September 11 attacks/Archive 25

{{Automatic archive navigator}}

NPOV CLaims

I created the below and hopefully this can be filled and dicussed by everyone, if noone brings forth sections then I guess its obvious that there are no POV concerns. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf, you're free to join in the discussion, but this ridiclousness about facilitating has got to stop. You can't come in here defending blatant violations of Wikipedia rules and then pretend to be a facilitaror in this. Se my reiteration of claims below. If you want to play this role, you can start by adding a POV template to the article. --Cplot22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry what did I defend? You make an accusation back it up please. Your claims arent specific and as usual they will be ignored because of that, you want to make a case, then make a good one, not general blanket statements. I was attempting to help you, however you want to continue to make blanket statements that will get ignored cause they are not addressing anything, fine with me, complain to your hearts content. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Claims of POV

This section is for editors to bring forth their claims of POV parts in the article for examination by the editing community. Please post a quote of what you feel is POV, then explain your reason afterwards.

(quote)

(reasoning)

(quote)

(reasoning)

(quote)

(reasoning)

(quote)

(reasoning)

(quote)

(reasoning)

(quote)

(reasoning)

Discussion

Since the section will be numbered, please do not post up there any rebuttals and instead post them in this section below. Please stick to the format given. Thank you.

"'Dispute against 1."'

(Reasons)

"'Dispute against 2."'

(Reasons)

Substatntive discussion of the article

There have been many substantive discussion of the article. Here's a few examples from above.

I have brought up specifics before. See:

Reworking the article so that it follows Wikipedia policies

Examples of NPOV problems

Typically we get the usual suspects (I call them the US for short), claimming nothing has been said. Then we request an POV tag and the US say why don't you just request a POV tag. This is a silly game. NuclearUmpf, if you really came to provide some reasoned independent analysis, you would have made sure the POV template was added rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=nextoldid=90745890 altering your remarks when you realized not even that minimal step has been taken.

Summaries are not quite enough. A task list is an easy thing to write but then you need to address each bullet point. If you pull one item out to focus on it becomes much easier to discuss it with others. --PTR22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to start with those. As one can see from reading the debate that's gone on here for quite some time, whenever someon raises changing the article from a Bush administration press release into an encylopedia article they're told things like "it's not going to happen". It's alot of work to compose encylopedic content then to find out that federal authorities won't the topic into the article. If we could come to an agreement over what the feds will accept, then we can better understand where to focus on drafting more detailed material. I think the list of POV problems and the sources needed to correct them are a good starting point for the conversation. --Cplot22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more convinced than ever that you are right...surely the illuminati/"feds"/Reptilian master race are in control of what goes on in this article...I wish I had noticed this sooner.--MONGO22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cplot: In your reworkings part, you rejected all efforts of discussion of what to do without explanation. In your examples part, all the points you took up has been answered one by one. That discussion is finished. You did not succeed in pointing out either any poart of the article that was POV or discuss any improvement of the article. --Regebro00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Identifiable issues

There seems to be a movement away from discussion of NPOV to borderline personal attacks. The focus should be on actual disputes. I think what the dissenters are trying to say is:

. (Sources used) That the 9/11 Commission report is an inherently non-NPOV source, and that reliance on it compromises the article. The counter-argument would be that, while that particular source is open to criticism, only those findings which have been independently corroborated have been used. The article does not rely on any one source, and therefore the suitability of that source cannot compromise the entire article.

"'Comment"' It's not the 9/11 commission report per se, it's that no independent (independent of the Bush Whitehouse) sources have been allowed. --Cplot22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Independent sources are both allowed and used. --Regebro00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

. (Sources not used) That narratives supporting conspiracy theories should be given equal weight and editors should refrain from making judgments about the suitability of sources, even those that are demonstrably misinformed or misleading. The counter-argument is that the undue weight rule implies giving priority to verifiable opinions of experts, in particular with respect to technical questions not suited to intuition or analysis by amateurs.

"'Comment"' I do not support conspiracy theories. I have called for the removal of the section on conspiracy theories because they are not notable enough to include. What I have called for is the inclusion of analysesindependent of the Bush Whitehouse be included in the article, even if it makes George sad. --Cplot22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have any independant verifiable factual analysis made by reliable sources, then go ahead. You sure haven't mentioned any so far. --Regebro00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs to be narrowed down to specific issues that, hopefully, can be discussed rationally. Peter Grey22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See the specific issues just raised. Oh, yeah your just pretending you don't see them. --Cplot22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What specific issues are you talking about? Where shall we reference these issues that are different than the "Whitehouse" version that may make Bush sad? What are these specific pieces of information and where are we to read about them?--MONGO22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine a worse NPOV violation than putting everything into George Bush's frame of reference (even ignoring his disconnect from reality). Peter Grey22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldnt either though I dont see that happening in the article, what non white house sources are not being permitted that pass RS and V? I am not really sure what the complaint is about as it doesnt reference section just blanket ideas without showing where that situation is occuring. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

These:

Reworking the article so that it follows Wikipedia policies

Examples of NPOV problems --Cplot22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This, in other words? Peter Grey03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You want us to put in a section about what people "think" happened...ie:polls? Then you want us to add a list of conspiracy theory books to the article?--MONGO22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested edit again

