September 11 attacks/Archive 32

{{Automatic archive navigator}}

The big problem still hasn't been fixed

The use of the word 'terrorist' in the lead in section is unacceptable, according to wikipedias own policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoidExtremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter

"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."

The word is used in the narrative voice, and the citation doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Damburger23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurd interpretation of a policy and has been discussed repeatedly on this page. Reverted.--Cberlet00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Absurd intepretation? ""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"" says the rule. The statement is so clear there are no other possible intepretations.

No matter how many times this has been discussed, it doesn't change a thing. The article is tinged with American bias and is an advert for whats wrong with wikipedia. Anybody with any interest in making this project work must nessecarily be on my side of this. Damburger00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Really? Does that mean you think I do not want to make Wikipedia work?--Cberlet00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the impression given by your reverts. You want wikipedia to present a slanted POV. Damburger00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please see the Haemo/Draft FAQ Draft 9/11 FAQ. I'll repost the answer below:

Why do you call them &quot;terrorist&quot; attacks?

This question is based in the argument over what "terrorism" means. In fact, Wikipedia has an article about the differing definitions of terrorism. As the article states:

The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.Definition of terrorism. (2007, July 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:01, July 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definition_of_terrorismoldid=143391911

As a result of what is an academic and political argument we, as an encyclopedia, are left to decide how things should be phrased. However, we are bound by neutral point of view to follow the lead that a substantial number of reliable and unbiased sources have taken mdash; namely, the appellation of the "terrorist" moniker. A selection of these sources includes the United Nations,The September 11 attacks were described by the United Nations Security Council as "horrifying terrorist attacks". cite web|title=Security Council Condemns, 'In Strongest Terms' Terrorist Attacks on the United States|publisher=United Nations|date=September 12, 2001|url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm|accessdate=2006-09-11 The Washington Post,cite web|last = Grunwald|first = Michael|year = 2001

|url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html|title = Terrorists Hijack 4 Airliners, Destroy World Trade Center, Hit Pentagon; Hundreds Dead|work = Remembering September 11|publisher = Washingtonpost. Newsweek Interactive|accessdate = 2006-09-11 the Christian Science Monitor,cite web| last = Clayton| first = Mark| title = Reading into the mind of a terrorist| publisher = Christian Science Monitor| date = 2003-10-30 | url = http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p11s01-legn.html| accessdate = 2007-07-06 and The Guardian,cite news | last = Younge| first = Gary | title = One in four 9/11 relatives says Republicans exploiting tragedy| publisher = The Guardian| date = 2004-08-31| url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1293902,00.html| accessdate = 2007-07-08 to name but a few. A http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=September+11+terrorist+attackhl=enned=us Google News search brings up many other examples. Thus, though we, as editors, may personally disagree with the term used, as an encyclopedia we are bound to use the term which has gained near-universal acceptance and refer the exact debate over the term to other pages, such as the linked definition of terrorism article. Alternative terms suggested, like militant or freedom fighter either confuse the issue for a general reader, or are inherently relativistic in nature, and inappropriate in an encyclopedic context. The article strives to minimize the use of this controversial term in anything other than an unequivocal context; hence the use of "hijackers", specific names, and organizations instead of the blanket "terrorists".

Related archives

"Terrorist", "terrorism" and "freedom fighter"

"Terrorist" words occur 30 times

POV - suitability of "terrorist"

Deleting terrorist?

Terrorist attacks

Usage of terrorist...

Not one bit of this matters. The rules regarding the word 'terrorist' are crystal clear, and this is a violation of them.

Also, this 'FAQ' is just something a guy made it. It has no authority here as far as I can see. So we can just ignore it and stick to actual wikipedia policy, k? Damburger00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point it's making is that the "X says Y" is "Every single reliable source we can find say they're terrorist attacks". Hence, we say "these are terrorist attacks". The FAQ provides you with a quick run-down on why the article is the way it is; since people, yourself included, don't appear to want to read the archives where this has been extensively discussed. --Haemo00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say 'you can ignore this if you can find a whole bunch of sources to back you up'? It doesn't. You are simply making things up. This is clearly a case of cultural bias. The rules say one thing, the 9/11 article says another. Funnily enough, the Contras article sticks to the rule and calls them 'armed opponents' of the Nicaraguan government of the time. Stop pushing an American POV and look at things objectively. Damburger00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That because you can find reliable sources which do not call the Contras terrorists. This is not true of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks; we do not even label Al-Qaeda as terrorists on this page, only those who carried out the attacks. And you will note that guidelines are general principles, and not ironclad rules; this is one of exceptions. --Haemo00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The phrase 'terrorist' is pejorative (this is recognised as a fact by wikipedia policy) and so theres is no 'sourcing' of it that would allow it in the narrative voice, regardless of how reliable those sources might be - they are simply sources reporting the opinion of people that it WAS a terrorist attack. Since reliable sources report people (such as Osama Bin Laden) saying it wasn't a terrorist attack, your argument has absolutely no merit.

I would like to add how cute it is you've used the word 'declined' in your revert, implying that you have some kind of authority here when you in fact have none at all. The only reason I am going to let it stand is because I won't violate the three revert rule. Congrulations on another victory for mob ignorance. This isn't over. Damburger00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, our side of this dispute can produce thousands of cites to reputable published sources that say they were terrorist attacks. What cites do you have to reputable published sources that claim they are not terrorist attacks?--Cberlet00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute isn't about producing source - thats just a simplisitic strawman you've cooked up - the dispute is about intepretting what seems to me to be fairly simply worded wikipedia policy. You are just refusing to accept whats right in front of your nose so that you can continue pushing a cultural POV. Damburger00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "can" be pejorative when used without accuracy or guidelines; the simple fact is that all reliable sources which comment about terrorism explain that these are terrorist attacks. What you are suggesting is akin to calling evolution a "disputed theory" rather than a fact because certain creationists think it is. It has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and declined in the past repeatedly. --Haemo00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pisspoor analogy. There is no wikipedia policy about calling scientific theories 'disputed theories'. If you think there is, cite it. It has not been 'declined', the voices of reason have been shouted down by superior numbers. You talk as if the suggestion has gone through some kind of professional review. It hasn't. You, and Cberlet, are an example of the problem with wikipedia. You come together on political sensitive pages and overrule anyone with an objective viewpoint which might not sit well with mainstream US opinion. Damburger00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It might please you to note that I'm not American, but anyways. And there's a whole page about how to deal with fringe theories and undue weight. --Haemo01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You may as well be American, as you articulate American cultural bias as if it were indisputable fact. By the way, since when has the STATED POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA been a 'fringe theory'? Is applying the rules equally to al-qaeda as to the contras giving 'undue weight' to the rules you claim are a 'fringe theory'? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You seem to have in your head the idea that I don't think 9/11 was a terrorist attack, but I do. I simply have the intellect to seperate my opinions from what facts. Do you? Damburger01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and avoid future personal attacks and claims of superiority.--Cberlet01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply asked the question, are you smart enough to tell your own opinions from facts? You as far as I am concerned are being smug and condescending, having won a victory through strength of numbers rather than actually having any factual credibility. In fact, I take your sudden unwillingness to discuss facts of any kind as an admission that you are wrong. However, I have no illusions about you correcting your mistake on the page any time soon. Damburger01:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

-----The above series of straw statements and questions are still personal attacks and claims of superiority. See: OR, NPOV, and UNDUE.--Cberlet01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain calm and be civil. What you have cited is not policy, it is a guidelines mdash; in fact, it is part of the Manual of Style, which is not the primary reference for content issues. We have pointed you to the extensive previous discussions about this matter, as well as the related "content" guidelines, including those about fringe theories and undue weight. You might also care to read through the archives, and see that this issue has been extensively discussed previously, and the current version is the result of a long-standing consensus. --Haemo01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I clearly showed above, undue weight and fringe theories do not apply. The question is not which opinions make it into this article, its making sure opinions are presented as just that - OPINIONS. No ammount of previous discussion, or attempts to sidetrack by attacking my manner, are going to change the fact that you are just plain wrong about this. As to your ridiculous assertion that I should leave this alone because of a consensus - that line of reasoning could be used to oppose any change to wikipedia whatsoever.

You obviously have nothing of substance to offer to this discussion. Damburger01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll step out; I've said my piece and don't really want to deal with this level of hostility right now. --Haemo01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

x Damburger, your hostility and aggressive attacks violate multiple Wiki guidelines and rules of conduct. Please consider apologizing to RRR_User:Haemo_RRR Haemo, and changing your confrontational approach.--Cberlet01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I beleive in confronting ignorance, and I see a lot of it here. I can only conclude from your nitpicking at my 'hostile' attitude that you have conceded I am right. Damburger09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that he has conceded that you are too hostile to debate with on a rational level, and refuses to get into a pissing match with you. Reguardless, you aren't going to get your way here. --Tarage21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite... if they aren't terrorists, what are they? --Tarage03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read everything I've said. You have completely missed the point. Damburger09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have. You are objecting to the use of the word terrorist. However, in your own cited definition, it says "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"." We have plenty of "X says Y" which you seem to be ignoring, but out of my own sick curiosity, I'm curious as to what you want it replaced with. Bad guys? Evil people? Or do you believe that people who fly airplanes into buildings with an intent to do as much dammage as possible are on the right side? --Tarage21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misread that sentence. It says that the citation (i.e. the part of the article, not the thing to which it refers) must be of the format "X says Y". For example "The UN says this is a terrorist attack" or something semanticaly equivalent.

As for not calling them terrorists - I think that if you describe how they flew passenger jets into buildings and killed 3000 people that the reader will be able to grasp they are bad people, so its not nessecary to explicitly state that. Wikipedia, once again, agrees with me (from NPOV):

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Damburger

09:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey in my country if someone kills over 3000 people we call him a terrorist. If you don't want the judgement then don't kill people...Duh. And before you protest I'm biased I am French, and as far as I know, even if French can be the most anti-American people, it's still a terrorist attack. Calling a cat 'feline' doesn't change the fact that essentially it is a cat, period.

The fact that the article about Hitler doesn't say "he was evil" is because he was much more than that. He was a man, and the chief of government. And he has been judged you are right about that. But using this as an excuse for trashing America and trying to insert the "anti-american" strike to this is BS. These men considered their only aim in life to destroy America, and to kill people on this very day. Saying they are terrorist is not judgemental, it's true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that means it aim to sum-up everything we know, but that doesn't seem we don't have to call a cat a cat. Because Hitler and the Nazis have been judged at Nuremberg, you can begin the article about Hitler by everything you want. But terrorist of 9/11 haven't been judged because they choose the violence instead of trying to protest peacefully. And because they haven't been judged that essentially denies us to treat them as History objects, like we can do with Hitler.

Even if you hate America, it doesn't stop the fact that 3000 people were killed here. And if this article would have been redacted by a French guy, it would have been the same. I am for peace and I love diversity, but the fact that I love diversity doesn't mean I have to accept what touches human dignity. The fact that sexual mutilations is a religious tradition in some parts of Africa doesn't mean I have to accept that generations of women have to suffer a barbarian treatment.

You keep saying Americans are trying to impose a point of view, but what are doing when you keep on saying : "stop imposing a POV on us". YOU are trying to impose the POV that what people did this very day may be considered decent and right in some countries, and that we should accept that fact as a part of ethnic diversity and try to undrstand them. But did the terrorist in these planes this fateful day tried to undrstand the scared people in the planes? Did they gave them a chance to understand and reached out for them.

Guantanamo is wrong because it lowers America to their level, but that doesn't mean we should accept that there are people out there willing to kill 3000 persons to express their POV and that that is their right. Have a little decency for human dignity, please.

Now for what concerns Wikipedia policy, I think this is an exception, because every reliable source (even Ben Laden himself) said at least once the word 'terrorist' to apply to these guys.

And not just American newspapers, but all over the world.

User:Anne-Caroline Sieffert —Preceding 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take into consideration Damburger's possible reasoning. The user states to having Aspergers Syndrome on his userpage. Some of the clinical features are:

Narrow interests or preoccupation with a subject to the exclusion of other activities

Repetitive behaviors or rituals

Extensive logical/technical patterns of thought

Socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior and interpersonal interaction

Problems with nonverbal communication

I'm not trying to say to allow him special treatment, but only understanding of what is behind his comments and edits. The people who have this syndrome can have very high intelligence, but seem to lack common sense. I'm not saying that Damburger lacks commonsense at all. But, please keep this in mind when dealing with him/her that there may be a medical problem associated with problematic social interactions. Thanks. Jeeny - Jeenynbsp; 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. I have Asperger's Syndrome myself, and to use that as an excuse for behavior is an insult. All of my life I have explain to people that while I have this disorder, it is not a crutch. I may dissagree with Damburger, but it is highly innapropriate to bring a medical condition into this. Please think next time you post. --Tarage02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean it as an insult at all. Medical conditions are not insults. I understand though. I'm sorry. Everyone is different. Jeeny - Jeenynbsp; 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't try and psychoanalyse me in order to find out the 'motivation' behind what I am saying. Don't try and pretend I'm only saying these things because my brain doesn't work properly or something. Please, actually address my arguments (which noone has done so far). As far as I can see, my points are bulletproof and the only reason why I can't now simply change the article is that I'll be out-edited by the mob. Damburger10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the only one who seems to find your arguments to be 'bulletproof' are you and you alone. Everyone else has tried to show you that to edit out "terrorist" would be very idiotic. I'm sorry you can't see that, but you aren't going to get your way here. So lets move on?--Tarage12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only me, NPOV and WTA think it shouldn't be there. I'm such a nut, citing wikipedia policy aren't I? You have failed to make a single counterpoint, apart from assinine references to people who describe the attacks as terrorist (which, as I tried to dumb down for you, don't matter because its a question of the internal rules of wikipedia). The fact is nobody has presented me with any serious challenge to refute. Thus I'm just going to go ahead and edit the article. Damburger12:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

&quot;Per Talk&quot;

People are readding the POV word terrorist (disallowed by wikipedia, as I've outlined above) with the description "per talk" or "see talk" - despite the fact these editors have not contributed to the talk page at all!

I have repeatedly described how and why, according to wikipedia, IT DOES NOT MATTER how many people say a group/event is terrorist: its against wikipedia policy to use the word in the narrative voice at all. The only responses have been citations of people who describe these attacks as terrorist - completely ignoring the very valid point I've made. Yet editors still continue to be so confident they've 'won' this debate that they keep readding the word as if the dispute has been resolved in their favour.

Is there nobody editing this article that is even slightly reasonable, or even willing to read and understand a counterargument? Damburger13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per archives. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, "per archives" is a bit vague. I would like to invite anyone who feels that consensus on anything has been reached in some archive, to pinpoint it. There are just too many archives not to. Agree? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem with "newspaper so-and-so says they were terrorist attacks" is that it looks like it's a fringe opinion of a few dissenting sources. Listing all the sources that routinely describe it as terrorism isn't particularly practical either... When sources routinely say it's a spade, and it has the added benefit of very well fitting the definition spade, let's call it a spade. RS. Weregerbil14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And, once more, you have completely ignored the point. It does not matter one bit what the balance of opinion is; the policy is clear. We don't use that word in the narrative voice, because it is a pejorative. You seem to think there are exceptions to this rule, but there are not any (feel free to try and find some). You haven't a leg to stand on so you are presenting the opposing argument as something it isn't. Thats called a Straw Man, and is intellectually dishonest of you. Damburger14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wonder why you don't get much response to your comments, it may be because you keep attacking and biting everyone who disagrees with you. Please see NPA. Weregerbil14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling you on your evasions and straw man attacks is not a personal attack. I'm commenting on your pathetic excuse for an argument, not you yourself. Now, can you actually address the subject and find a part of wikipedia policy which contradicts what I am saying? Or are you going to keep changing the subject? Damburger14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text from TERRORIST: "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." I think that's pretty clear. It also makes sense. Rklawton16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it says that you should say it "in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"". So in this case, you may say "the United Nations consider them terrorist attacks", but not "they were terrorist attacks", like I pointed out above. 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they were terrorist attacks. I define terrorism as: killing person A to scare person B. I disagree with the wikipedia policy to not use this word in the narrative, but I abide by it. I think 911 was perpetrated by either islamic extremists, homeland terrorists, or both. However, I more believe in sticking to consensus, so I agree with Damburger, Rklawton, Melsaran: do not use the word terrorist in the narrative. Disclaimer: I may accidently violate this rule of style myself. Feel free to correct me whenever I do so. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Use of the word 'terrorism'

Should the word 'terrorism' be used in the narrative voice in this article? Is it disallowed by TERRORIST?

;Previous Comments

The use of the word 'terrorist' in the lead in section is unacceptable, according to wikipedias own policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoidExtremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter

"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."

The word is used in the narrative voice, and the citation doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Damburger23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point it's making is that the "X says Y" is "Every single reliable source we can find say they're terrorist attacks". Hence, we say "these are terrorist attacks". The FAQ provides you with a quick run-down on why the article is the way it is; since people, yourself included, don't appear to want to read the archives where this has been extensively discussed. --Haemo00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem with "newspaper so-and-so says they were terrorist attacks" is that it looks like it's a fringe opinion of a few dissenting sources. Listing all the sources that routinely describe it as terrorism isn't particularly practical either... When sources routinely say it's a spade, and it has the added benefit of very well fitting the definition spade, let's call it a spade. RS. Weregerbil14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A spade is a spade... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 constitutes terrorism. The term has been used by http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7949.doc.htm Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and major news media in the http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/ U.K., http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-687756@51-641954,0.html France, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,623034,00.html Germany, http://service.china.org.cn/link/wcm/Show_Text?info_id=167467p_qry=9/11 China, http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/09/11/crash010911 Canada, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/21489207.cms India, http://english.chosun.com/cgi-bin/printNews?id=200609110002 South Korea, and the list could go on. Even http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4615A330-9544-42B0-A3CF-E308F0172EA8.htm Al Jazeera refers to the "September 11 terrorist attacks", likewise the http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenElement United Nations, and the vast majority of countries around the world do. --Aude16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the vast majority of editors agree that the word terrorist, if anywhere, belongs here. Stop trying to weasel it out. Enough is enough, give it up. If you don't like it, leave.--Tarage08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think complying with TERRORIST wouldn't be all that hard. Indeed, it may well make the article more informative. Here's an example of the sort of changes we'd need to make:

"' From:"' ""That morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.""

