaida - was also directly involved with Nazisim. If you are interested, or if other contributors here are, I can send you references. In any case, your personal opionions on the work of a highly reputable scholar aren't the deciding factor on whether they should be included in a wiki article, are they? Don't the readers of Wiki have the right to see the information and make up their own minds? Dr. Kuntzel, by the way, became interested in the Nazi-Islamist connection only after 9/11, because he noticed that the perpetrators came from a cell in Hamburg, where he teaches, and he asked himself, why Hamburg? The answer led him to become a specialist on this topic.--waldenpond (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora
p.s. I used a talk he gave, but have now ordered Kunztel's book from Amazon: Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 by Matthias Kuntzel--waldenpond (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

Addition Of POV Tag

I have added the POV tag as I feel the use of 'terrorist' is far from neutral and can be changed. BigDuncTalk 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We already had this discussion above, and there isn't support for the removal of the word terrorist. Trying to hold this article hostage with a neutrality tag won't solve anything. Please knock it off. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And it has not been resolved valid points have been rised above and this issue needs to be resolved. BigDuncTalk 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed it again. The terrorist issue has been previously resolved, and there have been no new arguments presented. Talk page disucssion can continue to determine if the WP:CONSENSUS has changed, but the article shouldn't be tagged for that issue.
If there are other POV issues on the article, that might justify the tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Issues are currently anything but resolved - it seems there is blatant POV on this article, and unless everyone who has brought it up in the past has conceded the fact that they are incorrect, I doubt it was ever resolved, what is more likely is that sheer weight of number made them think it was not worth their time. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As has been pointed out MANY times before, there is WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of "terrorist". Unless there's some other POV issue on the article, the tag should not be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there ever consensus on this article? Judging by the amount of people who have removed the term terrorists from the article over the years, who backed up their edits with clear wikipedia guidelines, I would say there has never been true consensus supporting the use of the term terrorists - just a group of editors/admins who are willing to act as meat puppets and use the 3RR to prevent the term terrorists from being removed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I show you a table of arguments where these arguments were discussed over and over and put down. I tell you, calling us meat puppets really doesn't help your argument. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, by calling me a 'meat puppet', I now have absolutely zero interest in hearing any of your arguments. While you 'might' have had a point(If you had bothered to read the entire archived discussion and found something new to contribute), in my eyes you don't anymore. You have shown that you are a troll and nothing more. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to listen to any of my arguments, then please do not contribute to this article or talk page any further - as someone who is not willing to listen to the opinion of everyone involved, I cannot see how you can possibly contribute in a fair manner. I don't care what I think of everyone here, I will still consider their opinions. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You haven't presented any arguments which haven't been previously considered and rejected by consensus. As I said before, if you want to present new arguments or try to argue for a change of consensus, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Motives section

Could Aude please explain why he undid my additions to the motives section. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and not sure of norms. Aren't you supposed to put something on talk page if you undo someone's work? What I put in was footnoted and from reputable source. Are there special rules for this page? --waldenpond (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

Please sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid confusion and me wasting my time to find what you're talking about. Aude didn't have anything to do with your edit—it was me. And I didn't revert it; I merely cloaked it under <!---> tags because it was improperly formatted for the article and read like an essay. And I did add a section about it—it's right above under Quick Decision. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
hi vegitaU. I'm sorry, really - I hate wasting time also. I can't figure out how I got the idea Aude undid me. I guess I'm still in the flailing around stage here. I was not familiar with cloaking. Should that have shown up on my watchlist?--waldenpond (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora
No, it's okay. All changes to the article should show up on your watchlist, but since this is a very active article, other changes may override my own. Best thing is to click on (hist) on the watchlist to see any intermediate edits. Also, try to get Popups. It saves time and lets you see changes quickly without having to load up a new page altogether. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Archive 35 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

I find it unconscionable that the page September 11 Attacks can't be directly edited, but must pass this Harrison character's smell test

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.

Archived per WP:TALK - talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not soapboxing about other editors or the article subject. Euryalus (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Who is User_talk:Tom_harrison? Why does he have the power to censor and block access to this important subject matter. Let the reader take note of this concern. User:peterbadgely Peterbadgely (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)]

Noted. Tom Harrison Talk 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"I find it unconscionable that the page September 11 Attacks can't be directly edited". Me, too. In an ideal world, this article should be available to be edited by anyone at anytime. Unfortunately, this article (and several others related to Al Qaeda's 9/11 terrorist attacks) have been frequent targets of 9/11 conspiracy nuts who repeatedly ignore WP:NPOV and try to force undue weight onto their fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources. Fortunately, editors such as Tom Harrison (and many others) have fought to keep Wikipedia's integrity intact. I, for one, salute and thank them their hard work and tireless dedication. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OMG its only semi-protected. Is that sucha crime?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi peterbadgely. As you're probably aware, talk pages are for discussing changes to the article. If you have some changes you'd like to see made, feel free to put them forward for discussion. However you should first check this talk page's archives, as a fair few proposed changes have been discussed in detail previously.
Talk pages aren't for general discusson about the article topic or for personal comments about other editors. If you want to complain about another editor, please raise it on their talk page first, then perhaps at WP:ANI, WP:WQA or elsewhere depending on the type of complaint. This talk page is the wrong place for complaints about others.
Lastly, a quick glance at your contribution history suggests you are not a new editor. If not please indicate your other account name so everyone knows who's who in this discussion. Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I certainly have (and will) comment in Tom Harrison's talk page. However, it must be noted for the record that the integrity of the information on Wikipedia is in danger of being compromised by a few "editors" or lurkers. These are the editors who lurk about or near certain subject matter and slice and dice any and all information, which they themselves have not penned. This babysitting is apparently tolerated because of the unrelenting "trust" that the other "few" lurking editors have placed in any one individual. Although trust is built over time, I beseech you to consider that one point of view, written by one person in Canada, about the most important event in the history of the United States creates a dangerous precedent in Wiki.(talk)(68.14.146.78 (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure why you believe the article has been written by one person - this shows around 1,000 editors have worked on the article. Could I also refer you back to my earlier post - it would be helpful if discussion of other editors occurred elsewhere as this page is about discussing actual changes to the article. And please indicate what other accounts you may have used, if any. Euryalus (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thousand it is, do tell, how many of that thousand where forced out on false pretences, how many were evicted by the same few for asking serious questions or for no valid reason whatsoever.? Answer that and you'll know who is behind new accounts. Block is the only argument you ever had. I'll tell it as it is. This place reflects our actuality with immaculate perfection, well, our actuality is about to change and those who were so zealously engaged in the cover up will earn the chance to bow down in shame. Go ahead now, do what you do best, censor the facts. 193.77.149.132 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've archived this thread as it's no longer even remotely associated with changes to the article. To the above IP (and the endless sockpuppet accounts of Tachyonbursts) - you are of course welcome to your views but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to pursue the "truth" behind claims of coverups and conspiracies, and thereby give people the chance to "bow down in shame," please consider doing so on a blog or similar rather than in an online encyclopedia. Euryalus (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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