Please add the

POV

template to the top of the article. The preceding discussion demontrates a clear dispute over NPOV problems. --Cplot22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you havent given a single example and instead just make blanket statements, people are requesting more information, please give it. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to have some specific paragraphs currently in the article you would like to rewrite and how you would like to rewrite them and why. I know you believe it is not NPOV but which is your goal; to have it tagged with the dispute tag or to fix the article? Besides, I need something to think about while I'm playing shuffleboard. --PTR22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fellows, if you won't to ponder upon reasons of dispute go through history, everything is well documented and since any decent proposal or draft is time consuming you should understand that this constant spinning is as boring as tiresome… Fact is, well intended edits are often reverted without valid reasons, discussions are either disrupted or left without conclusion, newcomers are discouraged, article is locked all the time due to vandalism (just a desperate form of dissent in this case) and so on… Whether we talk about references or particular sections, current form of article is useless. One has to wonder how are we to agree about serious issues if all this blistering blabbering about placing and recognizing appropriate tag is addressed in same old hear no evil, see no evil manner… Lovelight23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good then this editor can take a few seconds to copy and paste and we can all discuss, if they do not care enough to take the time, then surely you cannot expect us to care enough to take the time. If this is a serious issue, then present it seriously, dont tell people you have a problem, and they should go fetch the reasons. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is not a dispute just because somebody sais there is a dispute. You have to be able to point out at least some things that you are actually disputing. After repeated requests, all you guys come up with are claims that there is a lot of claims. This kind of argument is circular and pointless. A claim does not magically poof into existance because you claim it exists. A NPOV dispute does not magically appear because you claim there is an NPOV dispute.

This discussion has the last few days NOT been about what in the article would be POV, instead it it was a couple of days ago about whether the article is POV as a whole. These last 24 hours your refusal to explain what it wrong with the article, now means that the dispute is whether there is a dispute or not. Soon we are starting to dispute whether you there is a dispute about the dispute.

Please stop this ridicoulous insanity. Either you come up with real actual complaints about how and where the article would be POV, or you just give up. Or, more shortly: Put up or shut up. ;) I see Cplot is trying that. Thanks. You others should join too. --Regebro00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's have yet another quick glance at that balance, what did we have recently…? For example, whether MONGO, or Tom, or Peter, or Aude… like such pieces as Press for Truth or not should not be an issue here. Such sources are relevant, well related and should be referenced in the article. How come that u are so eager to present Path to 911 (with all that controversy and petitioning behind it), while refusing other, well researched and acknowledged take of events. Or that nonsense in War on Terrorism section? How irrational it is to read that screenplay in which first and foremost military action is missing. What is that? Fog of War? What kind of construction is that, and what exactly that section implies? Why shouldn’t Iraq be clearly mentioned, would it be too inconvenient? Honestly, I don’t understand such out of the touch with reality approach? Official rhetoric's which linked Iraq to 911 is common knowledge after all… and such slight improvements or accuracies certainly wont hurt the stability of building 7 or any other, more concerning issues… we have a very poor terminology here, so there's no wonder that we have hard time dissolving truth from conspiracy. Let me illustrate, there are (mainstream) reports about living dead (hijackers), are we to consider these as notable reports or conspiracy? There is this well documented foreknowledge of clear and present danger, there are those convenient war games which are nowhere to be noticed, there are related testimonies of Rice, Mineta, Clarke and so on… We already had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksExamples_of_NPOV_problems examples, and we already had our share of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/archive22.22no_thanks.22_FBI_poster_dispute disputes. Before engaging in another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/archive229.2F11-Iraq_Link detailed representation I would like some reassurance that such discussions wont end with puzzling answers as Aude's: "perhaps later"??? Appropriate POV tag would be one such reassurance… Lovelight00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What does Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks at the time of them happening, the Iraq section should say that it was part of the WOT at most, which sprang from 9/11. As for living dead hijackers, you do realize that is because of stolen passports right? faked identities, and people with the same name as well as the rush to identify, none of the identified hijackers as of today are living, unless you count the silly supermarket tape of Atta. I think the problem is that you think conspiracy theories deserve as much weight as the actual events, which isnt the case here. The principle that would govern this situation calls for conspiracy theories to take up very little as they represent very little of the actual situation. Also sources have to pass RS and V if you feel certain sources are being removed that belong, then please present them on the talk page and let everyone chime in. I am a big representer of RS and V and citations. Instead of long rants like ago, try to coherently organize your points for people to read and reply to. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"What does Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks at the time of them happening, the Iraq section should say that it was part of the WOT at most, which sprang from 9/11."

Actually, there is no section about Iraq… and yes, that's "'exactly"' my point.., nothing more, nothing less… it is disturbing to go through purgatory for such small additions that’s all… as for your question, on 911 Rumsfeld said: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not. He also said: "Judge whether good enough hit S.H." (Saddam Hussein)… you know, from my perspective that whole "Shock Awe" shebang is disgusting… and I tend to be disturbed with such crap, especially since that man still (freely) slithers around… Anyway I've presented that case decently, and since its common knowledge pushing it out of the article just shows the need for that POV tag, doesn’t it? Lovelight13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"As for living dead hijackers, you do realize that is because of stolen passports right? faked identities, and people with the same name as well as the rush to identify, none of the identified hijackers as of today are living, unless you count the silly supermarket tape of Atta."