"'To:"' ""That morning nineteen Arab men affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.""

By removing the blanket "terrorist" word, we can substitute in more descriptive and neutral words. Rklawton16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Id like to add that the debate isn't about how many sources say the attacks were terrorist attacks, or how authoritative those sources were - its about the validity of using sources to decide this at all. I think TERRORIST plainly indicates it is not valid. Damburger16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does NPOV say "terrorist is the word to use"? It isn't exactly neutral, because the word "terrorist" is POV and can be avoided. 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" cannot rationally be avoided in the first sentence. Most of the rest of the occurrences are unnecessary, except where quoting sources. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the word "terrorist" from the first sentence doesn't make it any less informative. You can still add a sentence like "many Western countries and organisations, including the United Nations, regard them as terrorist attacks" in the body of the article. 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any sources presented that call these anything other than terrorist attacks. I mean, we can probably safely presume that Al Qaeda doesn't call them terrorist attacks, but then again, the perpetrators of crimes rarely call their crimes "murders" or "terrorist attacks". It's abundantly clear that the term used is "terrorist attack"; I mean, look at the Oklahoma City bombing. Should we avoid calling that a terrorist attack? Should we avoid calling Charles Mansons killings "murders" because he viewed them as art?

Basically, the notion here is that we should stop using a given word because it has negative connotations, and it can be argued that such-and-such an attack is "not terrorism" by some logic. The manual of style enjoins us not to use this word loosely, because of the connotations attached to it; instead, stating that we should try to "attribute it" when used. However, we have to accept that, at some point, words have meanings, and those meanings can be applied to events. In this case, the attribution of "who calls these terrorist attacks" includes almost every single reliable source on the planet, including governments, newspapers, experts. The thunderous wall of unanimity about "are these terrorist attacks" is so deafening that even to simply attribute it would be stunningly pointless. It would be far better to attribute who "didn't" call them attacks; and I've never seen a source for that, even Al-Qaeda. It seems ridiculous to me to blindly apply a manual of style guideline when it is so obviously meant for other situations.

My suggestion would be to attribute who "disagrees" that they are terrorist attacks, and we'd need some reliable sources to attest to this. --Haemo08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be "great" to list the organizations that do not consider this to be a terrorist attack. Awesome idea Haemo. Rklawton13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"'comply"' 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, that NPOV says that the word 'terrorist' is redundant; specifically NPOVLet_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. The word terrorist is pejorative, its meaning is disputed, and nations and organisation that have defined a meaning for the word tend to ignore their own actions or those actions they are in favour of. The article loses nothing without the word, but with the word loses objectivity. Haemo claims that words 'have meanings' but the fact is meaning is subjective, moreso for some words than others. The word 'terrorist' is so subjective as to nearly lack meaning altogether. You may as well go through the article and replace every occurrence of 'terrorist' with 'poo-poo head'. Damburger01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning is "not" subjective mdash; there are over 109 different definitions of terrorism and "every single one" by every single expert believes this qualifies. Let the facts speak for themselves is pointless when this is not the kind of call the average person could make, and where there are many different definitions. We, as an encyclopedia, take that step and tell our audience "here is what people who know what they're talking about say" mdash; and they, uniformly, say "this was a terrorist attack". --Haemo01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we say 'here is what people who know what they are talking about say', we don't simply present their opinions in the narrative voice. Thankyou for making my point for me. You are essentially condescending to the reader by saying they are incapable of working out that folks who fly passenger jets into skyscrapers are The Bad Guys. Damburger01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You should know by now that "terrorist" does not mean "Bad Guy"; this is not saying "these people were bad", it's saying they were terrorists. You can "believe terrorism is good". You can "support terrorism". You can even call it terrorism, and support it "at the same time"; and not in a "bad is good, baby!" kind of way. You seem to be ignoring the fact that attesting to "who calls this terrorism" would be an absurdity, running into the literally tens of thousands of sources mdash; and would wildly violate our neutral point of view by giving credibility to an opinion about what to call these attacks which is vanishingly small and not supported by anyone who is a qualified expert on what constitutes "terrorism" or not. --Haemo02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, terrorist does mean 'bad guy' because its definition is so disputed it can't mean much more. Your idea of 'experts' on terrorism are the ones who tend to selectively apply their own definitions.

But I don't really have to argue any of this, because wikipedia has already spoken for me. You keep bringing up UNDUE under the mistaken impression is supports your paper thin rationalisations, it does not. Omitting a pejorative term is not giving weight to the not-terrorism theory, it isn't even pretend there a dispute. It is merely demonstrating a little objectivity and intellectual maturity. Damburger15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And per the example at the top of this section, replacing the word "terrorist" with more descriptive words, actually provides the reader with more information while doing nothing to promote crack-pot theories. Rklawton15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. A lot of editors have tried to lump those who want to remove 'terrorist' with those what to include more information about alternative theories. The issues are completely seperate though Damburger15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to using the words terrorist(s) here for the reasons I gave on other parts of this talk page. Mr.grantevans16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the opposition has no more arguments (which seems the case) I think its time to remove the word. The only reasons not to have been absolutely debunked (although that hasn't stopped proponents continuing to push them). Damburger09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No arguments other than the MoS "'guideline"' have been presented for removing terrorist from the lead. This is not at all adequate. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion has run its course. I am still thoroughly convinced of my arguments, as are some others, and I can't see a single valid point raised by the opposition. They are unlikely to admit that, of course. This hasn't been as productive as I had hoped, so I am going to try a different angle. Damburger20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft introductory paragraph

Friends, many of you strongly oppose my opinion that it is not certain that 911 was perpetrated as an outside attack. (In fact, I believe the most likely explanation is that it would be an inside job.) So be it. It's a free world, anyone can believe whatever he/she likes. I can and you can.Nonetheless, there is a tremendous amount of facts that we DO all agree on. Why not move the current article to "the official account of the September 11, 2001 attacks" and have a neutrally worded article about the vast amount of undisputed material instead? The way this has been going for years, it's such a waste of our energy, folks!

Suggesting a new lead:

On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by means of hijacked airliners. Four airliners were hijacked; three buildings were hit, the fourth airliner was destroyed. The government and mainstream media widely accept the attacks as being carried out by 19 Arab hijackers. Alternatively, it is widely believed the attacks were an attack orchestrated from within the United States, with conspirators in high places of the government. Articles: ... and ...

And then the rest of the events which are not disputed, worded with a neutral narrative (not labeling 'terrorism'), and attributing viewpoints.

Rationale: I do not think we will easily reach consensus on this article. Clearly the editors which advocate the official story have a need for the article to be according to their view of the world, and are abhorred by wording it neutrally. Therefor, I think the best solution is to have a consensus article and a seperate article for the mainstream view. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 14:39, 16 August 2007 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv, no consensus for change) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:36, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:23, 16 August 2007 Aude (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (rv) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:21, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:18, 16 August 2007 PTR (Talk | contribs) (114,056 bytes) (Undid revision 151606506 by Xiutwel (talk) - Discuss on talk. The 911 commission is not the only source.) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:11, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (114,126 bytes) (wikipedia is not about proving you are right, it is about attributing knowledge Undid revision 151557362 by Weregerbil (talk)) (undo)

"'Reject"' because few if any neutral, reliable third parties believe that it was anything other than a terrorist attack, there's been no solid reliable evidence that it was anything other than a terrorist attack and very few people "really" believe it was anything other than a terrorist attack. The aggressive effort to push these CT's come from a political motivation rather then a scientific, good faith effort to find facts. Besides, the draft leaves out energy beams. Rx StrangeLove RxS 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"'Reject"' - see also Wikipedia:Content forking Rklawton15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I belive 911 was an inside job, but I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". I agree with Xiutwel that the future for this article is under a main-page. It has it's righfull place on wikipedia, but needs clearifying about beeing a Point-of-View-article. Geir Solerød Geir 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"'Reject"' - Enough of this already... --Tarage20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

as a "'compromise"' I would be willing to abandon renaming this article provided that in the lead there is a sentence explaining this is a mainstream view, not an objective view. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't HAVE to "'compromise"' a thing. The article is fine the way it is. It will not be changed no matter how much you complain about it. I for one am sick of arguing this over and over again. "'LET IT DIE ALREADY"'. --Tarage20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The page has been protected following a fullurl:oldid=151614993September_11.2C_2001_attacks_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 request at 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as an editor who hasn't looked at this page in a while, this article loses almost nothing from the fact that the word 'terrorism' doesn't appear in it (in the voice of the article itself). "...consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks" has just as much meaning as "...consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks". Using the word 'attackers' in place of 'terrorists' in other places in the article creates a version of the article that can be unprotected and edited once again, because I doubt there's much dispute that the 19 instigators of this incident can be described as 'attackers'. The purpose and results of the attack can be derived from description of the events themselves.

If use of the word is insisted upon, then it could come in its own section on this page, which for the record I believe is completely unnecessary. If that section ("Is this terrorism?") appears in the article, then according to NPOV, there should be equal time given to voices that believe these attacks were not terrorist attacks. In other words, if you open the box that debates whether this was "terrorism" or not as a debate, both sides must be given equal footing, and a lack of sources that say it isn't is not an acceptable reason not to include both sides. I suggest that the better course is to remove the term. Skybunny15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove the term as it adds nothing to the article and is inherently POV, but it's fine to say "organisation XXX said that the attacks were terrorism" (attribution instead of stating it as a fact), without giving equal footing to the minority opinion that it was not terrorism, per 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps change terrorist to "widely regarded as terroristThe September 11 attacks were described by the United Nations Security Council as "horrifying terrorist attacks". cite web|title=Security Council Condemns, 'In Strongest Terms' Terrorist Attacks on the United States|publisher=United Nations|date=September 12, 2001|url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm|accessdate=2006-09-11cite web|last = Grunwald|first = Michael|year = 2001

|url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html|title = Terrorists Hijack 4 Airliners, Destroy World Trade Center, Hit Pentagon; Hundreds Dead|work = Remembering September 11|publisher = Washingtonpost. Newsweek Interactive|accessdate = 2006-09-11cite web| last = Clayton| first = Mark| title = Reading into the mind of a terrorist| publisher = Christian Science Monitor| date = 2003-10-30 | url = http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p11s01-legn.html| accessdate = 2007-07-06cite news | last = Younge| first = Gary | title = One in four 9/11 relatives says Republicans exploiting tragedy| publisher = The Guardian| date = 2004-08-31| url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1293902,00.html| accessdate = 2007-07-08 (and add official government announcements by a few dozen countries). Not to make a (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would appear to be a good compromise. 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"'agree"' with Melsaran: do not use the T-word unattributed. "'comment"' if the attacks ever turn out to be an inside job for "everyone" to see, there will be less debate about whether it was terrorism or "fighting". But that's not the point, if we agree to abandon our policy on this page, which page will be next? I am very frustrated with a group of dominant editors pushing their POV without striving for consensus, ignoring the spirit and the guidelines of wikipedia in the process. I'm not saying that I do not make mistakes myself, but I wonder: do you believe in wikipedia as a community or just in yourself? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their correctness never does."

"'suggestion"' "...were attacks using hijacked planes. The attacks were widely denounced as terrorist atrocities by almost every country in the world.refs" The point being, there is no secret about it being terrorism, it's just that we on wikipedia have decided not to use that label ourselves. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To x Skybunny: in situations such as this, NPOV does not demand "'equal"' time to alternate/opposing views, but rather "'appropriate"' or perhaps "'proportionate"' time. Furthermore, a lack of sources is "definitely" a reason not to include a viewpoint. See UNDUE. Jpers3618:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I pointed out above :-) 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"widely regard as" is not needed. Simply terrorist, accompanied by references will suffice. So, it would be terroristhttp://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7949.doc.htm Kofi Annanhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/ U.K.http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-687756@51-641954,0.html Francehttp://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,623034,00.html Germanyhttp://service.china.org.cn/link/wcm/Show_Text?info_id=167467p_qry=9/11 China http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/09/11/crash010911 Canadahttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/21489207.cms Indiahttp://english.chosun.com/cgi-bin/printNews?id=200609110002 South Koreahttp://worldpress.org/Africa/133.cfm Ghanahttp://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4615A330-9544-42B0-A3CF-E308F0172EA8.htm Al Jazeerahttp://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenElement United Nationshttp://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3682.asp UKhttp://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/koizumispeech/2001/1211tero_e.html Japanhttp://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2002/204140502.doc Australiahttp://www.indianembassy.org/special/cabinet/Primeminister/2002/pm_june_04_2002.htm Indiahttp://www.executive.govt.nz/terrorism/pm181001.htm New Zealandhttp://www.un.int/brazil/speech/01d-gfj-56agnu-terrorism-0310.htm Brazilhttp://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/htms/speeches/sep11_terroristattacks.html Armeniahttp://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html The Arab Leaguehttp://www.jordanembassyus.org/hmka_letter09132002.htm Jordanhttp://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InSectionID=571InNewsItemID=37367 Saudi ArabiaList could go on... and need to add some more sources. Or per NPOVUndue weight, we could simply say terrorist with the single U.N. reference. --Aude18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aude, which would you prefer? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating case. On the one hand, we have an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources describing the attacks as terrorism. We have the event itself - the canonical terrorist attack, hopefully never to be surpassed. It became the catalyst for "The War On Terrorism" as the article says.

On the other hand, we have wikipedia guidelines. We have TERRORIST, part of the "Manual of Style", which says that, as quoted above, the word should not be used in the narrative voice. Why not? "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." The question is, then: is there anyone who isn't persuaded that these hijackers were terrorists? Are there people who think that they didn't intentionally kill themselves and thousands of others in order to further their ulterior motives?

We also have NPOV, a "non-negotiable pillar of wikipedia" - the only one, I believe JW said - which says that something can't be stated as fact unless it is generally accepted as such. Things which are not generally accepted (in other words, opinions) can be converted into facts by attributing them to a reliable source. So I guess question two is, are there any non- fringe observers who seriously dispute that this attack is the textbook case of terrorism? In other words, would it give undue weight to tiny-minority views to define this event as "anything other than" a terrorist attack? SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "something can't be stated as fact unless it is generally accepted as such. Things which are not generally accepted (in other words, opinions) can be converted into facts by attributing them to a reliable source." is a logically fallacy of the form "A implies B therefore B implies A". I can't remember the name but its false (like "Rain implies being wet, therefore being wet implies rain" you could just be swimming). In any case, NPOV recommends against the use of the word terrorism, indirectly, in the section NPOVLet_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Damburger02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You say logical fallacy, I say statement of the neutrality guidelines. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"'Really, is "terrorism" POV here?"' How can it be? Merriam Webster says that terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercionhttp://m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism, and that's just what 9/11 was. That's what the Oklahoma City bombing was, that's what Virginia Tech shooting was, etc. If you believe the US Government was responsible for 9/11 (I don't) that's terrorism; if you believe hijackers of planes and Al Qaeda were responsible, it's still terrorism. Any way you slice it, "the events of 9/11 were terrorism." The people who carry out terrorism? They are terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, the moron from VA Tech, etc. mdash; all terrorists. Thus, terrorists committed this terrorism mdash; even if you're in the minority that feels the US Government did this, and not people from the middle east. The events of 9/11 were terrorism events, carried out by terrorists mdash; whoever you think the terrorists are. "How can that be in dispute?" Timneu2214:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What about dropping 2 atomic bombs on cities to try to coerce a surrender from Japan? What about putting people in Auschwitz? What about Abu Ghraib? By that definition many acts of war and all war crimes are acts of terrorism. Mr.grantevans202:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Acts of war are different. Timneu2213:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Terrorism is what happens when people are going about their daily lives and something bad happens like India recently. When bombs are dropped as a part of war, this is not going about daily lives. —Preceding 16:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it but I think someone said al-Queda declared war on the USA years before 9/11? In any event, I'm responding to the definition shown above and unless the definition explicitly states that acts of war do not qualify as terrorism, then perhaps that impression is just an urban myth.Mr.grantevans202:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then are you stating that 9/11 wasn't terrorism? That VA Tech wasn't terrorism? Oklahoma City? These are all terrorist acts, right? Timneu2210:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the article doesn't need the word and shouldn't include a controversial word which it doesn't need. Mr.grantevans213:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying there's no controversy. 9/11 (and the other events I mention) are terrorism. Period. Timneu2223:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What does the use of the word add to the article? Mr.grantevans200:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes the article accurate. How can 9/11 events be described without saying they are terrorist events? This must be stated. Otherwise, it's like describing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without mentioning bread. I really feel like the elimination of "terrorist" in this article is just a ploy for people to push the idea conspiracy theories. And I've stated: even if it "was" the US government, it's "still terrorism." Timneu2211:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

x Timneu22, I can't read your mind and you can't read mine. I am not using any ploy nor do I subscribe to nor push any theories at all and your suggestion is ridiculous and inhibiting to open discussion. Regarding your actual point, I think including the word terrorist is like describing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and including the word "tasty". Mr.grantevans218:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) It's "just ridiculous." I want to know what the point of this discussion is mdash; no where else in the sane world is 9/11 discussed without "terrorism" being involved. So why, on wikipedia, are people trying to remove the term? If it's not to push a conspiracy theory agenda, then what is it? You're telling me that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists? It wasn't terrorism? If all the planes had crashed into military targets, it wouldn't be called terrorism. When people are going about their daily lives (like Atlanta Olympic bombing or London bus bombings) this is terrorism. MY GOSH, even the List of terrorist incidents says 9/11 was terrorism BECAUSE IT WAS! How is this in dispute!?!? We should ""avoid using "terrorist" unless verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"." Haven't enough sources been cited to say this is terrorism? Timneu2210:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica describes the event without using the "T" word within that description; so don't say it can't be done. The reason people on Wikipedia are trying to avoid it is because we are dedicated to NPOV and some of us feel the "T" word oozes POV in the public mindset. Mr.grantevans212:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Two articles and their intros:

The July 7, 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts...

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on ...

9/11 was far more notable as a terrorist bombing than these events. Are you therefore going to rewrite EACH of these articles? Rewrite "all" articles on Wikipedia pertaining to terrorism? We can't just go around updating every article (I'm sure there are hundreds) to remove the word terrorism. At some level you must realize that using the word "terrorist" isn't POV. Was Oklahoma City's bombing a terrorist act? Yes. Well then tell me why 9/11 isn't. Timneu2201:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I "'strongly"' disagree with x Mr.grantevans2; we use terrorist "because" we want to remain NPOV. Britannica has no such concerns. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one is objecting to the use of the word 'terrorist' in the article. They are merely objecting to the use of it in the narrative voice. As far as I'm concerned I think nothing would be lost from the article if the narrative voice used attacks, attackers and other more descriptive words. This is in no way an indorsment of the beliefs of the conspiracy people. Its simply a matter of NPOV. And the word can be used dozens of times if you like - with references.Extrememedium11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

peer-review and reliable sources

"...(continued from back to the polls)

I think there is a paradox. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, there are two major suspects: Osama bin Laden and an alleged shadow government. Now, in order to establish which "'due weight"' to give to either the mainstream view or to conspiracy views:

government sources and associated media reports are deemed "'reliable sources"' (which is not the same as trustworthy sources)

popular opinion does not count

scientists, military, intelligence personel which are fired for speaking out about their mistrust of the government seize to be "reliable sources" from that moment on

any fact which is at odds with the official version, even if acknowledged as "true" is labeled "factoid" (in the second meaning, being: irrelevant bu true detail)

It appears to me that this is a snake biting its own tail. When following this process, it is absolutely impossible for wikipedia to write about crimes committed by the establishment "'neutrally"' unless they themselves admit it. Every other authority is denied. Every expert, major politician that speaks out is set in a corner a lone lunatic.

This cannot be the way forward? We must be able to find a better way to find some balance between what to include and what to leave out? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition: are reliable sources not supposed to be ""'independent""' of the subject matter to be useful for wikipedia? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more a discussion for Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks instead of September 11, 2001 attacks. --PTR18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would apply there, also, but this discussion is about THIS article being NNPOV. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But your para above talks about suspects. I'm not sure what you want to change. I don't think an article saying most people think this but some people think that is going to be very readable. That's why the subarticles are linked. --PTR19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For readability, and given the views of most wikipedians, I would suggest a lead paragraph stating that this is the mainstream view. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This alledged shadow government isn't a major suspect, making this entire discussion pointless. Rx StrangeLove RxS 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"not major" - That's your opinion (and such is your right) but it is not mine. Since you believe they didn't do it, there is no need for you to question all the spin stories they put out, and you are confirmed in your belief. But your reasoning goes in circles. Independent sources would not make a strong case against the inside job theory. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See, that comment makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. It's not up to you or I to decide what's "major" Something is "major" when experts working in their field and neutral third party sources say it is....this all should go without saying. You can consider something "major", I can consider something "major" but for Wikipedia's purposes our opinions don't matter. Rx StrangeLove RxS 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, according to recent polls, something like 40% of the American public does not believe the "official" account of what happened on 9/11. On a related note, on the order to 60% of the American public does not believe in the theory of evolution. Both are based on pretty much the same level of evidence, and display about the same level of acceptance in credible experts and reliable sources. They also both, in the stead of the so-called "official" version have a literal zoo of different explanations, which have no support by qualified and credible experts. As the evolution article does, we devote a small section of the article to a discussion of these alternative theories, and link to an extensive sub-article where they are treated in depth.

Wikipedia is not the court of popular opinion, it's not a democracy, and it's not a vote; it's a reference encyclopedia. If you read above, or x here you can see an explanation for why the article is the way it is. Essentially, in compromising the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, by saying things like "according to the official account" or something similar, you give an absolutely staggering amount of undue weight to these theories, which have no support by credible experts. It's the equivalent of writing the lead of Hitler to say ""Adolf Hitler was Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and Führer from 1934 to 1945. He led the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the Nazi Party. Some believe he escaped Germany and now lives in Argentina."" It not only totally misrepresents the article which follows, in violation of our guidelines, but gives a far too much credence to a fringe theory about Hitler's death. --Haemo23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the self-eating snake metaphor - it has a corollary, too. Consider, for instance, a Paranoid Nut Job who shows up to Wikipedia one day to teach the world about some big secret. Paranoid Nut Job eventually finds himself blocked for disruption (or whatever). Paranoid Nut Job now has another bit of "evidence" of a vast conspiracy – one that now includes Wikipedia. Now, how are we to tell the difference between a self-eating snake and the work of a Paranoid Nut Job? That's why we pretty much stick to verifiable, reliable sources. Rklawton02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough

I'm sick of this. I'm sick of the endless debates that go nowhere, and those who attempt to try every concievable method to push the same flawed idealogoly. I'm sick of the constant revert wars. If you are sick of this, let your voice be heard here. I propose no more pointless debates. No more "but they aren't 'really' terrorists". No more "this article has POV problems." Maybe if enough of us stand up and say "'Enough"', we can move beyond this pointless argument. Who is with me?

—Preceding ) 21:00, 16 August 2007

I totally agree with you here. All Muslim references should be removed until evidence is show. I don't care so much if people call Lary Silverstein or GW Bush terrorists for staging the attack but if wikipedia has rules about it then I'm all for sticking to them. More rules is better here. If there is a chance to improve the rules then so be it.(Gaby de wilde15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I proposed a 1RR limit for people posting obviously controversial theories on articles like this many moons ago, this is absolutely pointless. --Golbez21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a brief read through this Talk page and it certainly seems that the normal wikipedia editing process is being disrupted - to an extent. However, I'm not sure what the best route to take from here is. If specific questions (e.g. use of "terrorist") are the issue, then an RfC is appropriate. If you feel that a particular editor is a problem, then I would suggest discussing it on their Talk page, and if that proves unproductive, requesting a third opinion or even a user RfC. The wikipedia dispute resolution process should be able to deal with this, one way or another. Be patient and keep the faith. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC has, in fact, been filed. See 11:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to stifle debate and essentially freeze this article for all time? I can't think of any reason other than that you feel the article as it stands is to your liking and that editors with contrary views are a threat to this and must be silenced. This is not a wonderful attitude to have on wikipedia, is it? Damburger02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall. I'm tired of shouting at the top of my lungs to someone who doesn't get it, and never will get it. I'm tired of wasting my time on a debate that has been going on for "'years"', and yet people like you STILL come out and with this idiocy. Yes, I called it idiocy. No, I will not take that back. Your ignorance has shown like a star in this entire debate. And I just don't care anymore. I refuse to let you have your way. --Tarage08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You've the nerve to complain about my civility whilst calling me an idiot? I'm not a brick wall. I hear your arguments, and I tear them apart. Then you continue to make the same argument as if nothing has happened, and won't move on or try to make a new argument. To me that shows your ignorance, not mine. Damburger09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, Tarage has already warned me about editing this page and he did so without addressing my point. Thats just rediculous? So he is A terrorist attacking wikipedia, look out everyone!(Gaby de wilde15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You say 'tear appart', I say 'plug your ears and go "'lalalalala"'. Again, I don't care about your argument anymore. It's wrong, and I'll fight till I'm banned against it. Because to fight a fool, sometimes you must act like a fool. --Tarage11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof Osama was involved, so you should take the fascist hate speech about Muslims some place else, don't assume it's time to start making weird accusations at my address when I mention this.(Gaby de wilde15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You just accused me of "plugging my ears and going "'lalalalala"'" in the exact same sentence as you say "I don't care about your argument anymore". I'm not sure you realise how ridiculous that is. Damburger15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"To fight a fool, sometimes you must act like a fool." --Tarage03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But the other person might be acting like a fool in order to fight with you.

Leave aside for now questions of why you think you need to be "fighting" on a Talk page, and of who started it (honestly, I can't believe I'm having to say this). The only thing that is certain, if you follow such a philosophy, is that you look like a fool. It doesn't help you or your cause.

What "might" help is proposing an improvement to the article and pointing out how, in your view, your proposal meshes with wikipedia's principles. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 03:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

4 col reflist?

I know this is a pretty minor thing to bring up, but we've got 177 refs here. What do people think of a four col reflist? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall trying it in a preview before, and it looked terrible; but, since there there's been a drive to clean up the references into standard formatting so maybe it would look good now. --Haemo06:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 177 refs is typical for an article like this. Evolution has 167, New York City has 161, and even I-35W Mississippi River bridge already has 102 refs. But only two columns. Three columns of refs used here is unusual, and I think four would definitely make them too squished together and difficult to read for people using smaller screens. --Aude06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the term &quot;terrorist&quot;

As I said above, I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". Indeed it

was an act of terror.

However it is important to understand that in this context the term "terrorist" is designed.

Designed to function like: "Which" in Europe between 1450 and 1700; like "Jude" in Germany

1930-1945; and "Communist" in USA and Western Europe 1945-1980.

Like the other examples, the term is designed to create these effects:

To have someone to blame for all evil in the world.

To deny those who are termed so basic human rights.

To put the attention of the individuals and groups that holds these beliefs (and NOT are terrorists), outwards. So they don't have to face their own feelings and thoughts (which actually creates all these horrors).

To silence any questioning or other belifes (then you're suspected of beeing a terrorist, and who wants that?)

As it is now, the article is advocating the above statments.

And to Enough: If the majority at school are beating and harassing you. And there comes

a point where you speak up. Or somebody is speaking up for you. What is it enough of?

Harassing/beating or speaking up? Geir Solerød Geir 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's a terrorist act "even if" it was not committed by the Al Qaeda operatives. I believe, even Al Qaeda spokesmen referred to it with an Arabic word frequently translated as terrorist. Is there "anyone" who does not call it terrorist? mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So, now we are beating and harassing conspiricy theorists? Come off it. You aren't getting your way, so you try a different means of attack. That doesn't work, so you try another. If "'anything"', you are the bully here. You refuse to stop the harassment on this article, so you continue to attack it from different angles. Enough. --Tarage21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the results for your muslim neighbour in everyday-life after this 911-story became widely acepted? Does she/he feel the beating? Geir Solerød Geir 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow... now you are grasping at straws. You are saying that by labeling the hijackers 'terrorists', I am labeling every muslim a terrorist? Nice try, but no. Apples and oranges. Calling someone evil does not mean anything but that person is evil. Stop twisting things. --Tarage08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this was not specificly about the label terrorist. It was about the every-day impact of the hole 911-story, the increased hostility and suspiciousness against muslims all over the world. Geir Solerød Geir 10:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait... this isn't about the label? Tell that to Damburger. And even then... are you sugesting we censor the truth so that a few people won't be harassed? Surely you jest. --Tarage11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is how you understand what I'm saying, so be it. Please keep an respectful tone on wikipedia. Geir Solerød Geir 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In western countries we see those attackers as "terrorists" because they attacked the US, but in certain middle eastern countries, the foreign policy of the US is seen as very invasive and as a danger. See also the section Statements by others in this article which is giving reasons why a palestinian or a person with arabic background may think of the 911 attackers as "freedom figthers".

The problem of calling someone a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is always determined by the point of view of the narrator. For example when the US financed the Taliban in the 1980s in order to combat russia, no one in the western countries referred to them as terrorists but rather as freedom fighters against communism. But for Russia they were seen as Terrorists. So for me the T-Word is never NPOV ! It is hard for someone who's country has been attacked to have NPOV but that is exactly why there are guidelines!

Of course it is necessary to mention that most of the western countries see 911 as a terrorist attack.

It's not just Western countries; Arab media and government like Al-Jazeera label 9/11 a terrorist attack. In fact, you can believe it "was" a terrorist attack and still be supportive of it. Terrorism is a para-military tactic; it's not some kind of relativist pejorative mdash; see Definition of terrorism. Simply listing "who calls this a terrorist attack" is an absurdity; instead, the question is "who doesn't". We're still looking for reliable sources which attest to these nebulous people who believe otherwise. --Haemo01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have been banging my head against the screen trying to explain, this is a question of wikipedia policy and sources do not matter. If the whole world calls George W Bush a wanker (and, lets face it, its only a matter of time now) we still do not use that word in the narrative voice in his bio. Damburger01:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that uniformity of "who says this is terrorism" is "apparently everyone". No one has been able to bring up a reliable source that indicates substantial views, "especially" amount academics who actually know how to apply the definition of terrorism that this anything but a terrorist attack. The view that the manual of style trumps the neutral point of view is absurd, since the reading of TERRORIST this argument is based on is so narrow as to totally ignore the point of guidelines in the first place. --Haemo01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you misrepresent my arguments in order to make them easier to rebutt. As I pointed out above, TERRORIST agrees with NPOV because of the concept of 'letting the facts speak for themselves'. My reading of the guidelines, and of the rules, is not narrow simply because its not the same as yours. My reading adheres to both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

And it isn't that nobody has been "able" to bring up a reliable source that says the are terrorist attacks; its that nobody can be "bothered" since, as I have stated so many times, sources are irrelevant to this argument. Damburger01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care what you think anymore. We have been down this road many times, and you refuse to accept that they ARE terrorists. I don't CARE anymore. Do you understand? You won't win this. As long as I have editing powers, I will undo ALL edits that take out 'terrorist'. There, it's done. Call me a troll, call me an asshole. I don't CARE. I refuse to let you have your way on this. --Tarage08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you are now promising to vandalise wikipedia out of sheer spite if this doesn't go your way? Damburger09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'll be just like you. --Tarage11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

They really, really aren't. The point of the manual of style guidelines you are quoting is to encourage attribution of statements which can be considered pejorative and negative. The point everyone else has been trying to make to you is that any such attribution in this case is pointless, since the list of "who calls these terrorist attacks" would run into the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of references; including everyone qualified to weigh in on applying the definition of terrorism to this attack. Changing the lead to call this otherwise give undue weight to a view which is so in the minority that no one can find sources for it, so far mdash; let alone sources from anyone actually qualified to weigh in on the topic. --Haemo02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you get that the point of TERRORIST is to encourage attribution? To me it seems to be fairly clear in what its says: avoid the use of the word terrorism. Despite your constant invoking of NPOV that also suggests we shouldn't use the word terrorism. I can find sources for people saying these aren't terrorism, but I am not posting them because I am well aware of what you are trying to do. You are trying to make this about the sources and it is not, it is about wikipedia policy. I won't let you take this off on a tangent and distract from the point.

The fact that my interpretation of both rules and guidelines is widely accepted as correct can be seen in any wikipedia article relating to a terrorist group, where that terrorist group doesn't target Americans. Contras and Lords_Resistance_Army are examples of this. Words such as 'armed opponents' and 'guerillas' are used for stateless groups that have committed horific atrocities against civilians. The only reason that such objectivity isn't found here is because of cultural bias. Damburger09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If other articles lack the term terrorism, then I suggest you go and edit in them and add that term, so long as there are reliable third party sources to support the claim. That there are a plentitude of third party statements by numerous international entities, news media and respected authors who do refer to the attacks of 9/11 as acts of terrorism, and that these are mainstream views, makes it more than accurate that we document this event as an act of terrorism...lets not continue marginalizing what happen on this date.--MONGO16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IT DOES NOT MATTER how many sources you cite, because terrorism is not a word thats allowed in wikipedia. You could try editing other articles to add the word terrorism in, but you would be shot down very quickly. That would be the case here as well if the victims were, say, French. Damburger16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop yelling, you're looking at things in much too much of an absolustionist viewpoint. The page you keep referring to is a guideline: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Rx StrangeLove RxS 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it doesn't say "don't use the word terrorism" at all; the guidelines exists to encourage attribution of who is labeled a terrorist. This should be pretty clear, especially since it references :Category:Terrorists which by the Wikilawyering reading of the "guidelines" it shouldn't exist. --Haemo00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished by using the word? At the least it is inflammatory and can appear to portray bias. This article should be written with the same lack of inflammatory language as the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 if this encyclopedia is to appear to be unbiased. I'm sure the "terror" felt by Afghans when our 500 pound cluster bombs started falling was similar if not worse than the terror felt by Americans on 9/11; but my primary point is; "Why use such language in an encyclopedia"? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? Not in my opinion. Mr.grantevans13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished? It labels an entity for what it is. Charles Manson has have felt his killings were "art", but that doesn't stop us from calling them murder. Creationists may feel that evolution is a religion, but that doesn't stop us from calling it a fact. Wikipedia does not, and should not, subscribe to semantic relativism, where we disallow any words which can be misapplied as a pejorative mdash; for all the sound and fury, in the end there is still a definition of terrorism which exists, and can be applied by experts on the subject to entities. And guess what? They unanimously call this terrorism. --Haemo01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is such a loosely defined term that it shoulnd't be used here. Although, if anyone does have a good definition of terrorism that we "could" use on Wikipedia, then please provide it here. If no one does, the term should be removed from the article. Merat10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I question Haemo's competence to edit this page

Haemo has no background in physics or engineering and as such is not qualified to consider the evidence which proves beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolitions which hence invalidates the grossly false suppositions of this page.Bofors771504:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good I don't need any, because we're writing an encyclopedia here, and not evaluating evidence ourselves. --Haemo04:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you claiming that is acceptable for an encyclopedia to include treasonous falsehoods?Bofors771504:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No? --Haemo05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No??? Then why are you are engaging in unacceptable behavior.Bofors771505:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of information is verifiability, not truth. It is at best unproductive to argue here about what is true and what is false. Instead, provide links to reliable sources supporting something you'd like to add to the article. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center Section is False

It has been proven beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destoryed by controlled demolitions. This section ignores that evidence and instead regurgitates US goverment propaganda from NIST.Bofors771504:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not validated by reliable sources. More importantly, this is not the page you want to discuss this on; refer any discussion to controlled demolition hypothesis. --Haemo04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are not qualified to determine what is a reliable source in engineering.Bofors771504:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "alone", but we as a "community" are; in fact, we even have guidelines for what is a reliable source. As you can see, determining what is or is not a reliable source takes no special expertise. --Haemo04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but your guidelines either do not apply in this case or are being misapplied. For example the NIST report on the collapse of the twin towers is not a reliable source. It is a highly doctored piece of spin. Please see this: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

Again, reliable sourcing applies everywhere. However, this is not the place to discuss this; see controlled demolition hypothesis instead. --Haemo05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Bofors7715 raised the question, our verifiability guidelines really do apply here, as they do everywhere. cquote | Any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

That's a very interesting link but it does not meet our guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. So we could "not" use it to justify saying that the ideas mentioned in that video clip are "proven beyond any doubt". Hope this helps! SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

this is not the issue, it is not our "job" to use such references as "proof beyond any doubt", our "duty" is to recognize the fact that the official fairytale stands to no scrutiny, we can use zillions of links which show that the "'official fallacy is questioned by the whole wide world"', and while doing that, we are actually and factually following our own guidelines. Until we manage to move this article into NPOV the appropriate POV tag should be placed, the factual accuracy is also questioned, and we should provide appropriate warnings at the entrance point, say it as it is, until we fix it, and we'll fix it this year, because, as someone wrote above… enough is enough. 89.172.46.9313:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"“It has been proven beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destoryed by controlled demolitions”" - Wrong, it’s been speculated but never proven. If it is proven in the future the article will be changed, however it hasn’t so the article still stands in its current form. ~ NossB14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem. Speculated but never proven. What has been proven beyond any doubt is that the Nist conclusions contradicted their own test results (their ASTM E119 tests proved the fires could not have melted or weakened the steel sufficiently, their simulations showed less damage than they reported in conclusions http://www.nistreview.org/ etc etc), most of their tests did not meet industry standards and many claims they made had no support. What many if not most reputable structural engineers claim is not that it was a controlled demolition but that there should be an investigation to determine the cause of the collapse, something that has NEVER been done despite the controversy over whether it was a CD or not. Until that investigation is done the article can make no claim as to the cause one way or the other. WLRoss Wayne 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WTC 7

Please, kindly change the following sentence in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacksThe_attacks attacks section…

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell.