That issue is still http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm far from clear. I'd say that it is as interesting as those http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html crash-proof passports... Lovelight13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"I think the problem is that you think conspiracy theories deserve as much weight as the actual events, which isnt the case here. The principle that would govern this situation calls for conspiracy theories to take up very little as they represent very little of the actual situation."

I'm afraid that this is not about conspiracy theories at all, IMO such subjects as CD or Pentagon lawn should rest for a while (I've never pushed those issues you know? There is no need to get the dirt on the hand, that final appendix to NIST and Omission reports (about building 7) should come early next year, I'd bet it will be the most amusing and most ridiculous of em all;)… things as government foreknowledge of attacks or basic description of Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance drills would seem like priority, since we speak of factual, verifiable and relevant data there. Expending Commission section with brief summary of criticism would also push article towards NPOV… Mentioning insider trading before 911 is verifiable, and therefore out of that mystic realm of conspiracy… (Missing) 911/Iraq link served as a turning point for invasion, and it seems pretty important to me… How about Bush's whereabouts on that day? Such fine "trivia" for domestic response section… Great leader of great nation reading fairytales to little children at countries most desperate hour, timeless performance isn’t it? …all I'm saying, we should point such things instead of neglecting them, if you are interested in well rounded resources and references about things mentioned (or not), you'll certainly find some fun (RS and V)http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project here or http://911readingroom.org/bib/ there. Lovelight13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Also sources have to pass RS and V if you feel certain sources are being removed that belong, then please present them on the talk page and let everyone chime in. I am a big representer of RS and V and citations. Instead of long rants like ago, try to coherently organize your points for people to read and reply to."

Unfortunately more elaborate (proper) draft from my part will have to wait for a while, but I'm sure that other editors will be as busy as ever… however, we could certainly resolve that Iraq issue since it does belong in WOT section, as a matter of fact I believe that Peter, Aude and some of the other hardliners did recognize flaw there, for a moment I even thought we'll agree on such obviously missing "missing link"… but it ended as it always ends, they were just a bit too reluctant because their patriotic spirit clouded their judgment and now they prefer to lye or to keep silent consent instead of seeking and stating factual truth. Lovelight13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to comment on what I wrote, but I can't see how what you wrote in any major way comments what I wrote. It seems to just be incoherent ramblings to me, sorry. Can you clarify? --Regebro01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No need for apologies, since it wasn’t intended for you, it was for those people who "care enough to take the time." Lovelight01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You indentation makes it unclear of who you respond to, but accusing people of not caring is Ad hominem and not a serious argument. Most of you POV guys have reverted to attacks or other ad hominem arguments during the last 24 hours. I assume this is because you have run out of real arguments and need to vent your frustration. I can understand this, but that does mean that this dispute is for all intents and purposes over. After repeated requests, you who claim the article is POV, can not point out one single thing that is POV and not come up with one single source that meets Wikipedias requirements that you find missing. Honestly guys, isn't it time you resign this and just accept that NPOV does not mean that the article reflects your POV? --Regebro08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've haven’t seen a decent (or discussion related) post from you yet… every disputed page got its own little smoke bomb to cloud the issues and spit ad hoc nonsense… you are as good as any… what doest such reply make me homine? Lupus? This page has "long and proud tradition" of disputes, you cannot just parachute in, history of talk page is well documented, any unbiased editor or administrator will recognize what's wrong here at the first glance… which kind of editor are you? Lovelight13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clowns

Someone has suggested that the article is run by what Wikipedia I think calls "'clowns"' (if I'm using the right term). It might be better for others to just avoid the discussion here for a while and look to draft a rewrite of the entire article elsewhere. It does no on eany good to engage here where they seek to bait people into 3rr violations or personal attacks. Obviously they're just playing games here. We can return later and fix the article. --Cplot22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA, trying be civil please. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This has got to be the nth time someone has suggested I'm being uncivil of violating NPA for using the term "'clowns"'. Am I using the term wrong? Who am I attacking? --Cplot23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the advice. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to take the advice. I do not understand who I'm attacking. Just tell me who this could possibly be attacking personally and I"ll apologize profussely. I thought I was just using a common wiki word. --Cplot23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That part of the wiki lingo. I've heard it used before. It's not a personal attack. I think it might be an acronym, but I'm not sure. --70.8.56.12600:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny that nobody else ever heard about that then, wince Cplot admits he gets accused of attacks when he uses it. ;) Cplot: It's quite clear that when you claim the article is "run" by "clowns" that are "playing games", you are talking about persons and you are not exactly praising them. So it IS ad hominem. I think you understand this too. You can't return later and fix it, because the article ain't broken. --Regebro01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a leap in logic if I ever saw one. Someone who works for the feds to fuck over Wikipedia is not likely a person. And personal attacks have to be directed at a person. There has to be a victim. You can't just charge someone with murder if there's no murder victim (though I suppose your superiors are working on that). If there's no personal attacked then it's not a personal attack. --70.8.56.12602:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Federal authorities should definitely not contribute to this article

Just to make sure we're clear on that. Some of you are trying to argue that it's ok. It's not. --70.8.151.10321:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, it surely is. Since Federal Authorities were not responcible for the attacks like some believe but never prove, its perfectly fine for someone who works for a federal position to edit the article as long as they do it according to guidelines and policies. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are way off base here. The accusations that are being made here about federal authorities working in official capacity to alter wikipedia iw inappropriate on so many levels. And besides that the spreading perception is that they're not even playing fair with the rules besides that.

Again, anyone can contribute as long as they follow the rules. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. " Winston Smith via Lovelight01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Trolling removed"

Anon, if some of those here are actually Feds serving in an official capacity this could be construed as a NPA violating. Watch what you say. --Cplot07:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that calling me a fed would be NPA in itself. But I don't exactly give much weight to what an IP number is saying. Besides he has already been blocked for these comments once, on one IP-adress, if he continues from several IP-adresses he may put his relationship to his IP-provider in jeopardy. --Regebro08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No-one, whether paid or unpaid, under the direction of their employer or on their own initiative, should deliberately introduce biased or incorrect material. Certainly, one can "question" if such edits may have occurred, but an unfounded "accusation" of vandalism would constitute a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. Peter Grey14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*Since I'm thinking about that fragile web of lies in main article… it comes to mind (once again) that sooner or later whole tabula will be rewritten… from scratch. I'm not sure what are we all waiting for, but it will happen eventually… couple of days ago on forum which I use to keep in touch with American public, there was this peculiar post about building 7. If I can recall correctly, a lady simply acknowledged demolition, stating that government needed to pull it down, which was apparently OK with her. What a interesting train of thought… So Peter, how are things these days? Should we plug Iraq in that WOT section? Perhaps later?;) Lovelight14:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*'a lady' that you may or may not 'recall correctly' is not a reliable source. If you cannot understand this, then maybe you should re-think how you can best contribute Wikipedia. A http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising donation of money, perhaps. Iraq is not related to the subject of this article. Peter Grey15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You had a good will of reliable resources from me already… and you know it. US administration http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3816963.stm repeatedly linked 911 to Iraq, link proved to be as false as claims about WMD's. There is no article more appropriate to describe this outrageous lie. Should I start one? That claim was a turning point for that brilliant, I like to call it, "blood for oil" initiative. That is a fact, why would anyone neglect it? Apart from that, I've just pointed above what Rumsfeld said on that very day… why should anyone close an eye on such things? And apart from that, construction of WOT section remains illogical. How can you state second big-operation without addressing the first one? Adding "'one"' sentence certainly isn’t: "diatribe about the Iraq War" in this article. I'm interested to hear your reply's, and it would be interesting to see your agreement/disagreement on that RFM too… Lovelight15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight, this has been mentioned to you repeatedly...Iraq came more than a year after 9/11. This article is about the events of that one day, a little of the the rationale for what the motivation was and a little of what the effect was. We are not going to go into a long diatribe about the Iraq War in this article. We have the 2003 invasion of Iraq which is the article you need to discuss that kind of alteration to.--MONGO15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA What's up? Lovelight17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?

With the 1 week block for one of the instigators of the recent edit war (user5|Cplot), does anyone have an objection to a request to remove protection on the article? --StuffOfInterest12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect. My feeling from the comments of yesterday is that we are now in agreement on the issue. We agree that only reliable verifiable sources should be used, and we agree that the article does not deserve a general NPOV-tag. That should minimize the risk for editwars. --Regebro13:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request on RFPP. It would be inappropriate for any admin who has edited here to handle the change in protection status, so a general request is the best method. --StuffOfInterest13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project Complete 911 Timeline to externals, please leave it there… Lovelight16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna remove it, but I do feel a bit skeptical:

Shouldn't you link to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelineday_of_9/11 instead if the whole timeline? The article is about the attacks only, not everything before and after. That 9/11 timeline includes the Afghan-Soviet war, and although that is important for understanding the events, especially the Afghan invasion, it's not exactly a 9/11 timeline, is it? :-)

Honestly, it's FULL of speculation. Wikipedia isn't a link-list. If there is something you need from that site, it has references to every factual bit it sais. Notably, it lacks references to the speculations, which is all it adds from the references itself. ;)

I understand this is a useful source both for people involved in conspiracy theories and for those debunking it, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do on this page. Don't you agree? --Regebro17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with the article is lack of balance. To have: "source both for people involved in conspiracy theories and for those debunking it," is much closer to NPOV then to show one side of issue. We should present facts, it is not our duty to impose opinions. Other editors have pointed to all this already, and all of those claims are valid. As for that other point, we can talk about Vigilant issues which are missing from the article as soon as we conclude that discussion about Iraq/911/al qaeda link… Since day one I stated that article cannot be torn from brother perspective, at least not in such manner as it is… Lovelight17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