Into this one

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., the 47 stories building was not hit by plane, it collapsed without resistance in less than 7 seconds, after six years the official explanation of its collapse is still pending.

Reference: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation

Feel free to improve the wording, many thanks. 89.172.46.9314:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. --Golbez10:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The source supports the current wording and it is less vague than the proposal which implies that there may be a cause unrelated to the collapse of buildings 1 2 whcih is not supported. . --Tbeatty14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the source doesn’t support the current wording. The source is all about "'working hypothesis"' and "'ongoing investigation"'. We had a discussion above, there were no takers, feel free to add your comment there, again, "'working hypothesis in an ongoing investigation is not acceptable and cannot be presented as proof."' There is no official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 and we cannot invent one, it's against our guidelines it is disturbingly POV, to say the least. 89.172.46.9314:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you're a new user, so you may not be aware of this but we've gone over this topic many times. Reliable sources, experts working in their field in and out of official positions and neutral third party sources all around the world indicate that WTC7 collapsed from damage resulting from the attacks. None of these sources display any doubt about this...don't mistake due diligence for doubt on their part, thanks. There are other articles that discribe conspiracy theories, perhaps you could examaine those for possible improvements... Rx StrangeLove RxS 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but you'll need to provide reference for your claim, a single official source will suffice… I'm not interested in conspiracy theories… there is no official explanation for collapse of WTC 7. None. That sentence is false, especially so with regards to provided reference, so what is that? It is nonsense, isn’t it? You provide a reference and then you misrepresent its meaning? Why?! 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding Time|2|

Please see this "exact same" discussion in the last archive section. --Haemo00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To User:89.172.46.93, perhaps your edit should be revised to "although not impacted by an airplane, WTC fell after sustaining heavy damage from thousands of tons of structural steel beams dropped directly on the building from hundreds of feet above from the collapse of the north WTC tower along with several hours of fire damage fueled by thousands of gallons of heating oil stored in the basement. Emergency workers at the scene reported significant damage to the SW corner and predicated as early as 4:00pm that the building would collapse." 206.169.172.21220:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

@ user 206.169.172.212; perhaps so, if you can find the reference… elsewhere, it's already done anyway… this article in its current form, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report will become historically insignificant… best wishes… 78.0.94.6822:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Two goals for this article

Ok, how much energy has been used here basically saying: "You're wrong, we're right"? It doesn't lead us anywhere, does it?

I want to focus on two goals for this article/subject:

A disambigued/main page

I want a disambigued/main-page that says: "The mainstrea/majority-view of this event can be found here.." and "Another view(s) can be found here.."

This article/discussion has proved beyond doubt that it is very hard to include any other points of view into the existing article. Thus, it can't function as a first-page for the subject.

That is very much not going to happen. That would be completely "'equal"' weight. --Golbez17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an "alternative view article"...and those claims , as stupid as they are, are examined at 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO21:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

POVFORK. In a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A neutral language.

I want a more neutral/objective language in this article. From "This-is-The-One-and-Only-Truth" to "Acording to the mainstream version it is so and so..".

This is the wikipedian way of dealing with issues where there are conflicting/different views. Geir Solerød Geir 11:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So would we insert that line before every sentence, or just once a paragraph or so? --Golbez18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not for every sentence. But especially in the beginning and yes, maybe once a paragraph. Geir Solerød Geir 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the official version so it is difficult to make it nuetral. I would suggest however inserting somewhere that 71% of Americans (latest poll) do not support the official version of events as the page currently gives the impression it is a majority viewpoint of the public rather than only a majority viewpoint of investigators. WLRoss Wayne 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the "official version" -- this is the version which is supported by reliable sources and experts on the subject. And Golbez was "joking" above mdash; your suggestion makes an utter mockery of undue weight guidelines. Again, and 60% of Americans don't believe evolution occurs. Should we stick that in the lead of the article? Or perhaps just every paragraph or so? --Haemo06:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

3 --Golbez06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

As far as I can see, two main themes keep recurring on this talk page:

1. Use of pejorative language such as 'terrorist', even with referencing, in the narrative voice

2. Presentation of the official account of events that day in the narrative voice

The debates keep going nowhere, and I believe it is mostly because of a group of entrenched editors who refuse to listen to arguments that run contrary to their own views - and have even stated so themselves: "I don't care about your argument anymore. It's wrong, and I'll fight till I'm banned against it." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=152021104oldid=152020962

These editors dismiss anyone opposed to their vision for this article as "Fringe" without really having anything to back it up: "All other explanations are fringe theories with very little support." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=143227376oldid=143226739. They have also suggested that those disagreeing with them be restricted in their capacity to edit the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=151680682oldid=151679995

Does anyone have any suggestion for mediating this disagreement? This article can't develop if anyone opposed to its current slant is shouted down by people who have said they refuse to listen to counterargument and have dismissed all other opinions as 'fringe'? How is the rest of the community supposed to work with them? Damburger22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's "'true"' that the other explanations are fringe theories, although truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What's important is that the other explanations are "perceived" as fringe theories, even by those who hold them. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not:

A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

36% of the population is not fringe. That is a higher percentage than the number of people who voted for Tony Blair in the last UK General electionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_general_electionElection_results, yet support for Blair is not considered a 'Fringe' opinion.

I am not the first to debunk the ridiculous 'fringe' assertion, but it keeps returning as if it were not debunked. This is one of the many things making debate and modification here next to impossible. Damburger23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For every poll you pull that says that, I can pull a poll that says that the majority of people believe that "'Terrorists"' were solely responcible for 9/11. Polls are highly unreliable because a simple change in wording to the question can make the outcome biased to one side or the other. The fact remains that dispite arguing till you are blue in the face, editors like Haemo and MONGO have easly disected your points. Yore refusal to accapt that "'terrorist"' is not only allowed here, but correct, proves that you are an entrenched editor. How is Wikipedia supposed to deal with "'you"'? --Tarage00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has 'disected' my points. Nobody has really addressed them. If you think you can prove there is something wrong with the poll I just pointed, please provide evidence of this assertion. I always cite my evidence, you never do. Damburger09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And a majority of the American population does not believe in evolution. That doesn't make creationism anything other than a fringe theory, whose assertions should not be used to compromise the veracity of the article. The point is, you keep bringing up a narrow reading of a manual of style directive, and then start claiming it trumps neutral point of view; specific, undue weight. Other editors have repeatedly explained to you not only why your interpretation of the manual of style is incorrect, and absurdly narrow, but also why the current version is accepted. You don't seem interested in listening to anyone else, or reading the numerous archived discussions where this has been discussed before mdash; instead, you claim everyone else isn't listening to you, and repeat the same arguments over and over again, all of which verge on Wikilaywering. This doesn't bode well for any dispute resolution. --Haemo00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I DID NOT claim that MOS trumps NPOV - I patiently explained to you that NPOV is consisted with MOS. Your UNDUE weight intepretation has no basis in fact, and you've not done anything to back it up. You CONSTANTLY misrepresent my argument in order to attack it. Stop it. Damburger09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"allowed the attacks to be carried out" is already consistent with the article. The problem is the dishonest attempt, without new evidence, to turn possibility of negligence into certainty of treason. Peter Grey01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If a significant number of people doubt the official account, why should that not be mentioned? Damburger09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think x Damburger has a good point. It's not constructive to have a bag of labels to throw out which have the effect of stifling the continuation of discussion. The terms "fringe" or "conspiracy" and even "theory" are used all too often and often without regard for their real meanings. They act as strawman arguments and I think the related body of work suffers as a result. It's not an intentional thing (to close down discussion by use of these terms) but has become almost epidemic throughout pseudo-intellectual circles as well as here on Wikipedia. To address Damburger's question about how to mediate this discussion, I propose that we all remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith and in addition try to refrain from using dismissive labels when discussing suggested content. Mr.grantevans202:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have guidelines which clearly contextualize the use of such a term as "fringe". These very useful duck guidelines also apply. --Haemo03:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Show me EXACTLY where in FRINGE it says that 36% of the population can be ignored. Its not 3.6% of 0.36%, its 36%. Your undue weight argument holds no water.

But as I said above, that won't stop you completely ignoring the fact I've torn it apart, and continue repeating it verbatim. Thats the problem here, for which I think I need outside help. Damburger09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you totally missed the point there. Creationism is a fringe theory, and it has "60%" support in the public. You don't see 60% of the evolution argument devoted to it, in the interests of "due weight". Wikipedia is not the court of popular opinion. --Haemo09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a poor analogy. Evolution is a scientific theory. The idea that the US government did or did not have foreknowledge of the attacks, or did or did not plan them, isn't. Its intellectually dishonest (as usual) of you to bring that up again. Damburger09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The analogy, in my mind, is that evolution is about a "fact"'; the method through which it is "carried out" is a scientific theory. When we talk about facts, we don't subscribe to the kind of pollsterism which totally ignores reliable sources, due weight and qualified experts. The fact that a whole bunch of people believe something doesn't make their views anything other than bunkum. Did we mention that that more that 26% of young Americans believe that the moon landings were probably a hoax? Is that a close enough analogy for you? How about that 60% of African Americans believe that drugs are a government plot? How about the 30% of Americans who think AIDS was cooked up in a government lab? How about the 27% of Americans who think a cure for cancer exists, but is being suppressed? How about the 6% of Americans mdash; millions of people mdash; who don't believe in the moon landings? --Haemo09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because you can debunk moon landing conspiracies. Science can comment on the origins of HIV. Science can't comment on the motivation of people who fly planes into buildings, or who ordered them to do it. This is a dispute about whether or not a group of people are guilty of something or not. It can't be compared to a scientific theory. Yes, people can qualify as experts regarding the physical reality of how the towers came down. But where are the experts on the inner workings of the Bush administration? You are intentionally trying to blur the line between scientific observation and world events, in order to preserve the POV of this article.

In any case, what have you to say about the use of the word 'terrorism'? I see that you have completely ignored it, under the amusing delusion you've a stronger case on the conspiracy theory angle. Damburger09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said it all before, but you choose not to listen. So here it is, very clearly:

Terrorism is a technical term for a form of asymmetrical warfare. There are many different definitions of terrorism, and numerous experts on the subject who discuss it.

Terrorism, because of what it entails, is also misapplied by some people as a pejorative.

Because of this pejorative use, it is important to ensure that it is not used lightly, and to substantiate who says it mdash; the guideline here is TERRORIST.

However, with respect to this event, apparently "every single" qualified expert, on every one of the 109 definitions, calls this terrorism. Literally tens of thousands of reliable sources call this terrorism.

In light of this fact, it is readily apparent that the people who dispute that this was terrorism constitute a very, very minor opinion mdash; especially when we look at people who are qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject.

Thus, compromising this article, especially the lead, and in light of the fact that we have a separate subpage specifically about responsibility , consitutes a "massive" violation of neutral point of view mdash; specifically undue weight.

However, this isn't anything you haven't heard before. --Haemo09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've listened, digested, and torn apart everything you have said. You have ignored this and continued repeating your arguments as if they still stand.

The idea that there are '109' definitions of terrorism is for a start very, very silly. Who decides whats a valid definition of terrorism?

But the main part, the part you skip over in order to make this pathetic argument look half reasonable, is that all definitions of terrorism are applied selectively by their definers: Part of the US definition goes "(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" which could quite logically be applied to the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki.

Furthermore, wikipedia doesn't seem to think the Guildford pub bombings was a 'terrorist' act, so apparantly the rules in TERRORIST and NPOV do apply when its not Americans getting killed. Damburger10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to edit the Guildford pub bombings. If there are reliable sources that state it's a terrorist attack then discuss it on that article. There are other articles that use the word terrorist in WP since reliable sources call the events in the article terrorist attacks.

The poll you mention of the 36% is discussing responsibility - not the events of the day which is what this article focuses on. Here is the question (the second linked question) asked in that survey and the survey answers http://www.newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=714.

The most important issue here is it's not what we think, not what we believe and not what we want in the article. We are here to write an article based on reliable sources. --PTR13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I said the 36% was discussing. I'm not subscribing to any particular alternative theory (probably a better name, seeing as all theories about the culprits of the attacks are conspiracy theories by definition) just pointing out that they are out there, and are not as 'fringe' as the entrenched editors here would have you believe.

But the question does not ask if the respondents believed that terrorists flew planes into the Trade Centers. It asks if they believed the U.S. Government was somehow involved ("assisted in or took no action"). Since it's a combination question and since a lot of people believe the government should have been more aware and done more to stop the attacks there is no way of knowing if the respondents support conspiracy theories. --PTR15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the Guildford pub bombings, I mentioned those to demonstrate how wikipedia policy is being put into practice elsewhere, as a guide to how it should be put into practice here. Whats wrong with that? Damburger15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, other articles do use the terms terrorism and terrorist since the subject of those articles is widely regarded by the reliable sources as terrorism. It is dependent upon the sources. --PTR15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it looks to me as if x Haemo is using strawman arguments,perhaps unintentionally. I still say the discussion should concentrate on how to produce the best NPOV article rather than trying to justify sticking with a non-NPOV article. The 1st. paragraph as it now stands could just as well have been written by Karl Rove. Mr.grantevans212:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

About x Haemo's argument about the use of the term "terrosism": he is completely ignoring the fact that TERRORIST explicitly says that the use of this word "'"should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article""': you can eventually write "X say Y is a terrorist" and cite the source. So it makes no sense to discuss about the many meanings of the word given the fact that we have a so clear rule to apply.--Pokipsy7616:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But you left out the rest of the story on that link...it clearly states, ""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.""...and indeed there are exhaustive sources that definitely are reliable and authoritative that claim that the acts of 9/11 were acts of terrorism.--MONGO16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are not referenced in the "X says Y" format specified. This is the problem - the use of the narrative voice. I have no problem with "Most world governments say 9/11 was terrorism", I have a problem with "9/11 was terrorism" on its own. Damburger17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand you are trying to go by the letter of TERRORIST but "should be avoided" does not mean "must be avoided". The word terrorist in the lead sentence has a reference immediately behind it linking to the UN declaration that it was terrorism. That should satisify the "X says Y" since the reference is set right behind the word. That prevents having a lead sentence that says, "most world goverments, people, newspapers, telecasts, magazines, the UN etc say 9/11 was a terrorist attack" with 65 references behind it. --PTR18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished by using the word? At the least it is inflammatory and can appear to portray bias. This article should be written with the same lack of inflammatory language as the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 if this encyclopedia is to appear to be unbiased. So the question is:"Why use such language in an encyclopedia"? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? Not in my opinion. Mr.grantevans218:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If it "should be avoided" so let's avoid it, what's the problem? To follow the rules is surely the best way we to resolve a dispute, isn't it?--Pokipsy7618:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TERRORIST is a guideline, and is optional, especially when it conflicts with policy. NPOVUndue weight is policy. "terrorist" is overwhelmingly used by a diverse range of reliable sources to describe 9/11. To not use that word, we would be violating NPOVUndue weight policy. --Aude18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that you can't use the word, TERRORIST just say you can't use it in the "unqualified narrative voice of the article".You can say "terrorist according to...." and you would still be giving the "due weight" to the POV: thete is not a conflict.--Pokipsy7619:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of the 5000 available references would be good enough...and need it be used each and everytime the words terrorism or terrorists are used?--MONGO19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you are intelligent enought to find a rational way to respect the guidelines without filling the article with 5000 references and to use the word just when it is really needed.--Pokipsy7619:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TERRORIST, which is a guideline not a policy, doesn't say it can't be used in the narrative voice just that it "should be avoided". In this case it's not avoidable due to the overwhelming number of sources that would need to be put in as "X". --PTR19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But nobody is forcing you to put *all* the references that use the word "terrorist", I'm sure you are able to choose just the ones that are relevant in the specific context where you are using the word.--Pokipsy7619:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be all of them, in this case....at least the UN, all official government statements, a number of representative press statements (including at least one from each country), etc. We're talking at least one hundred. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see any problem if we follow the guideline: you can choose any source that is relevant in the specific context where you use it.--Pokipsy7620:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is "'no"' (reliable) source that says otherwise. If we are not to used the unadorned word terrorist, then we must list a representative sampling, including the UN, all countries, all major newspapers and wire services, and a number of self-described terrorists. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We already do mdash; we link to the UN saying they're terrorist attacks; which includes an "academic consensus" of all the relevant experts. To list only "one or two" is a blatant misrepresentation of the situation here, and constitutes an egregious violation of undue weight mdash; it's akin to saying "The Washington Post says that Hitler died in 1945", because the "sheer" number of sources who say he died in 1945, as opposed to the fringe minority who said he didn't, means we should choose just one who says 1945 to meet manual of style guidelines. This attempt to apply semantic relativism to his article, because someone, somewhere, might disagree with all the experts and not label this terrorism is ridiculous. No matter how you twist and turn, words have meaning, and experts on what those words refer to can label events using them. In this case, they "unaminously" label these terrorist attacks. The fact that people can misapply the word "terrorism", or misunderstand what it means, and not think these are terrorist attacks shouldn't change how we, as an encyclopedia deal with it. --Haemo20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a false choice. We could simply not apply any label to the attackers; we can just tell the story of what they did. Mr.grantevans223:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But you just called them "attackers"...exactly how are we to refer to them? Shall we call them "those guys" or "freedom fighters" or "people who have a beef with the U.S."?--MONGO20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Like it or not, part of the narrative here is the fact that a unanimity of experts believes this is terrorism. We do a great disservice to our to neglect this fact mdash; especially given that "what is terrorism" is a question which "requires" expert views. It's not "is this person a bad man" or something, which people can decide using their gut. Too many people feel that saying "this was a terrorist attack" is the same as saying "Hitler was a bad man" mdash; when it's not even remotely similar. --Haemo23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope; it just deflects attention from the event itself and is completely unnecessary to the article's story. It reminds me of the adage that comedians use more and more profanity and superlatives when they're having trouble holding an audience's attention. This event is the story; name calling rhetoric just takes away from the power of the story. What is the term we use for our forces when they invade and drop bombs on a country? Liberators? Invaders? No; we use no judgmental labels at all and nor should we here. Mr.grantevans201:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the word "terrorism" name-calling, or "un-necessary" to an event which in unanimously called a "terrorist attack" by reliable sources, and qualified experts? Again, you seem to believe that "terrorism" is a form of name-calling, when it is anything but. The article isn't calling them "bad guys" or something. --Haemo01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Describing something as 'terrorist' cant be anything other than name calling, because term is inconsistently defined and its definitions inconsistently applied - as I explained above. But you've ignored that and carried on with the same argument like I never refuted it. Through this wilful ignorance of opposing arguments you can justify any edits you want to yourself. Damburger07:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll address here all the objections expressed above:

1) "The point is that there is no (reliable) source that says they are not terrorists"

This really is not a point. The point is that the word "terorism" used in a narrative way is not enciclopedic as you can read in the guidelines.