NO, Lovelight. Lack of balance is NOT a problem with the article, as this discussion has shown above. You have not been able to show one single instance of the article not being balanced. Not one. Thus, the article does NOT Lack balance. Your statement that you include that link to push your own POV agenda. This is unacceptable. You are trying to introuce POV in a NPOV article. That is against wikipedia policies. Please stop. It would be best if you revert your change yourself, or you risk starting a new edit war. Do NOT introduce POV into this article. --Regebro18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I that source is "'independent"' not POV. Lovelight18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Lovelight, independence does not equal NPOV. You seem to think that only the goverment has a POV and everybody who are independant from the givernment somehow are neutral objective and unbiased. This is not so. POV/NPOV is about being based in facts instead of opinions. That link is FULL of opinions, and hence, it's POV. It happens to be YOUR POV, but that is irrelevant. I have no right to link to a webpage that call conspiracy theorists "Deaf dumb and blind basketcases". That may be my opinion, but it is my POV (and yes, I am as independent as they come), and it has nothing to do in the main article, just as your POV has nothing to do in the main article. Is anything about this unclear? --Regebro18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article links to main|September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks which has a link to the timeline Regebro discusses. --PTR18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You had a good will of reliable resources from me already… and you know it. US administration http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3816963.stm repeatedly linked 911 to Iraq, link proved to be as false as claims about WMD's. There is no article more appropriate to describe this outrageous lie. Should I start one? That claim was a turning point for that brilliant, I like to call it, "blood for oil" initiative. That is a fact, why would anyone neglect it? Apart from that, I've just pointed above what Rumsfeld said on that very day… why should anyone close an eye on such things? And apart from that, construction of WOT section remains illogical. How can you state second big-operation without addressing the first one? Adding "'one"' sentence certainly isn’t: "diatribe about the Iraq War" in this article. I'm interested to hear your reply's, and it would be interesting to see your agreement/disagreement on that RFM too… Lovelight15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight, this has been mentioned to you repeatedly...Iraq came more than a year after 9/11. This article is about the events of that one day, a little of the the rationale for what the motivation was and a little of what the effect was. We are not going to go into a long diatribe about the Iraq War in this article. We have the 2003 invasion of Iraq which is the article you need to discuss that kind of alteration to.--MONGO15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mongo but I also do not totally agree. If there is a link with the attacks and the war in Iraq then perhaps a misly .5% of the article could be utilized to say something like. "According to ___(dunno... George Bush)___ the war in Iraq(wiki link here) has been linked to september 11, 2006 because point 1, point 2 and maybe point 3"(reference)(next subject) --CyclePat03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA What's up? Lovelight17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Even less reason to include the timeline in the main article, then. There is a perferctly good timeline in Wikipedia linked to already. In other words, Lovelight included this link ONLY to make the article POV. Let me quote somebody that at least Lovelight should be able to agree with: "We should present facts, it is not our duty to impose opinions." That link adds nothing to the article, but opinions. It should go, and I think Lovelight should show that he understands and accepts Wikipedia policy on this subject by removing it himself. --Regebro18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking someone to do something in this manner can be view as a form of punishment or hostility and may be perceived as uncivil. Mostly for the fact that it concentrate on the ability of a user. I think such suggestions should be retracted and a small apology may help diffuse the situation so you can concentrate on the issue. --CyclePat03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Punishment? Ability? If he put it there he can reasonably be assumed to have the ability to remove it again. Loveligt has shown his ability to edit the page. And how could it be construed to be a punishment that you show you agree but reverting yourself, instead of having a conflict escalation by an editwar? I honestly (and very non-agressively) think you are being patently ridicolous. --Regebro09:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Go http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/aboutsite.jsp there and read comments… then come back and say what's wrong with such source… Lovelight18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA What's up? Lovelight17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've alredy told you what is wrong with the source. I've also told yo u why it is wrong for you to push your POV on a page that is NPOV. Was I unclear in any way? --Regebro18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regebro, you need to chill out. You're being extremely hostile. While I understand that you disagree with the content of the linked page, and that the discussion on this talk page can get heated, and perhaps frustrating for all participants, you have to be more civil. Debate the merits of the link, citing specific reasons you oppose it; do not accuse LoveLight of trying to intentionally unbalance the article. x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That comment isn't even one little tiny itsy bit hostile. You are reading in something that is not there. I am just being clear and to the point. Lovelight *IS* trying to unbalance the article. It has been explained many times above, so it can be assumed he understands what he is trying to do, and therefore it must be assumed to be intentional. --Regebro00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How's this for notability?

Actor Charlie Sheen believes the conspiracy theories and has strong doubts about the government's POV Here's thewww.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm link. And all who have been saying that saying more on conspiracy theories is giving undue weight may have to eat your words--Acebrock19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They are notable enough to bear a mention which we already have in the article. As for the Sheen element, I'm shocked, shocked that a celebrity would have a woo-woo idea in their head! Does this mean in the article on psychaitry. we need to mention scientology's criticism since Tom Cruise supports it? JoshuaZ19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(eye roll)

Criterion 2 for NPOVUndue Weight:

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents

He makes the grade. Also He's making a movie based on the actions of one of the heroes of 9/11, who, by the way, sued the Bush administration, blaming them for the attacks, and I don't blame him. Heres the http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Charlie-Sheen-Making-9-11-Conspiracy-Movie-3293.html link. Also you're not really discounting my argument--Acebrock19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? We have a section on conspiracy theories. It links to the various related articles. I don't see what the issue is. JoshuaZ19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) Yes but that section acts as if the conspiracy theories meet criterion 3:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

I have proven, for the second, or third, time, it meets criterion 2. 1/3 of americans, someone who was a hero of the event, and a notable actor, that's a significant minority, and as such it meets criterion 2, and that's almost impossible to deny. We can go round and round and not get anywhere or we can try to compromise with mediation, If mediation fails, arbitration will begin--Acebrock19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, you seem to be missing the point here. We do mention it and they are notable enough for their own articles. They aren't notable enough for more than a small section here which it has. JoshuaZ19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I could easily say the same thing to you. The point is giving them a small part of the article is in itself undue weight, when 33% of people believe them, which isn't a tiny minority. It's hould at least go into more detail about their reasoning, like the govornment witholding information. I'm going to add more information. If you revert, explain it here.--Acebrock20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with acebrock:

I don’t know if you guys watched the movie “9/11 mysteries” located at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 and is sponsored by the www.st911.org website which is owned by Steven Jones, Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, etc…they are all part of the scholar for 9/11 truth organization. Steven Jones, according to Wikipedia, is a professor of Physics, cold fusion researcher and member of the "9/11 Truth Movement.” There is an interview with Steven Jones on channel 2 News at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To4t5c3LZfg. Kevin Barrett supports Jones’ view. Barrett is a prof at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has been studying the 9/11 reports for the last 2 years or so. There’s an interview with Barrett on Fox News at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmvGFVr6KNkNR and on CNN on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfCFB0UApaE. He did another interview with Fox news and it’s at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn4jqGk0xTo. It’s really interesting. The first time they appeared I have to say I thought both Jones and Barrett were nutjobs but then I actually went to their www.st911.org website and realized that they had a point and the inaccuracies of the U.S Commission’s Report raised a lot of questions. I now believe along with other members of the 9/11 truth movement that it was an inside job done by members of the Bush administration. The film “9/11 mysteries” that I mentioned was quite thought provoking. The Femur (I think that’s how you spell it) report put out by the U.S government said that the structural damage of the Towers where due to impact of the plane and the resulting fires. But after the B-25 Mitchell bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, the Towers were built with skyscraper crashes in mind. Les Robertson who is the WTC structural engineer is interviewed and he says that the Towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (which was the largest plane at the time) hitting the building at any location. But the aircraft that hit the Towers was a Boeing 767 which is a smaller model and requires less fuel than the Boeing 707. When the plane hit there were two pockets of fire which at the time the firefighters who called it in said that they should be able to knock it down with only 2 water lines on the 78th floor. The movie goes on to explain that the fuel from the plane was consumed from the initial fire balls and the following minutes of fire. But the official report by the government says that the flames then spread throughout the building and the fire melted the core of that top floor causing it to collapse on the bottom floor and then the weight of the top floors caused the bottom floors to collapse as well. Hence the domino affect of the building collapse. But the controversy is that before the building collapsed the Towers stood for an hour smoldering but not flaming. The smoldering indicating an oxygen starved fire and so the fire was not burning successfully. And then DeMartini is interviewed who is the WTC construction manager. He explains that the building could have withstood multiple hits with a jetliner which is why the Towers stood for an hour after being hit. And then the part about the fire melting the steel initiating the collapse, the movie explains that no steel building before the Towers collapsed as a result of the fire, especially a fire that lasted for an hour. The movie that talks about how in 1975 the North WTC Tower had a fire that flamed for 3 hours (twice as long as the fires of 9/11) but didn’t collapse. In Feb of 2005 the Windsor Tower in Madrid sustained a 20 hour fire without much damage to its steel frame. The movie talks about how strong the steel supports were and how unlikely it would have been that the floors from above were heavy enough to give way to the bottom floors. And then there’s an interview with Paul Goldberger, an architect, who talks about how strong the steel was. PBS did a simulation of the Towers collapsing but in the simulation the core was left standing. But in reality the core steel structure completely disappeared and was turned into dust. The movie then goes onto explain that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel which melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit and above and that none of the materials could have burned to produce that required temperature. Plus, no survivors reported this much heat while the Towers were standing… they have interviews with the survivors and firefighters who reported hearing explosions going off at floors below were the plane hit. You can see in the movie some of the explosions occurring. The movie agues that since sound reaches us after what we see we should have heard the boom (if it was a result of the building collapsing) after the collapse not before, which is why some researchers believe that the Towers fell after explosives were detonated inside the building. The movie goes on to explain that the fires could never have been hot enough to reach the temp of 2750. The movie examines Dr. Eagers’ (MIT) statement which it explains doesn’t explain the absence of the core. The fall of the Towers was not characteristic of a typical implosion but rather an explosion involving high energy explosives. The argument is that if it was a typical domino effect than so much debris would not have been thrown outward, such as the 600000 lb chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) flew 400 feet across the street and was wedged into a financial center buildings as well as the april 2006 discovery of bone remains found on near by building tops. The movie talks about how according to siesmic data collected the North Tower came down in about 8 second and the South