2) "It's akin to saying "The Washington Post says that Hitler died in 1945", because the sheer number of sources who say he died in 1945, as opposed to the fringe minority who said he didn't, means we should choose just one who says 1945 to meet manual of style guidelines".

In fact there is no guideline implying what you are saying about Hitler. If there were such guidelines we should follow them or try to change them. Actually the guidelines say there is a problem only for some problematic words like "terrorist". If you don't agree with the guidelines about it try to show your arguments in the appropriate places.

3) "Words have meaning, and experts on what those words refer to can label events using them"

Who do you think are these "qualified experts" about labeling people as terrorist? What kind of expertise did they achieve? You are still missing the point: even if today the entire world was willing to label the attack as "terrorist" the word still has a "systemic bias" problem and therefore the guideline says it shouldn't be used *in a narrative way*, and this really can't be a problem for the article.

--Pokipsy7608:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't say it's not encyclopedic. The guideline says it should be avoided. This should not be interpreted as "can't use". We also satifisy the X says Y by placing a ref immediately after the first use of the word. There are other articles in WP that use terrorist and terrorism in the narrative voice when it is universally accepted (i.e. the vast majority of reliable sources say) that the event or group the article refers to is terrorism or terrorist. --PTR14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that placing a ref after is equivalent to the format 'X says Y'? In my mind it certainly isn't. As for these other articles - I am guessing any article you can find where the word terrorist is used in such an unqualified way describes an attack on the US or possibly Israel. As I've pointed out, terrorist attacks against other nations tend to be described objectively according to the rules and guidelines. Damburger16:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a ref immediately after the word, therefore, the ref refers to the word itself and directs you to look at the information in the ref.

The phrase "is was a terrosist attack" and "it was labelled as terrorist by..." have a really different meaning even if followed by the refs.--Pokipsy7610:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_diplomatic_assassinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec

--PTR17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are wrong as well then. This article has received more attention because its more high profile. All our arguments apply there as well as here. Damburger19:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From GUIDE "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Why are we still arguing about this? There is obviously no consensus for your changes. If you can't respect that then I'd suggest RFC as the next step. Otherwise, you have a whole list of pages just above that use it in the same context. I'm sure you're not trying to advance any specific 9/11, CT or anti-U.S. POV but your assertion about how terrorist attacks against other nations are treated is clearly mistaken. Rx StrangeLove RxS 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have ALREADY gone through RFC without any luck. My 'assertion' that terrorist attacks against other nations is no such thing - its a FACT which I backed up with EVIDENCE. On both points you seem to have ignored the history of this discussion. Damburger22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should tell you something when the Request for Comment does not support your actions. --Haemo22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous when proponents of the "terrorist" word usage ignore the obvious arguments against it. The question is:"Why use such language in an encyclopedia"? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? If it is so important to use such characterizations, then why do Wikipedia articles about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan not describe western forces as invaders? I doubt that anyone would say the term doesn't apply. To be more exact; we don't use those terms because they are not meaningful and portray bias.Mr.grantevans218:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I agree: if a problem arise applying the guideline we can consider the opportunity to make an exception, but in our case there is really no problem and no need do bypass the guidelines!!--Pokipsy7610:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Obvious arguments" do not translate into good arguments, or arguments that everyone agrees with. --Haemo00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

s/everyone/anyone/ ? mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding theme 1 "Use of... 'terrorist"' 'Terrorist', in context, is not pejorative or inaccurate, but perhaps it would be more constructive to find a more precise but equally succinct description of attacks that might better capture the unconventional quality of Al Qaeda operations. Peter Grey10:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"'YES !"' now there's a suggestion/compromise that makes sense to me. Mr.grantevans212:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not a bad suggestion. But what kind of terminology should we use? We can't invent a terminology thats not in use already, as that would constitute OR. We should start from what we know about the nature of the attack; it was part of a declared war (al qaeda had previous to this declared war on the US) but declared by a stateless entity. It was a surprise attack. If the hijackers were members of a conventional military they might be described as special forces. A word that springs to mind for me is Asymmetric.

Regarding conspiracy theories; I think the physical description of the attacks has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Theories involving missiles and drones and missing passengers and such are overly complicated in any case, and beg the question of why the Evil Government Agency didn't just recruit 19 guys to do the job exactly as the official story said they did - that would be the simplest way. We should just avoid ascribing culpability in sections that talk about the physical nature of the attacks. Damburger14:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What about just"al-Queda"? Mr.grantevans212:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What about calling them what they bloody are, "'terrorists"'. Honestly... I don't think I'm ever going to understand the amount of effort you people are putting into this. All over a single word that the majority of us thing is perfectly fine. I can't turn on news program without someone mentioning the word. Once again, I refuse to accept this 'dumbing down' of the article, and I "'will"' fight it till my last breath. And I know I'm not alone. --Tarage22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to arrive at a consensus. By your reasoning one could say about references to our forces in Iraq: "What about calling them what they bloody are, "'invaders"'." Please just have a look at 2003 invasion of Iraq; is that article dumbed down because it doesn't use adjectives like "invaders" or "liberators" to describe our troops? It's natural to be emotional,biased and patriotic about wars, but this is an encyclopedia wherein the articles should be void of all 3, at least I think so. Mr.grantevans202:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"our troops"? Wikipedia doesn't have any troops. Plus, invaders or liberators are terms with objective military meanings, but that's an issue for the corresponding article. Peter Grey15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of the word 'terrorism' seem to have run out of relevant arguments, being reduced to Tarages attitude of 'I've not got a leg to stand on, but I will fight to the death for my POV'. Can we finally remove the word now? Damburger13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove it. As I said above: I understand you are trying to go by the letter of TERRORIST but "should be avoided" does not mean "must be avoided". The word terrorist in the lead sentence has a reference immediately behind it linking to the UN declaration that it was terrorism. That should satisify the "X says Y" since the reference is set right behind the word. That prevents having a lead sentence that says, "most world goverments, people, newspapers, telecasts, magazines, the UN etc say 9/11 was a terrorist attack" with 65 references behind it. --PTR13:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't need the word and shouldn't include a controversial word which it doesn't need. Why is it that the onus in this discussion seems to be on those who feel the word does not belong? I'd like to know why the people who want it think it is so important to the story that it should not be avoided "should be avoided"? Mr.grantevans214:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it a controversial word? News outlets all over the world use it regularly, governments all over the world, journalists, historians and NGO's all use the word regularly. Just because you (and a small group of CT'ers) think it's controversial doesn't make it so. I think you're projecting. Rx StrangeLove RxS 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether we state it as "most world goverments, people, newspapers, telecasts, magazines, the UN etc say 9/11 was a terrorist attack" with 65 references behind it or use it with a reference immediately behind it linking to the UN declaration that it was terrorism, the word will still be there since that is what all the reliable sources call the attacks. --PTR14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

TERRORIST says "should be avoided": please tell me why it is necessary and should not be avoided in this instance. Mr.grantevans219:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

TERRORIST is a guideline not a policy and even in the guideline it does not say that the word is not to be used it only gives a guideline for its use. --PTR19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when has 'its just a guideline' been in of itself a reason not to follow that guideline? What would be the point of making guidelines if you could simply dismiss them by virtue of the fact they are guidelines? What actual reason is there to disregard this guideline, other than that you want to? Damburger20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the WP itself says the guidelines "should be followed in Wikipedia articles. However, they are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense; they do have occasional exceptions. Ignore any of them rather than being clumsy, inaccurate, or unclear." Using a narrow interpretation of the X says Y format would be clumsy, inaccurate and unclear. --PTR21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You've done nothing but state your unsubstantiated opinion. WHY is it clumsy, inaccurate and unclear to follow this guideline? You've yet to come up with a single compelling reason. In fact, you've yet to come up with any reason at all. Damburger21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm still waiting for an answer. "TERRORIST says "should be avoided": please tell me why it is necessary and should not be avoided in this instance." If the "terrorist" word promoters have an answer, let's hear it; please. Mr.grantevans200:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Damburger, Because we would have to put "most world governments, news reports, magazine articles, television broadcasts, the UN, the Security Council, Al-Jazeera etc called the 9/11 attacks terrorism." with about 1000 refs behind it. That would be clumsy, inaccurate (because we'd be sure to miss some) and unclear. --PTR00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. grantevens2, again because the guideline says "should be" not "must be" it is up to the editors on the page to come to a conclusion that including all the refs in an X says Y format would be clumsy, inaccurate and unclear. It doesn't say not to use the word. WP is by consensus. There is consensus to leave the word in rather than try to rewrite the article to make it 10 times bigger by adding all the refs everytime the word terrorism is used. This was a terrorist act because all the reliable sources we have say it's a terrorist act. We cannot come up with a new word on our own. WP only includes what has been written. --PTR00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But (read my lips:) I am not saying to put refs in for the word; I'm saying leave the word out altogether and then,in fact,the article will be smaller. Mr.grantevans203:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And I(read my lips:) are saying that the word is important to the article, and taking it out would be ignorant because of the numerous orginizations and experts who agree that these were, in fact, terrorist attacks. --Tarage06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean Mr.grantevens2. Leave the word "terrorist" out altogether? Not even the guideline says to simply leave the word out. We have to refer to it in some way because all the reliable sources available for reference use it. --PTR14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The guideline says to avoid the word. In what way are we avoiding it in the article? Mr.grantevans218:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. Please read the guideline again. Also keep in mind it is not a wikipedia policy. I'm not sure there is any answer I can give you that doesn't keep going around in circles. The guideline says the words terrorist and terrorism "should be avoided", it's not a mandate. It also says to use it in the X says Y format if it is used. It also says to use common sense. Keeping to a narrow interpretation of X says Y would have too many Xs for the Y. Using the ref right behind the word to the list of those saying it's terrorism satisfies the X says Y. Not using the term terrorism would not be reflecting what the reliable sources say. I think I'll let someone else chime in here since you seem to need an answer I don't have since I'm not sure what you want. --PTR19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Its just a guideline' angle is getting old. You still need a reason, other than it being a guideline, for disregarding it. It clearly states we should avoid using the word 'terrorist' in this manner, and you don't seem to have provided any real reason for its inclusion. Damburger20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this:

NPOV says that where controversy exists, we should present each notable position neutrally and without undue weight. There are numerous reliable sources that use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" to describe the attackers or the attack, respectively. I am not aware of "any" reliable sources that say the attack was "not" a terrorist attack. Therefore our verifiability policy prohibits us from stating that it was, for example, an accident, an act of war, or a government-sponsored black operation. NPOV seems to leave us no option but to describe this act as terrorism.

NPOV is non-negotiable, and nothing trumps NPOV.cquote | Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." "This" is why other editors are emphasising the "just a guideline" aspect of TERRORIST.

SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again it's a false choice to say we must choose between saying it was a "terrorist" attack or not. Here is the way Britannica deals with it; "series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States. The attacks caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism."http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9394915/September-11-attacks. Now although they use the word "terrorism" to describe the response,they avoid, whether intentional or not, name-calling the attackers or the attack as "terrorist". But, much like x PTR, I'm starting to feel I just can not get across the point that I am trying to convey. Ironically, I also feel NPOV should be the final consideration and calling 1 bunch of invading militants "terrorists" and not another bunch(e.g. the 180,000 western hired mercenaries in Iraq)seems to me to be blatant Orwellian application of a NPOV principle. I suppose some of us will simply not be able to understand the contrary argument to our own. Mr.grantevans200:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I suppose some of us will simply not be able to understand the contrary argument to our own." This is why I say this whole thing is pointless. I don't feel any of your arguments are valid reasons to change this article, and you think they are. Unfortionatly for you, the majority agree with me, so it would appear that in this statemate, majority rules. So can we drop this now? --Tarage03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are in a majority, I just think you are loud. This is why I asked for suggestions for resolving the dispute - because a small number of very vocal editors are entrenched here determined to push their version of the article at all costs (you have explicitly stated this before). This can only harm the article. Damburger07:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead "'must"' state terrorist, there being no other (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr.grantevans2 makes an excellent point about the false dichotomoy fallacy underlying this (and many other) disagreements regarding this article. It's rather absurd not to label a airplane hijacking as anything besides terrorism - piracy would probably be the only other term even close - particularly based on the mere personal distaste of a few editors to the terminology. The flaw with the word "terrorism" is not neutrality, but that it over-simplifies. There's a rather good argument to be made that the hijackers couldn't have cared less about terrorizing anyone but were engaged in simple retribution for the US collaboration with oppressive governments such as Saudi Arabia, though Al Qaeda as a whole endeavoured to alter, via violence, US policy in Saudi Arabia (and was successful since US troops were withdrawn in 2003). Peter Grey08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica also says (in the same article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9394915/September-11-attacks) "At 8:46 AM (local time) the terrorists piloted the first plane, which had originated from Boston, into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City." and "Some 2,750 people were killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 in Pennsylvania; all 19 terrorists died." In another article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9384739/September-11 "The devastating aerial attacks by terrorists in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, caused untold chaos and horror and initiated a flood of events that affected all aspects of life in all corners of the world." I would also rather use terrorist than Islamic extremists. --PTR14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the lead in though; and in any case, Wikipedia guidelines take a higher priority than the example set by Britannica. Wikipedias policies and guidelines are all we should worry about.

Don't try and quote NPOV at me either, that supports removing the word 'terrorism' as well, something I've demonstrated several times in this talk page and you've chosen to ignore.

Its also asinine to suggest that terrorist 'must' be mentioned in the narrative voice to avoid having thousands of references to it. This pathetic argument could be made about practically every adjective out there. You do not have to include every single source that uses the word. Damburger20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has gone far enough, there's obviously not going to be a consensus on this. The discussion is just going round and round. Sometimes you just don't get your way...I'd suggest working on other articles for a while...there's plenty of POV issues around Wikipedia that could use some attention other then this page and the term in question. If you want to take this further you can always open an RFC. But it's important to remember that the person that's willing to argue the longest doesn't get his way by default...rope-a-dope doesn't work. You think you're right about this, others think they are right...you're not going to be able to sway them at this point so my suggestion is to move on, at least for now. Or open an RFC.

Does anyoe mind if I close this section? Rx StrangeLove RxS 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. I opened this section to try and find a way to resolve the conflict, but it hasn't worked. I've aready gone down the RfC route and it hasn't help. The ones who 'argue longest' are the entrenched editors here desperate to keep the word 'terrorist' and thus preserve their POV. They beleive if they simply keep restating their arguments like I haven't refuted them a thousand times, they will 'win'. They have said this explicitly.

I have been the one trying to be reasonable. I have been the one trying to seek mediation, for example by requesting help at WTA. Some people have come as a result to dicuss this, but Tarage and his band are still determined, as they have stated, so simply revert anything that displeases them.

I agree this section getting large, but I won't shut up and go away just because people like Tarage are (by their own admission) being stubborn. Damburger21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's not the only one who disagrees with you, not by a long shot. I know you think you're being reasonable, but I'm not sure if it is reasonable for anyone to continually to argue against consensus long after consensus has been shown...right or wrong. And it appears that you're just as entrenched (and stubborn) as anyone else here. At some point people are just going to stop answering your assertions, and they may rightfully feel that your ignoring their refutations and that you have a POV just as you accuse them of having one. There's no satisfying everyone here. Can you post a link to the RFC on this subject you said you opened? Thanks. Rx StrangeLove RxS 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have second, almost word for word what RxS has just stated. As a test measure, what references can you, Damburger provide which calls the acts of 9/11 something other than acts of terrorism? I would be willing to guarantee you that for every reference you find, I can find 10 that do call it terrorism. So undue weight applies here...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOVUndue_weight undue weight, a critical component of our neutral point of view policy.--MONGO22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have explained REPEATEDLY, that IT DOES NOT MATTER how many references there are - the issue is about wikipedia policy NOT HOW MANY PEOPLE DESCRIBE THE ATTACKS AS TERRORIST. This is the problem. They ignore my arguments in order to avoid having to answer them, because they can't. Those that have tried have been clutching at straws using ridiculous intepretations of UNDUE whilst ignoring the plainly stated guidelines in TERRORIST and NPOV about letting the facts speak for themselves.