Tower in about 10 seconds which is roughly free fall where if it was a pancake collapse as the official report says then it should have occurred in atleast 1 minute and 36 seconds. The movie explains that the only way that the buildings could have come down so fast is if the bottom floors held no resistance and completely gave in to the top floors and that the top floors fell at almost free fall. Hence, the speculation that explosives were set off at the bottom floors as well as interviews with survivors at the bottom floors that heard explosions going off and you can see them in the videos of the Towers collapsing. The movie explains that the internal explosions would explain why the basement walls (slurry walls) of the Tower which were built to hold back the Hudson river and had always held the weight of the 110 floors but after the collapse the 3 foot thick slurry walls were found to have shifted inwards upto 18 inches something most likely caused by powerful explosives near the wall. There’s an interview with George J. Tamaro who was the civil engineer that built the basement walls. Then Steven Jones in an interview with NBC news talks about how the presence of molten medal is evidence of the use of high temperature explosives such as thermite which only takes 2 seconds to reach temperatures of upto 4500 degrees Fahrenheit which is well above the melting point of steel at 2750. The steel supports near the bottom of the Towers were melted which indicates that the collapse of the bottom Towers was not due to the weight of the top Towers alone and explains why the building collapsed in only 10 seconds. Demolition experts explain what occurs in a typical demolition. The movie explains the use of shape chargers (I think that’s how you spell it) in controlled demolition to control how the steel columns of the WTC Towers were cut. Cuts seen on the steel supports in the debris were characteristic of those made by shape chargers. The movie explains that the way that most of the building fell into its basement is analogous to the goal in control demolition. The movie talks about Silverstein who acquired lease of the WTC building in spring of 2006 and then acquired insurance that covered acts of terrorism and the right to rebuild the complex if it was destroyed. The movie talks about how after 9/11 Silverstein bought his insurancers in court to obtain double his policy limit because the double hijacking constituted two terrorist attacks on his building. He ended up with 7 billion dollars on his original 15 million dollar investment. It talks about the controversary surrounding building 7 and why it fell. Silverstein claimed that he said to pull the firefighters out of the building and was not referring to the building itself which is controversial because there were no firefighters in the building at the time according to the firefighter chief and other sources. The way that building 7 imploded indicated that it was demolished. It talks about Mayor Guliani (I think that’s who you spell his name). The U.S report indicates that WTC7 fell due to fire alone (approx. at 1 hour of movie) but many engineers are doubting including an interview with the structural engineer Ramon Gilsanz who talks about how it was an implosion and could not have been because of the fires alone. The movie talks about the mystery surrounding why the building would have been demolished. It talks about how the building houses the CIA, United States Secret Service, and the mayor’s office of emergency management. Lost in the debris of WTC7 were thousands of case files relating to corporate fraud of companies like Worldcom and Enron (Micheal Moore talks about this in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11). The movie points out that noone died in the collapse of building WTC7. Listen to survivor accounts at 1 hour and 1 minute where they talk about how prior to the plane hitting the Towers, the building WTC7 was completely evacuated but people in the other Towers were told to go back to their offices because it was safer there. At 1 hour 4 minute it talks about how the director that provided electronic security of the Dullus airport and the Towers involved in Sept 11 attacks is Bush’s younger brother Marvin P. Bush..Moore talks about their involvement in 9/11 in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. Marvin installed a new security system at the world trade center by Seracom. Wirt Walker is Bush’s cousin and the CEO of Seracom (Moore talks about this in his movie). Scott Forbes reported that the weekend before 9/11 there was a power down in the Towers and during this time all security cameras were off and pretty much anyone could walk into the building. Many workmen entered during this time for internet upgrading and to fix the power problem. They have interviews with workers who say that they were given notification that the workers were here for internet upgrading. Scott Forbes notified the 9/11 Commission about the unusually long power outrage but was ignored. The movie talks about prior to Sept 11, bomb sniffing dogs were removed. The Towers cost millions a year to upkeep and the clean up of asbestos on the Towers would have cost over a billion dollars. There’s an interview with Kevin Ryan who worked for Underwriters Laboratories and he talks about the claim that the plane impact caused the asbestos to come off of the steel allowing it to melt. He claims that even if that was true the fires still weren’t hot enough to melt the steel. Watch the video for the details. It’s really interesting. Dr. Jim Fetzer at the University of Wisconsin Madison is one of the people of the scholars for 9/11 truth organization (www.st911.org). Here’s a conference in which he talks about how the universities across the United States should allow professors to teach the events leading to 9/11 in the classroom as well as alternative theories involving the Bush administration at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1jb-0ClpbM. He also talks about Saddam and Osama. —Preceding )

Of course the demolition hoax is notable, it has its own article. Peter Grey18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I've added the POV template requested countless times in this discussion. Please ensure it stays there unil these NPOV issues are resolved. --68.30.26.17119:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to point out a section or something specific, then I will continue to revert and take this as vandalism. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the discussion. This has been going on for quite a while. I think it would be best for everyone if we mediated, though MONGO, et al don't want to for some strange reason. Maybe the think that their way is the only way? Maybe they're afraid that they'll see we're right (though there is no guarantee we are)? Maybe they don't see it ending the conflict? It'd be nice if they'd explain themselves.