They are not interested in arriving at a consensus. They are interested in pushing their POV on this article. Damburger07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

TERRORIST states...""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"."...so are you suggesting we attribute every single time the word is used in this article? That seems really redundant...but that would avoid the "narrative voice" issue....the facts are that the preponderance of this term is so prevalent in sources, etc. when discussing this event, that to call it something else would be POV, not vice versa.--MONGO15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as knowledgeable about some of the protocol but I do recall the vast majority of reliable sources stating that Saddam had WMDs in 2002. In fact, now we are told often that "The whole world thought Saddam had WMDs". Are you saying that Wikipedia would have been hogtied by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOVUndue_weight undue weight into stating within articles at the time of the invasion that "Iraq has WMDs"? I think this is a matter where common sense should prevail and unless someone wants to just parrot US government terminology , as do most references, then I don't think it makes sense to be calling the hijackers "terrorists" and I'll rely upon x Peter Grey's suggestion as just one of many possible alternative motivations of the hijackers. Remember, the term "terrorist" implies knowledge of the actors' motive which I certainly don't have and I doubt the so-called references have either. The bottom line is the term "terrorist" is speculative, presumptive of other people's mental processes and non-encyclopedic, I think. Mr.grantevans200:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article as on "Pre-9/11 views of Saddam Hussein's weapons program", then yes, the article would probably contain a phrase like "nearly all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs". And I think calling it "mind-reading" when we have experts who specialize in knowing exactly what Al-Qaeda's intentions, actions and motivations were mdash; and are further qualified to opine on whether or not the definition of terrorism applies to their actions is patently absurd. It's not a big question mark or something, given that thousands of people have spent their careers studying this. We might as well call anyone giving Mussolini's reasons for invading Ethopia "speculative" and "non-encyclopedic" by the same token. --Haemo00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree to that "nearly all intelligence agencies believe the 9/11 attack was an act of terrorism". Mr.grantevans212:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "all people and agencies which have stated an opinion believe the 9/11 attack was an act of terrorism"? Seems accurate. "Nearly" is a (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that is an incorrect statement (and I challenge you to prove otherwise!) - best to just not use the word terrorist at all, as per guidelines. Damburger13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an incorrect statement, but it's difficult to source. However, "nearly all" is just wrong, as it implies there is an intelligence agency which does not believe the 9/11 attack was an act of terrorism. We would need a source for that, just as we would need a source for there being a person who knows what "terrorism" is, knows about the 9/11 attack, and does not believe the latter is an example of the former. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can only prove it by citing every single intelligence agency on the planet. You haven't done that. We don't need a source not to include a pejorative term, any more than we need a source to not include the word 'wankers' Damburger14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you "'do"' need a source not to include "the" generally accepted term, and it's not pejorative in this context. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What if 'wankers' was the commonly accepted term? It doesn't matter how many sources you can produce. We have the rules on our side. Give up already Damburger15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an "extremely" common usage in this context, that's how "billions" of people refer to it. And in any case it's not pejorative in the sense that calling someone wanker is. To insist on calling it something else is as POV as you claim it's inclusion is. You seem to be very concerned about policy guidelines, I'd recommend taking a look at consensus, Battle and GAME. This issue has been settled to the best extent Wikipedia consensus and discussion can settle anything. This has become a time waster for good editors who should be doing something else. Try further down the page at DR, but this section has got to be wrapped up. You know, you're not doing yourself any favors here. If you ride an issue too long, too hard against consensus, people won't listen to you next time you want to make a change somewhere. Anyway, let's give this poor talk page a break and close this section. Rx StrangeLove RxS 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to bring up (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm being accused of gaming the system by actually asked people to obey guidelines AND policy: I have explained time and time again how NPOV isupports/i my argument because of the princple of 'let the facts speak for themselves'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOVLet_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. I won't simply sit down and shut up because I'm told to. My arguments in this matter are bulletproof, which is why everyone has refused to address them, and tries their best to ignore them.

Trying to make wikipedia objective is not wasting anybodys time, or acting in bad faith. It is what editors are supposed to do. It is what I'm trying to do here, despite enourmous resistance from people with a clear agenda contrary to the aims of wikipedia. Damburger15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"contrary to the aims of wikipedia"? "clear agenda"? I'll accept an apology anytime (now is good). Rx StrangeLove RxS 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You accused me of gaming the system just a moment ago. I didn't get an apology for that, did I? My skin isn't that thin. Are you are as blind to your own incivility as you are to your own POV? Damburger15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I only asked you to review some guidelines, which apparently you took as an insult. If that offended you than you have my apologies. You have no idea what my POV is and you shouldn't assume it. We've answered your arguments, they are far from bulletproof but you can keep thinking that. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, we all get to have our own viewpoints but in the end if you can't sway consensus to your point of view then it's all moot. You haven't been able to do that so I consider this closed for now. I'm putting you on ignore (and I ask others to do the same) so we can end this topic. If you'd like to take it to DR then we can go from there. But for now I think we've said all that can usefully be said about this. Rx StrangeLove RxS 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The self-proclaimed majority (which I do not believe is a true majority, simply a very vocal minority) refuses to listen to any line of reasoning that might contradict their worldview, and have explicitly stated as much (See Tarages comments). So how am I supposed to sway them, when they have said in advance they will not be swayed, ever, from their platform? By your 'logic', it would be thus impossible to change anything in any wikipedia article that had a handful of stubborn editors camping on it.

You won't read this as you've ignored me, it seems, for calling you on your hypocrisy. I started this section to try and find a resolution to the dispute after the RfC failed to do anything but rehash the old debate (which was barely even a debate, as my points are consistently ignored and the other side have stated they will never concede anything they say as being wrong). The same thing has happened here. So, I will let this section die, but I will be opening another one - until we get this sorted. Damburger16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "terrorists" is a grossly prejudicial,silly and sophmoric slur along the lines of "crusaders". That's what I think. Just because adversarial Government leaders use these terms with reckless abandon doesn't mean an encyclopedia must. Mr.grantevans223:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Deutsche Bank

I searched but I don't think the damage to this building, its dismantling, or the two further (I would say) 9/11-related deaths that occurred there recently are in the article. Should we at least have some mention of it? --Golbez18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the damage section - September_11%2C_2001_attacksDamage. The deaths are not, but they are mentioned in the Deutsche Bank Building article. I'm not sure about when deconstruction will be complete, but the LMDC website still says September 2007. http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/130Liberty/default.asp I'm skeptical about that, but we need to find a more up-to-date source for that. --Aude18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality?

I would first like to say that the following is not a personal attack - merely an observation. I have read through most of the talk page notes on this article and I do understand the policy on verifiability. But in my opinion, I feel the question of true impartiality must be brought up - especially after viewing the comments of Tarage. Seemingly, Tarage seems so passionate about going against governmental findings and mainstream theories, that his/her rebuttals against possible conspiracy discourse may actually keep future generations from coming to this site and getting the broad scope of what may have actually happened. I feel comments like "Because the conspiricy theories are all without substantial sources." show that Tarage believes the only credible source for information on September 11th is the government.

It's great to be a great American (if Tarage is an American, I can't say for sure), but to toss out comments by other posters simply because their comments didn't come from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX news, violates Wikipedia's own policy on neutrality. Comments like "Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way...you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened." seems to denote that Tarage cannot even fathom the possibility that our government could have possibly done something that contradicts the "documentation". If the Nixon administration could cover up their actions against John Lennon back in the 70's or of course, Watergate, then could it not be possible that some of these "so-called" conspiracy theories may have some truth to them?

Example. In one of your earliest notes, you stated on the subject of opinion polls:

"Public oppinion polls can be quite flawed. For example, the way you phrase a question can change the answer people give. I'd have to know exactially what questions were asked, as well as the motive of the poll."

But, on another Wikipedia article, we could take a look at the approval rating polls of our current president. President Bush had an approval rating of 92 percent back in October 2001 (according to ABC). In July of 2007, his approval rating, according to ARG, was 25 percent. Now, would we exclude the ARG poll information simply because ARG may not be as recognizable to the general public as say ABC would be?

So, under conspiracy theories section, the comment "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.", despite article "verification", could be deemed as a statement of opinion, rather than a reflection of neutrality. My questions to Tarage would be:

1. What do you deem a credible source? Does this have to be a reasonably recognizable impartial news organization?

2. Do you believe that the news organizations of this country are, in fact, impartial?

3. If a news report (surfaced on any of these news sources) stated information that called into question or completely and undoubtedly refuted the information that is currently in your September 11th wiki article, would you post that information in depth upon it being posted to Wikipedia or would you allow your our personal feelings on the subject to prevent you from doing so?

Again, this is not a personal attack. I'm just merely trying to understand why it seems that you, Tarage, are trying to keep information off the article, when it is obvious that numerous people have brought up stronger points for not just a quick inclusion in the article of the fact conspiracy theories on 9/11 exist, but these points make a good case for there to be a broader discussion in this article about some of the points brought up by these theories. I understand that their is a seperate article for the theories, but I must agree with some of the previous posters - this article is far from neutral. —Preceding ) 03:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented that "any" (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All fine and good, but if you look at Tarage's previous remarks on the subject (on this talk page), does it not seem that the whole "Reliable Sources" policy is more subjective and based on opinion than anything else? You have some people who don't believe that news sources such as CNN or Fox News are actually reporting on the actual news or perhaps that they twist the news based on their political leanings or monetary persuasions. This is the same opinions people would have for those news mediums that feel their may be merit to the conspiracy theories. Doesn't this make the "Reliable Sources" policy seem somewhat one-sided? Both sides of the argument could claim that evidence can be seen for their points of view. Why just placate to one particular point of view? —Preceding ) 19:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it perfectly clear that the oppinions expressed by myself are "'NOT"' the oppinions of some of the better authors here. The only posts I take responcibilty for are my own, and likewise they should only be applied to me, not the "Pro Terrorist Use" group as a whole. Editors such as Haemo and MONGO are "'far"' more eloquent than I am. The purpose of my posts are to voice my oppinion and mine alone. Once again, please do NOT apply my ignorance of editing to them. To do so is a cheap and pathetic tactic. --Tarage22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, while my arguments may have as many holes as swiss cheese, I trust that editors like Arthur_Rubin can take my nonsensical-ish arguments and back them up. Again, my oppinions and arguments are my own. Don't apply them to anyone else but me. --Tarage23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the reliable sources guidelines. Reliability is not the same as what we colloquially would refer to it as, and there are clearly delineated guidelines for when a source is reliable. The key principles are (1) editorial oversight and (2) a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. --Haemo01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kct2002us, please note that the essence of wikipedia's no personal attacks guideline is that editors should comment on content, and not on the contributor. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I know I'm being pedantic but shouldn't the article be named "September 11, 2001, attacks" (with a comma between "2001" and "attacks")? I believe that's more grammatically correct. Or was there some reason the comma is missing? -- "'Tariqabjotu tariqabjotu"' 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is in the archives several times. Since the English Wikipedia covers several dialects and stylistic rules, there is no single perfect solution. The current name seems about equally objectional to everyone. Peter Grey18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not pedantic. And, yes, you are correct. There should be two commas setting off the parenthetical year in the American English form of "September 11, 2001, attacks." Nevertheless, it's not worth fixing the title because the rest of Wikipedia reflects the same punctuation error. Due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia autoformatting, in many instances, American English dates cannot be viewed with correct punctuation without screwing up the dates for users who chose to view autoformatted dates in the British form (i.e., "11 September 2001 attacks"). See this discussion for an explanation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29Proposed_clarification_regarding_comma_usage_in_American_dates. The consensus in the Manual of Style talk pages was that it is better to have "hanging" years (such as "September 11, 2001 attacks") in the American form than to have an out-of-place comma (such as "11 September 2001, attacks") in the British form. If the ubiquity of this punctuation error bothers you (as it does me), I suggest you change your viewing preferences to the day-month-year format. That won't help with the title of this article (which is clearly wrong but ultimately not worth fighting over) but it will alleviate the problem when reading most other articles. Lowell3315:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity (continued from 'Resolving Disputes')

That section is getting a little big, but that still doesn't invalidate the dispute:

The word 'terrorist' is recommended against in TERRORIST. Its explicitly cited as a word to avoid using in the narrative voice.

The word 'terrorist' is not to be used, according to the principle of 'let the facts speak for themselves' in NPOV

The word 'terrorist' has not appeared in the narrative voice in articles about attacks against non-americans, such as Guildford pub bombings. This shows the use of the word is a clear example of BIAS.

These arguments have not been refuted. Those who want to keep the word in have simply maintained that they will revert edits regardless of what anyone else says.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=152021104oldid=152020962 I have been the subject of accusationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=154611782oldid=154608050 of acting in bad faith, and then been told to apologise to the same author moments later for turning these accusations back against himhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=154615614oldid=154614011. For pointing out his hypocrisy, he put me on ignore.

This level of debate is not healthy. Can someone actually address the points above? Otherwise, simply concede that use of the word is not objective, and is contrary to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Damburger16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 3 - as pointed out to you above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_diplomatic_assassinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec

If you read through all the discussions above without an agenda in mind, you'll find the answers to your points one and two as well. --PTR17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To address Damburger's points in order...

TERRORIST is a red herring. It is only a Manual of Style "guideline", and NPOV is a wikipedia "policy". To understand the difference between guidelines and policy, try violating both and see which one gets you banned ( do not actually try this).

Other editors interpret NPOV very differently to Damburger. The sentence "let the facts speak for themselves" is section 3.3; by way of comparison, the sentence "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." is section 1.0.

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good basis for argument.

It seems to me that a correct interpretation of NPOV is the "'only"' issue before us. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've misread my third point. I'm simply using other parts of Wikipedia to highlight the bias that exists in this article. Damburger20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the next step is a guideline RfC to confirm whether (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A RfC to clear it up isn't a bad suggestion, although its clearly wrong that there is a contradiction between TERRORIST and NPOV. As I read it, they work together perfectly. Damburger20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its worst to say the word "terrorist" must be applied in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Mr.grantevans223:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not; at the heart of doublespeak is the notion of semantic relativity, where the meaning of words can be distorted to support a political agenda, or to distort reality. Calling these anything but terrorism is doing exactly this. --Haemo00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One entirely inarguable fact is that there has long ceased to be any new points raised on this talk page with respect to this question. Some say "terrorism" is the correct vocabulary and no other word suitably describes the event, some say the term is inflamatory either inherently or because of its use in bad faith by politicians. I would suggest that it is time other dispute resolution mechanisms were pursued. Peter Grey05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we done yet? Or is Damburger's temper tantrum going to be allowed to continue till it fills up another page? --Tarage05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CIVILITY please. Anyway, I've asked for editors as NPOV and WTA to come and comment here. Apparantly, according to you, that constitutes a 'temper tantrum' because I won't simply give up and let you get your way. Damburger09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say calling in everyone you can to try to argue a losing point is a temper tantrum. No... I'd actually say you are boardline trolling. --Tarage03:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete page

I was just looking at all of the inventors who don't deserve a wikipedia page because of a lack of mainstream confirmation of their invention. I had to learn to respect the way wikipedia works right there. This makes me think the amount of pseudo science on this page should make it more then worthy of deletion, Wikipedia should not function as a platform to advertise a minority opinion as scientific fact. The page doesn't mention doubt about the subject, everything written goes without proper scientific evidence. Who brought Osama bin Laden into this story? I really want to hear how he relates to this before reading "he did it!!" in the wiki. Don't you actually have to prove some one did something? Lets agree to disagree and delete the page. There are so much lies on it it's broken beyond repair.(Gaby de wilde17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

SOFIXIT --Haemo17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See POINT. Peter Grey05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute? You talk about me and call me an idiot AND move my article but you don't reply to me? This is just rude trolling IMHO.

At least state your opinion?(Gaby de wilde19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

I think Gaby's initial post contains its own answer: the word "mainstream". Fringe science and pseudoscience may be routinely deleted because of a lack of mainstream acceptance. Attribution of this attack to Osama bin Laden is "not" deleted because it "has" mainstream acceptance. To answer Gaby's second rhetorical question: No, we do not have to prove anyone did anything. We simply have to find reliable sources who say that they did, and present such information neutrally. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post 40,000 word rants about the "subject" of the article; discuss the article, not the subject. --Haemo21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article assumes a consensus that does not exist. It makes no reference to other points of view such as science! It represents everything what propaganda stands for. You are right of course when you say you do have to find reliable sources. The claim this is not a highly controversial topic is easy to disprove. My claim remains: This is a "'subject of extreme controversy"', such discussion has no place in wikipedia. And stop deleting everything I write here will you? (Gaby de wilde21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

You do understand that Wikipedia has thousands of articles about highly controversial topics? That's not a sufficient reason for deletion.Persian Poet Gal ¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you make posts in keeping with TALK, they will not be deleted, and "vice versa". SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The page covers a notable topic and therefore deserves inclusion in the project. it certainly wasnt wikipeduia who brought Osama into this and indeed all material should be referenced, SqueakBox21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No it was this

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

" Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States."

But no reference to the actual video is made on this page. So the page is just a reference in it self. It does not contain any content.

The locked page uses words like TERRORIST and has an extremely PROPAGANDA like nature. It tries to force a consensus upon the reader that doesn't exist.

The official story is a conspiracy theory.

The global scientific consensus is that the buildings got blown up.

Kerosene doesn't get hot enough to create pre-collapse explosions in the basement. Or is a pre-collapse victim in a hospital bed not a credible source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure"

-Mark Loizeaux, president, Controlled Demolition Inc.

So that means EXPLOSIONS not COLLAPSE. And what about the thermite? They may have tried to ship all evidence to china the 5000 megawatt afterglow is something you will have to explain for before you quote a news article as a scientific fact.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

The official story is nonsense. This everyone knows already. But feel free to explain "'why didn't jets intercept the airliners"' since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks. Why were there "'no photos or videos of the Pentagon"' plane? Why did the private footage need to be confiscated. Where the reported to be found flight recorders are. How Bush could see the first plane crash on live camera. You may explain why the official story is so full of such non scientific nonsense. And most of all we need some explanation of why the official story needs to be supported by removing evidence.

I think those are honest questions. How can there be 10 000 videos on google video all claiming controlled demolition. While some artificial consensus is enforced here?

Please don't just delete my arguments again.

(Gaby de wilde22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Gaby please stop using this talk page to prove whether or not September 11th was real or not. This is an article talk page not a discussion forum.Persian Poet Gal ¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But ok, lets try "discuss the article".

Why not have A paragrhap about the evidence getting shiped off sight? Be honest?

"Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.126 "'These theories are not accepted as credible"' by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda."

I find the the official story to be one heap of nonsense. The sincere questions about the hiding of practically all evidence should be mentioned here. The thousands of questions about the topic should not merely be generalised as conspiracy nuttery in one single paragraph. They should all have their own Q and A. If anything should be labeled as conspiracy theory it should be the official story.

I find spontaneous pancake dustification of skyscrapers pseudo-scientific nonsense of the highest order.

Then the story wants 3 of those caused by 2 aluminum jets? Almost all the kerosene burns off on impact but there is enough left to melt steel? This while it doesn't actually get anywhere near the temperature in the real world of science. The impact of a jet is no where near the pressure the wind creates. People who worked in the building for years got blown up in the basement. How much more pseudo-scientific does it get I wonder? Explosions + not enough impact + not enough jet fuel + it didn't get hot enough = controlled demolition

no? please explain your answer. The article should contain the cop-out excuses commonly used by the mainstream media in order to get away from the facts. Not the other way around, you cant quote up an article out of chunks of clear nonsense and rationalise it by saying it was written in the bible of mainstream media. The truth is not the property of news agencies to make of what they like.

I'm not putting this up for debate, it is my opinion the story should go as it's not based on scientific facts.

(Gaby de wilde23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

The paragraph that Gaby quoted is a SUMMARY of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If "that paragraph" is not a fair summary of that article, then it should be discussed here.

If, on the other hand, there is a problem with "that article" - perhaps it does not fairly document the various conspiracy theories or their recpetion - then Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories is the place to discuss that, not here.

We still have important issues to cover here, such as how to resolve the question that got this page protected. SheffieldSteel Sheffieldnbsp;Steeltalkersstalkers 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the posters above have no intention to ever create a decent page about this topic, they have been unable to up to this point. The page is locked while it uses slander and propaganda of the highest order.

Take this:

"That morning nineteen terrorists3 affiliated with al-Qaeda4 hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."

REFERENCE 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html

"No one claimed responsibility for the attacks, but federal officials said they suspect the involvement of Islamic extremists with links to fugitive terrorist Osama bin Laden, who has been implicated in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and several other attacks. "

In other words: This news article does not confirm the claim in any way.

REFERRENCE 4

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

"Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States."

this article still does not prove anything, it is a reference to a reference, the actual video is not supplied. The video is also a known hoax. So a reference to a reference to a video. Hardly a reason to start screaming TERROR TERROR!!! The sources supplied do not incriminate anyone.

Osama can say what ever he likes, he doesn't have the power to stand down the US air-force. He didn't ship the gold out of those banks, he didn't lease the WTC 30 days before the event and earn billions in insurance fees like Silverstein co did.

Osama most certainly didn't blow up building 7. He didn't place the pre collapse explosives. Because he simply doesn't have the power to do so. Ow, wait you still have to come up with evidence he was actually invoved?

The whole page is 100% propaganda.

It starts off like this!!

"The September 11, 2001 attacks consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist2 suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.."

What terrorists?

what suicide attacks?

What Islamic extremists?

What ARE YOU CRAZY PEOPLE?? HUH??

You cant refer to a religion as being extremist and terrorists. You cant even make the link with the religion evident. This is just SLANDER. Specially when you don't make it evident but just pull this kind of statements out of the blue sky.

Is it still an encyclopedia if I refer to OPEC as a Catholic extremist terrorist cell? Extorting global oil supplies? TERROR TERROR!!

Does it sound flavored or objective to you?

This is why the page should be deleted. People refer to this wiki as a reference to what really happened. And the page stacks lies upon lies upon lies. It's disgusting, lets delete it?

Let them take their war of terror some place else. "'The intention is to scare people into worshiping their government."' We shall have non of that here. I'm not a religious man but I know for sure this is not the place for you to call Muslims terrorist extremists using Donald duck references.

I'm not putting this up for debate either. The Ali Baba and the 50 virgin terrorists hoax story can-not be backed up with evidence. The scientific method demands looking at all the data supplied, not just small chunks that support your war agenda.

All pseudoscience must go, specially the social engineering kind.

(Gaby de wilde19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Ignoring rant which mostly lies"nothing that meets Wikipedia standards for something which should be considered, whether or not true", and the pseudoreferences ""quotes"" are not the current state of any Wikipedia article. What needs to be deleted is any of Gaby's contributions related to the rant. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) "Edited to strike my (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but pretty much agrees with above) The fourth reference is known as a secondary source, which is the kind of sources that wikipedia tries to cite. We take as little as possible from primary sources, and instead use secondary sources, verifiable secondary sources in fact. Google video is not a secondary source, nor is it a verifiable source, so any evidence gleaned from people's postings there is not permissible as evidence. Unless you can find any verifiable evidence that supports your reasoning, I'm gonna call on Occam's razor and say that the more simple explanation that fits the facts is true. Please stop trolling this page unless you have cold, hard, verifiable facts that support your thesis, as any further rants will be removed as trolling. Thank you. Gscshoyru19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cease requiring primary sources ;it serves no purpose, and it is directly contrary to our reliable sources guidelines here. In addition, gigantic rants about the subject of the article have no place on this page. To be quite frank, this talk page is not here to air what your opinions about this or that are. We all have our own opinions of the events, but this "is not a place to discuss them". Discuss the "article" not the "subject of the article". --Haemo00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Although he's obviously ranting and might need to be treated accordingly,I don't think x Gaby de wilde is trolling(there is a difference,I think) and I don't like sarcastic references to any type of disabilities ""I must provide a phone number to a local mental hospital"" which I think is the worst type of trolling. In my opinion, the mainstream theory is the most conspiratorial and incredible of all that I've heard but I'd never say people who accept it are mentally ill; that would be an outrageously mean-spirited, censoring and juvenile thing to say. Mr.grantevans214:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone making references to peoples sanity should be removed. The article is not about your or my sanity. Keep up the good work Damburger. I have seen no strange temper no nasty remarks but I do read people accusing you of such while ignoring the development of the actual article. (Gaby de wilde15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Why the fuss?

As a neutral editor who has not had anything to do with this particular article at any time, I believe it is time to have a (relatively) neutral editor have their say.

In response to claims that the word 'terrorist' is extreme and should not be used on this page, I put forward that many people, from the Dalai Lama to President Bush to former Prime Minister Blair have referred to the hijackers as such. This word has been bandied about so much that it has entered into public use, not only in America but in other countries as well. It is our duty as editors to record this. Whether or not all editors agree with this usage, it is the mainstream usage and should be used in the article, even if a note is added to point out alternative words to 'terrorist.'

In response to claims that the hijackers should not be referred to as 'Islamic extremists,' I sympathize, I really do. I understand that such a reference can hurt the reputation of the entire religion. However, it is an accepted fact, supported by what evidence is available, that these men were motivated by their devotion to "an extremist sect of Islam." This does not mean that all Muslims are extremists, nor does it mean that the extremists are even accepted by mainstream Muslims. My advice would be to keep references to the men as Islamic extremists as non-accusatory as possible, but to leave them where they are. Since that is how the hijackers are viewed by the majority of people, those references have a place in this article.

In response to personal attacks, as well as flame and edit wars, taking place on this article, I offer a piece of advice- leave it. If you really feel that something is wrong and should be corrected, "and you have the references to prove it," then come to the talk page and discuss it. If such an edit can be added as an alternative viewpoint alongside the mainstream one, then by all means. But on no account should any alternative viewpoint completely replace the mainstream viewpoint. The ideal here is to have both viewpoints existing side-by-side on the same article, without conflict over which one is 'the right one.' Wikipedia is for facts, not for opinions of the individual.

Please think over my advice for awhile, and try to put the ridiculous edit wars here in light of how an editor should do his or her business- with others, peacefully and with teamwork. This kind of foolishness benefits none, and hurts the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia as a whole.

Sageofwisdom

19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen, amen, amen. Note that I've been discussing these same points on here, and like you I have rarely (if ever) edited this article. All your points here are dead-on. Timneu2221:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here -- it's good to have an outside voice. --Haemo00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why all the fuss? Because some people can't accept that they don't get their way. Can we un-protect and move on, and treat all removal of 'terrorist' as trolling yet? --Tarage05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much time is being spent on minor points that have no hope of being changed. The article is largely factual but we need to concentrate on the errors that are easily disputed. For example, the fake videos are treated as reliable sources. Osama is given undue weight even though the FBI has amitted they have no evidence he was involved. The identities of the hijackers are treated as their real identities despite the FBI admitting that most used stolen passports and dont know their real names. al Qaeda is directly blamed even though the source used says they are only suspected. These points all have reliable sources refuting the current claims so these are the errors that need work not the half page on semantics we have now. WLRoss Wayne 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if Bush, Blair and the Dalai Lama call them terrorist attacks. Its against wikipedia guidelines AND policy for that word to be used in the narrative voice. There is no need to suggest an alternative word - because the article functions perfectly well simply not using the word. Damburger09:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might: before the discussion regarding whether or not the people involved in the attacks of 2001 were "terrorists", or even before the argument on whether it is possible to use the phrase in accordance with Wikipedia policies, there is something on which I daresay sould agree:

The presence of the phrase causes reccurrent argument on this talk page

The use of the phrase is not necessary: after reading the description of the attacks and who qualified them to be "terrorism", readers are capable of making their own mind without the article having to endorse any specific term (and this is assuming the highly unlikely situation of someone who would come on this article with no previous knowledge of the dewscribed events).

Hence, I think that there are very good practical reasons to avoid the term, and none to endorse it. Rama11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple comments here; resposes to above:

Didn't Osama state that the attacks were his?

Are you then going to rewrite all the other articles that use "terrorist"? Here are two intros from other articles which are far less notable terrorist incidents:

* The July 7, 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts...

* The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on ...

I argue to x Damburger that Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong or being abused for this article. This was a terrorist event mdash; innocent people who were non-military targets died. This was a terrorist event. Timneu2212:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia rules are wrong, there is a very obvious conclusion to which you should come as to your contributing to it.

The matter is not to discuss whether or not the attacks were terrorist acts; this is both obvious and irrelevant. The question is whether we, as Wikipedia editors, should endorse the point. Just like it is obvious that Hitler was evil, but beating the point over and over in his biography is not necessarily a good idea (Godwin point intended). Rama12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My statement about Wikipedia's rules was about "this" particular rule (TERRORIST), which was obvious in context. How can someone say, as you just did, that "it's obvious" these were terrorist attacks but the point shouldn't be endorsed? Further, I can see that the people making claims on this page are certainly biased: x Damburger's contributions suggest that he is a biased user. I'm looking for neutral users (like myself) who haven't been editing these types of articles. Timneu2212:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's obvious that Hitler was an evil man, yet we don't keep pressing the point over and over in the article. It'd be childish. Rama14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to the points of x Rama and RRR_User:Damburger_RRR Damburger. Regarding RRR_User:Timneu22_RRR Timneu22's comment regarding his opinion of "suggest"ed bias, that is a direction we shouldn't go in, it seems to me, as we are supposed to assume good faith + anyone can accuse anyone else of being biased; extremely counterproductive comment by RRR_User:Timneu22_RRR Timneu22 as I hope he might realize. Mr.grantevans214:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One can assume good faith and one can also research the edits of others. If those edits reveal that another editor isn't editing in good faith, then it's time to have an opinion. Which I now do. Timneu2216:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to x Timneu22 "Didn't Osama state that the attacks were his?"1. In the September 16, 2001 Osama video tape he denied responsibility.2. In the December 9, 2001 video tape he admitted responsibility but this tape was proven to be a fake.3. The December 27, 2001 tape doesn't say anything and is thought to have been made before the attacks.4. The September 9, 2002 audio tape is still claimed by the administration to be genuine but the experts who examined it say they are 95% sure it is fake.5. In the October 29, 2004 video tape (two days before the US elections) Osama admitted responsibility. There is no consensus as to it's reliability but the mainstream media speculate it is possibly a fake.6. In the 23 May 2006 audio tape Osama said he was the only one involved and that Moussaoui was innocent. Being an audio tape there is no way to determine who is talking.If you contact the FBI they will tell you that there is no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. WLRoss Wayne 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I still say that for ) 2|

I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. I'll see if I can find some such source(s). Mr.grantevans221:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It "'is"' hard to find a reliable source for the negative. Perhaps it's always harder to prove a negative:)?. Here are some ones that are connected with films and books. I haven't read the books or watched the videos "loose change" "inside job" at the links so I don't know how reliable they are. The one about 9/11 being psyops and the other one about it being a majic trick are kindof interesting,I think, but reliable sources? I guess not.http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9MyvEi4s_U8J:www.cinemablend.com/celebrity/Controversy-Charlie-43.html+9/11+%22not+a+terrorist+attack%22hl=enct=clnkcd=48gl=ca,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fHz3__LosQEJ:forums.interestingnonetheless.net/display.php%3Ftid%3D24531+9/11+%22not+a+terrorist+attack%22hl=enct=clnkcd=37gl=ca

,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:wxORUKG06fMJ:www.mujca.com/apocalypse.htm+9/11+%22not+a+terrorist+attack%22hl=enct=clnkcd=39gl=ca,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sfJvYalA4UgJ:blogs.themonitor.com/index.cfm%3FcatID%3D629+9/11+%22not+a+terrorist+attack%22hl=enct=clnkcd=18gl=ca,http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_911.htmTrick,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uBt_u8nz1lkJ:www.nybooks.com/articles/17315+9/11+%22not+a+terrorist+attack%22hl=enct=clnkcd=4gl=ca,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:g7cBZnl-W2gJ:www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/lineInPgrass.html+9/11+%22not+a+terrorist+attack%22hl=enct=clnkcd=14gl=ca

Mr.grantevans2

14:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. Has anyone considered keeping the attack itself as a terrorist attack (almost universally accepted fact) while "'not"' calling the hijackers themselves terrorists?. WLRoss Wayne 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'd go along with that as a compromise. The fewer "T"'s the better, as far as I'm concerned. Mr.grantevans213:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I object, on the fact that you are calling an apple an orange. --Tarage06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They were undeniably hijackers who made a terrorist attack. Calling the hijackers terrorists is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy (TERRORISM) and is no different than WP's example of not calling the KKK racist ("Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint"). We know it but need to avoid it. WLRoss Wayne 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why avoid calling an apple an apple? —Preceding ) 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside view on &quot;terrorist&quot;

(In response to a request for help on WT:NPOV)

The principle that "terrorist" is a non-neutral word when used in Wikipedia's voice has been well-established in Wikipedia for a long time. It should not drag on this long here.

Neutrality does not merely mean "what reliable sources say". It is not necessarily a neutral description, if the US, UK, Dictionary, or ones grandmother, calls (or doesn't call) a certain group "terrorists". That is important to understand. This is Wikipedia, it is a neutral encyclopedia, and it has its own communal consensus and standards. These apply, and not standards and views which may arise outside it.

In terms of "Words to avoid" (WTA), the emphasis is that a term which conveys a view of agreement with one "side" of some matter, should where practical be replaced by a term that does not favor the views of either side. We look for words that charactize and do not label, if there is contention. "Militant", "Bomber", "Hijacker" and "Activist" are characterizations. The word "Terrorist", by long standing communal view, is not.

(We can notionally test this. Both sides would probably agree that Al Qaeda members are "activists", and both sides would agree they are militant - as opposed to pacifist. Both sides would agree the various aircraft were hijacked, and both would agree that other acts by Al Qaeda included "bombers". But only one side is evidenced as calling the perpetrators "Terrorists". Why? Because it is a "non-neutral term".)

Outside in everyday life, one can use terms as one wishes. On Wikipedia, neutrality comes first, and the definition of neutrality here is not "what the dictionary says" sometimes. It's what people would feel if we as a project added our authority to a word use. If Wikipedia labels a group as "Terrorist", it adds that we view it that way. Individual editors may do so privately -- but the project as a whole, which editors represent when writing articles -- does "'not"'.

A good and precise article is possible and practical, without adding our own coloration to the description of facts.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"'This is wrong."' How do the words "hijacker" or "bomber" characterize someone? If I go down to the 7-11 and plant a bomb, am I not a bomber? Of course. If I hijack a plane, I'm a hijacker. This is not a characterization. It's a description. The people who hijacked the 9/11 planes are hijackers. They also killed innocent civilians, which also makes them murderers. The problem here is that one side thinks a group of people is being labelled "terrorists", when what is trying to be accomplished is to classify "only those who participated in the events" as terrorists. How can that be wrong? Timneu2216:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this has gone on for a bit, but I'd just thought I'd add: In all of this, hasn't TERRORIST been misinterpreted? Isn't it the use of the "noun" "terrorist" that is legislated against, rather than the "adjective"? The adjective "terrorist" can be applied to any act or ploy aimed at against a civilian population to induce terror; and thus a "terrorist act"can be carried out by almost any organisation, whether it be a government, group of freedom fighters or terrorists. The US tactics abroad have at times been ""'terrorist"'", although obviously they are not terrorist"'s"'; and the contras, regrdless of whether you consider them freedom fighters or not, their actions were aimed to induce terror and so were "terrorist". Wireless9916:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - you actually pick a good example there (possibly unintended). Yes, they were murderers, we can all agree on this, both by law and by dictionary. But a more neutral term "for Wikipedia use" is "killers" ... because it lacks the emotive level of that word. (In fact we dopn't even have to use that word, we simply list how many people died, and how their deaths happened, it is sufficient to state those facts alone.) In the same vein, is part of the reason why "terrorists" is a poor and less neutral choice of word than alternatives, "for Wikipedia". FT2 (Talk | email) 17:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I also agree with x Wireless99. Why has no one commented on my question: if you remove "terrorist" from this article, what about all these, and others? Timneu2218:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - In general on Wikipedia the argument "what about those there" is not given great weight. For example on articles for deletion, precedent from other similar debates (even on "almost identical" subjects) is actually listed as an "argument to avoid" ( email) 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - My answer to you speaking from a position of no authority but much reflection is that these other incidents are not as temporally and emotionally to the front for people right now. I would submit that in a small but significant way that the dispute on this talk page mirrors the wider debate about cause and effect in these troubled times. I would suggest as an ardent fan of Wikipedia, a site that for me defines all that is good about the internet that it is Wikipedia's best interest to be, dare I say, religiously neutral on this topic. People are defining this event event as the "day the world changed" and all that hokum. Let us show that Wikipedia can rise above current geo-politics. Remove the word "terrorist" from the title of this article and from within it. Let the reader decide how to interpret the facts. If that is not possible and I would be very troubled if it were not, at least make it clear within the article that certain terms within the article are controversial. Lastly (if I may) I believe that we should not accommodate the conspiracy theorists as their claims are based on an intrinsic mistrust of the government/system, bad science and they jump to conclusions - none of which is fact-based. See here for a sound http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia08272007.html debunking.

As stated earlier, the people who hijacked the planes were hijackers; these are the same people who executed this terrorist event, making them terrorists. A murderer is one who murdered, and a singer is one who sings. A terrorist is one who commits terrorism. It's that easy. This has NOTHING to do with neutrality. Timneu2223:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it has a lot to do with neutrality. Terrorism is not a "non-neutral" word, as FT2 asserts; in fact, if you read the guideline, the consensus is that is is a "pejorative". That is, it is a term with negative connotations. The reason for it being pejorative is obvious mdash; terrorism, regardless of which of the 109 definitions of terrorism generally involves causing fear or anxiety by attacking targets which are not the main target of the action. Most people think this is a "bad thing", and so attach negative connotations to the word "terrorism". The same is true for any other word, like "pirate" or "thief". These words have negative connotations.

The point which is made in the guidelines is that what constitutes "terrorism" can be a debatable subject. The guideline does "not" urge us to remove the word, but rather to tell us "who says it". That is, to show which "side" is labeling the other terrorists. In this case, the side is "everyone". Every reliable source, every expert, even supporters of Al Qaeda and the events on 9/11 accept that these were terrorist acts. The concept that there are even two "sides" to this is not clear mdash; apparently, the "Al Qaeda's actions were not terrorism" side is so small that we cannot find reliable sources to modify the statement as the guidelines suggest. This runs us flat into the neutral point of view guidelines mdash; specifically, undue weight, which strongly favours calling the actions terrorism.

In fact, guidelines even suggest not to remove the word, but instead to "source who says it". In this case, the list runs to thousands of reliable sources. I mean, we could say "universally regarded as terrorism", but that would just case a bigger firestorm; after all, is that neutral?

I mean, the underlying principle behind the "don't use the word" argument is semantic relativity; that a word like terrorism is so subjective that it is like saying "bad man" or "bad person". That's nonsense. It has a very precise academic meaning, and has whole fields of experts studying who and what it applies to. They call 9/11 terrorism. Every expert qualified to weigh in on the subject of what is, or is not, terrorism agrees that this was terrorism, regardless of which definition they use. That's the reason we have a list of terrorist attacks mdash; because we, as a "reference encyclopedia" believe that words have some "meaning" which people schooled in their use can then apply to label reality. What a blind and legalistic reading of the manual of style urges us to do is forget all that and engage in facilitating this relativism when it's clearly contrary to the heart of the guidelines. --Haemo00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which side you're arguing. If it's "universally regarded as terrorism", then isn't that how it should be portrayed? Timneu2201:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Part correct, Haemo, and part less so. The majority of what you say is accurate. "Most reliable sources call them terrorists, and to not state that they are described as such by most countries would be improper. The question is purely whether "Wikipedia", in "Wikipedias voice" should do so, and on that score the view is its not good practice, for the reasons given. Not least of which is, as you say it's often heard as a pejorative. Citing is easy - a list of "for examples" in the footnote.

Your point beyond that though, needs correcting. The fact that a term is academically correct, like a term which is dictionary correct, does not mean it is popularly neutral. For other examples of possible pejoratives and judgementals with precise academic and dictionary meanings, see words such as "myth" and "cult", that are also considered email) 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point to my post above, was to argue that it is consistent with TERRORIST to describe the 9/11 attacks as "terrorist" or the "hijackers" as using "terrorist tactics" without actually calling them "terrorists"; for that, I submit, depends on your perspective and can be left to the reader. We can perhaps make this clearer in the article in order to maintain NPOV, maybe find some academic/jounalist sources for the description of al queda's tactics (or something along those lines) and the definiton of terrorism etc. Does it seriously follow that if you are using terrorist tactics (which have both a strict political science and dictionary definiton) that you are a terrorist? No. The US government has used terrorist tactics many times in its history, yet the majority of Americans, presented with this fact, would not call those who carried out the attacks "terrorists". Those who consider certain political groups that use terrorist tactics to be 'freedom fighters' would not call their groups "terrorists". It clearly depends on your ideological perspective. However, this does not stop the actions or tactics from being what they were. Wireless9909:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But the word 'terrorism' does not have a strict definition - as its been mentioned by others there are hundreds of definitions. A word that everyone has a different take on is going to cause problems in whatever context it is used.

However, this isn't really the place for that debate - the place for that debate is TERRORIST. The point here is to discuss how to adhere to policies and guidelines, not whether or not they are correct. Damburger13:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that they are not "correct", I am suggesting that they have - mostly - been "misinterpreted" in the current debate up until now. And as it is in application that the policies are interpreted, so it is here that the debate must take place. And as has been reiterated a thousand times, I may define "terrorism" as my left leg if I so wish, this does not give it any authority or justify this definiton to be taken note of by anyone else who speaks the language, or wishes to know about the reality of the subject. For this we refer to "experts" in the form of "inter alia" the relevant scientific community. And if (as a responsible encyclopaedia we should)we do, then we do have a strict definiton for terrorist acts and tactics. Wireless9913:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If your view on the word 'terrorism' were correct, the guideline would never be applied, and thus wouldn't exist. So logically, your view cannot be correct. Damburger14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you been reading what I have been writing? Obviously not. It is describing people as "terrorists"(noun), "extremists" and "freedom fighters" (also nouns) which is guarded against by the policy as they carry ideological overtones outside the scope of a Wikipedia NPOV article. More objective language should be found. However, describing acts or tactics as terrorist can be done without - I argue - any consequences for wikipedia NPOV. That the policy would never apply I cannot understand, for under my interpretation of it it would still play a vital role in keeping the hijackers from actually being called terrorists in the article. Wireless9914:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does TERRORIST make that distinction? It does not. Damburger14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It never once uses "terrorist" as an adjective, and always talks of labelling your enemies as "terrorist" groups etc etc. Its not that difficult. God you're hard work. Wireless9914:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be merely an academic point, but of the "hundreds of defintions" of terrorism out there, I personally don't know of any that "'wouldn't"' define these attacks as terrorist. The different definitions quibble over things like civilian v. non-combatant victims and whether intent is required, but all that I'm aware of would consider flying civilian airliners into civilian buildings and knocking them down to be a terrorist act. This might be more of an arguement for the ) 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps our vantage point is wrong?

Wireless99's challenge of the word's application got me thinking about this.

Perhaps we are tangled up in the hood ornament when we should be looking at the engine to see if the hood ornament is on the right car? Perhaps our "reliable sources" have, as a consequence of their usual lazy way, been driving around a Ford with a Mercedes hood ornament? To be clear, perhaps some of the sources which have been using the term "terrorists" say right in their articles that the intention of the terrorists is something other than to instill fear; something like retribution or to destroy an American icon for example.

Several contributors are saying;

terrorism/terrorist activity "involves an intent to cause fear"

We may be looking at it from the standpoint of which reliable sources use the term terrorist. Perhaps we "'should"' be looking for reliable sources which address the intent of the attack? It seems to me that the intention to cause fear is an integral part of the term and we may well find that there is not a broad universal agreement among reliable sources as to the hijackers' intent; in which case that would allow us to design wording which meets all of our guidelines. I realize my point is a bit esoteric but I also believe that if we find/think there is a conflict between the generally accepted usage of the word to describe the attack and the generally accepted intentions of the hijackers that the latter would trump because it (intent)is the essence of the former. Mr.grantevans201:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your point is a little subtle, but the UN's labeling as "terrorism" specifically addresses the intent of the actions, because they have adopted the "academic consensus" definition, which speaks to intent. --Haemo02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How can the UN reliably speculate on what was going through the minds of terrorists, whose minds were vapourised 6 years ago? Damburger20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, I accept that; here's the rub: nowhere within this article's subtopic of "motive" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacksMotive are we suggesting the intent of the attack was to cause fear. Instead we quite properly use reliable sourcing to reflect other motives. I am saying that the "motive" section of this very article precludes the use of the word "terrorist". Am I getting this point across or is it confusing? Mr.grantevans214:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not confusing, your contention is quite clear, and it represents a tiny fringe viewpoint that has some esoteric merit, but should in no way change the proper use of the word "terrorist" on this entry, even given Wikipedia guidelines. This entire discussion would be considered bizarre at the editorial offices of most print encyclopedias. The minute dissection of increasingly obscure points takes us further and further from reality.--Cberlet19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of the English-speaking world's newsbodies would also concur with you on that...and this is the English Wikipedia...I do understand that the Arabic wiki version of this article incorporates more conspiracy theories. But 300 kb's of people arguing about what is probably the best example of terrorism and that it shouldn't be referred to as terrorism is, frankly, ridiculous.--MONGO20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm stumped on why, if the intent to cause fear is an integral part of the term "terrorism", that specific intent is not mentioned in this article under motive; perhaps it should be if there are sources to back it up; but, if not, I think that just adds a heavy weight to the argument that the "T" word is the wrong word, even if the reliable sources are using it. Mr.grantevans223:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons, evans, as to why intent to cause fear is not mentioned in the 'motives' section is that the main sources used are from the ex post facto al qaeda videos, giving the reasons for the attacks. Now if you are launching a holy war against an enemy, and you "want" them to be scared, you don't tell them you are using tactics aimed at their civilian population whose entire point is to induce terror (akin to "we want you to be scared of us muhahahaha..."). You want them to think of you as an equal in some sense - you want the holy war to be thought of as an "actual war" similar to a war between two nations. It worked of course because Bush started the nonsense "war on terror", with an "axis of evil", trying to defeat an enemy that is largely imaginary.Wireless9914:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth Of 9/11!

There was no evidence of any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down was the fire. When you enter 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel thrust contruction like the trade centers did, they warped bent and gradually was more then the building could handle. As for Unitied airlines 93 was not shot down but brought down by the hijackers when the passangers of flight 93 fought back and stopped them. The 9/11 Commission reported that "authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft — American Airlines Flight 11 — long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center," according to CNN.com. Furthermore, the closest fighters were about 100 miles away and were unarmed. Fighters also went after a Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 which was suspected to be hijacked though it was later determined untrue and the plane was safe.Alauran05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, when I saw this header I expected a totally different message. Do you have any suggestions for changes to the article? 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats because I deleted a previous post that was obviously trolling. Apperently, Alauran didn't see it in time and posted a responce. Or maybe this is a parody of that post. --Tarage06:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no evidence of ""any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down"" because there was no attempt to find any and the primary source of such evidence was deliberately destroyed before it was examined for such evidence. No evidence found (if no one looked for it) does not equal no evidence. I haven't looked at flight 93 yet so can't comment. As for the fires...90% of the fuel burnt outside the buildings (the fireball). There is survivor eyewitness testimony that within 15 minutes of impact there were only small scattered fires on the impact floors. NIST found that the fuel was not a factor in the fires after the intial impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). NIST’s tests found that peak temperatures were reached in 20-30 minutes, and that temperatures were below 600C (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p78). The most significant aspect of all the tests NIST carried out is that they "'could not"' (NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5) get the trusses to fail! Strange as it may seem these were results of the NIST simulations yet they concluded fire made the trusses fail without actually determining exactly why (in fact they determined that maximum damage to the steel occured 20 minutes after impact. Why didn't it collapse then?). Obviously the tests were inadequate and the cause of collapse is undetermined. Whatever the air force did on 9/11, it is the first and ONLY time armed fighters were not sent to intercept an aircraft that flew off course. There are plenty of gaps for conspiracy theories to fit in. Until there is a proper investigation they can't be discarded. I will also point out that I did not read the NIST report until a few weeks ago so I may find I am incorrect once I look into it closer. WLRoss Wayne 10:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This last paragraph qualifies as (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't use this talk page for soapboxing, or general comments about the subject. --Haemo00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A new take on the 'terrorist' question

Its apparent to me that whilst the debate is nowhere near over, asking for help from NPOV and TERRORIST and getting a fresh perspective has moved the discussion forward a lot more than my previous arguments. In that vein, I'd like to offer this point to discuss. Please don't simply repeat what you've posted before, as I feel we are finally starting to make some progress.

Compare the following two beginning sentences:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

and

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

Can those who advocate the inclusion of the word 'terrorist' tell me, what useful meaning is conveyed in the first sentence that isn't conveyed in the second? Damburger20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No good. "terrorist" is undisputed. "Islamic" is disputed, although accepted by the mainstream accounts. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If 'terrorist' was undipsuted, this would be a very short talk page. 'Islamic' is a totally different issue, but one I agree is worth looking into. I can't help noticing you've just evaded the question. Please tell me what meaning is conveyed by the first sentence that is not conveyed by the second sentence. Damburger20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That it was a "terrorist act" is not disputed. I see possible information creep here; "terrorist" gets removed, then "Islamic fundamentalist", then "suicide attack", leaving nothing but WEASELs. I'd suggest leaving terrorist unadorned, and citing the others. Or perhaps:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist1-100 suicide attacks1-20 by Islamic extremists1-22 on that date upon the United States of America.

showing the approriate weight (or number of reliable sources) for each phrase. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to actually answer my question? Damburger21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does an removing undisputed statement (although "possibly" in violation of a guideline) "help"? I don't see them as signficiantly different, although "removing" ) 2|

You don't have to justify the non-presence of words in wikipedia, if you did they would be filled with nonsense. You have to justify the presence of words. This should be a no-brainer. Damburger22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't told us what we are supposed to refer to the terrorists as...we can't just call them "those people" or the "men"...this is an encyclopedic effort which means all we need do is attribute what others have stated...those others must come from reliable sources, well known for not being biased. If the UN (which is not universally sympathetic to the U.S.), most fo the world's media and the preponderance of reliable references call the event an act of terrorism and the people who did it terroists, then you want to make this article into something it shouldn't be, namely, unencylopedic.--MONGO22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the question, x Damburger, is that you cannot remove "terrorist" from "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks..." because they were terrorists! RRR_User:Arthur Rubin_RRR Arthur Rubin is absolutely right. This is not in dispute, except by you. It's just getting ridiculous. As I've stated several times, if the official accounts of 9/11 are wrong (if the US Government had a hand in it, or if Islamic extremists didn't do it) the people who performed the acts of 9/11 were terrorists. Why can't you get this through your head? Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, so that's what his article says. Over and over you're arguing that "this was terrorism but not performed by terrorists." What the heck is that? Timneu2222:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And each and every one of you dodges the question. Its not about removing the word 'terrorist', its about the justification for its presence in the first place. We don't have to 'call them' anything, as the perfectly readable alternative sentence shows. So, what meaning is added by having the word 'terrorist' in the sentence? Damburger23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove "Islamic extemists" from your introductory sentence because it is not POV: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America." Now, attacks by whom? The sentence is incomplete. Try this: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by terrorist hijackers on that date upon the United States of America." Now you have a good introduction. Timneu2223:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be better:"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by airplane hijackers (primarily Saudis) on that date upon the United States of America." Now you have a good NPOV introduction. Mr.grantevans202:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, to keep on track I'll make those modifications:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America.

Now, can someone please tell me what extra meaning the first sentence carries, and how that additional meaning improves the article? Damburger 07:07, 4 September 2007

(UTC)

Damburger, a suicide attack and a terrorist suicide attack are two very different things. If you just take the the sentence out of context for a second, the first only implies that the authors wanted to kill themselves as well as those that were killed with them. The second phrase implies that the authors wanted there to be political consequences to the attack, which is exactly what the hijackers wanted (unless the only reason why they flew into the towers was for the 40 virgins in heaven....) Wireless9915:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is added is unverified speculation on the motives of people who are dead? There is no way to know what those people were thinking, and if your argument rests on that, it is very weak indeed. Damburger16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What has been verified is that they were members of alqaeda, and that al qaeda'a purpose in sending them on that suicide mission was unreservedly politico-ideological. They joined al qaeda with this knowledge, and if all they wanted was the 40 virgins they would have to be pretty stupid. Also, and this is in now way an endorsment of al qaeda: but say what you want about them they are not stupid or naive. They are a very secretive organisation and would not recruit simpletons who are only in it because they think they will get to have sex with 40 pretty girls at the end of it. They recruit those who have some degree of intelligence, and with an unwavering commitment to their ideology. This is not really speculation here. Wireless9916:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did any helicopters at all take off that day?

This source describes an effective helicopter airlift from the World Trade Center in 1993.http://www.nycop.com/Stories/Dec_00/World_Trade_Center_Bombing/body_world_trade_center_bombing.html The source cited stated that helicopter rescue would be "impractical", but I don't interpret it to be worded strongly enough to indicate for sure that absolutely no one escaped by helicopter. Can someone think of a source that says categorically that absolutely no one made it out from the roof in a chopper? Wnt03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are all the relevant passages from the Commission Reporthttp://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch9.htm:

""Doors leading to the roof were locked. There was no rooftop evacuation plan. The roofs of both the North Tower and the South Tower were sloped and cluttered surfaces with radiation hazards, making them impractical for helicopter landings and as staging areas for civilians. Although the South Tower roof had a helipad, it did not meet 1994 Federal Aviation Administration guidelines.""

About the 1993 attacks: ""Several small groups of people who were physically unable to descend the stairs were evacuated from the roof of the South Tower by New York Police Department (NYPD) helicopters. At least one person was lifted from the North Tower roof by the NYPD in a dangerous helicopter rappel operation- 15 hours after the bombing. General knowledge that these air rescues had occurred appears to have left a number of civilians who worked in the Twin Towers with the false impression that helicopter rescues were part of the WTC evacuation plan and that rescue from the roof was a viable, if not favored, option for those who worked on upper floors. Although they were considered after 1993, helicopter evacuations in fact were not incorporated into the WTC fire safety plan.""

""At 8:56, an NYPD ESU team asked to be picked up at the Wall Street heliport to initiate rooftop rescues. At 8:58, however, after assessing the North Tower roof, a helicopter pilot advised the ESU team that they could not land on the roof, because "it is too engulfed in flames and heavy smoke condition." By 9:00, a third NYPD helicopter was responding to the WTC complex. NYPD helicopters and ESU officers remained on the scene throughout the morning, prepared to commence rescue operations on the roof if conditions improved. Both FDNY and NYPD protocols called for FDNY personnel to be placed in NYPD helicopters in the event of an attempted rooftop rescue at a high-rise fire. No FDNY personnel were placed in NYPD helicopters on September 11.""

"At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were to land on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD helicopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated that the severity of the heat from the jet fuel-laden fire in the North Tower would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter."--Sloane16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter attempts were considered, and you can see various copters in the area. The heat from the building was so intense that it was decided that a rooftop rescue was impossible due to the heat interfering with landing and steering, and the fact that the smoke made visibility very touchy. Coolgamer17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)