People have tried, I have even tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksNPOV_CLaims, and all we get are broad claims from this anon user, so broad they cant be worked with and accusations of the government editing the article supress "the truth", you know like Fox Mulder always talked about "the truth" ... See the problem. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to come to consensus about adding the tag before adding the tag.--PTR20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrongo! People need to come to consencus to remove said tag, not add it. Please read NPOV--Acebrock05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A dispute does not magically appear because you say there is a dispute. There has to be something that is actually disputed. You have not been able to point out any part of that article whose POV you actually dispute. If you can't provide a dispute, the article should not have a POV-tag. Nowehere in NPOV does it say that the tag needs consensus to be removed, but that anybody has the right to add it without reason. --Regebro10:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not remove the tag if they would at least present something for us to work with here instead of broad claims. I asked them to quote specific sections and was attacked for it. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've laid out my argument, The Conspiracy theories have a huge following and should recieve more than a paragraph on this page, and it's not like Mongo, et al are proving that page is neutral. Remember thay aren't the only one who have to be convinced of our view, thaey also have to try to convince us of theirs, otherwise we keep going round and round and round, and wind up in arbitration, which is what will happen if we don't try to mediate--Acebrock20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are entire articles on the conspiracy theories surounding the events of 9/11, I think a paragraph describing the phenomenon is adequate, If anything I think we should just vote and end this, yes I know voting is evil, but it beats wasting our time in constant edit cycles over that tag. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But you haven't pointed to paragraphs in the article that are NPOV. You keep saying you want to include more information but don't discuss the proposed changes first to try to have people understand what you want. I made a big change in the article that was reverted by MONGO but after discussion and my explaining why I wanted to change the paragraph to the rewritten version, it was accepted. Help us out here. --PTR20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to vote, and would be delighted to go into arbitration and seek to have this issue settled permanently by seeking a ban on all attempts to expand the section on conspiracy theories. Enough time has been wasted on this.--Cberlet20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How are you sure that ArbCom will decide to go with that decision?--Acebrock20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the alien lizards who control them told me so.--Cberlet21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what the Goa'uld are up to these days, subjugating the world via Wikipedia! Seriously, if the RfM doesn't get off the ground, I'd support taking this up to ArbCom. --StuffOfInterest21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that link without any valid explanation… it's my POV as I understand? Collaborate and elaborate joint endeavor based on facts apparently isn’t good enough? Is it what's wrong with cooperative research, or is it what's wrong with Wikipedia? You know, it's wrong to say that youtube is poor source, especially if clip represents news report from mainstream media, or testimonies or any other form of factual/historical documentary… it is also wrong to dispute such places as http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project 911 timeline… These locations are gathering and archiving news reports from mainstream media, so if we dispute them, we also dispute AP, Reuters, BBC… and all other media outlets… under some other circumstances I would love to discuss the complicity of mainstream in keeping a status quo, but… Anyway, anyone who disputes that spring should take another visit, click on any section and verify that all articles are properly sourced and cited… Just leave it there… Lovelight20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA What's up? Lovelight17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I say leave the link it is extremely, highly sourced. It surely meets RS and V. We are not in the truth business we are in the verifiability business. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see why the timeline link is being removed. It seems to be a valid, valuable resource, and no one seems to have anything specific to say as to why it shouldn't be included. The YouTube link I'm less in support of, not because YouTube isn't a valid source, but because the video itself is a (rather typical) YouTube copyright violation and I'm concerned it might get pulled down, and so we'd have to periodically monitor it. (It also seems more relevant to the article(s) about the war in Iraq than this one.) x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the timeline link best belong in Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks rather than the root article? --StuffOfInterest21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Highly relevant for both I would think. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My main concern with that much content in the leaf articles is relevant to the root article. If too much is included then the root article becomes oversized, which is the main reason for creating leaf articles in the first place. --StuffOfInterest21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove some of the less useful links then… would you like me to point some? Lovelight21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained above, the timeline link is full of spekulation and POV. It's not a very good link. Lovelight has above explained his adding of the link with that he wants more of that POV in the article. So you can hardly claim that the link is NPOV. ;) --Regebro00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regebro, can you give some specific examples of the bias you're referring to? It all looked pretty legit to me. Lovelight, if you're serious about links you don't believe to be worthwhile, you should start a thread about it and we can cull those out of there. x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you blind?

Thanks for removing that link without any valid explanation… it's my POV as I understand? Collaborate and elaborate joint endeavor based on facts apparently isn’t good enough? Is it what's wrong with cooperative research, or is it what's wrong with Wikipedia? You know, it's wrong to say that youtube is poor source, especially if clip represents news report from mainstream media, or testimonies or any other form of factual/historical documentary… it is also wrong to dispute such places as 911 timeline… These locations are gathering and archiving news reports from mainstream media, so if we dispute them, we also dispute AP, Reuters, BBC… and all other media outlets… under some other circumstances I would love to discuss the complicity of mainstream in keeping a status quo, but… "'Anyway, anyone who disputes that spring should take another visit, click on any section and verify that all articles are properly sourced and cited… Just leave it there…"' Lovelight20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)x Lovelight 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As an advocate I am here to express the concern of cplot, I do not believe that the article should be unprotected at the present moment. Furthermore I have raised serveral concerns on the bullying that has occured based on the prejeducial evidence that was used to recently block this user for 1 week. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGOdiff=90992136oldid=90977782 I would like to give my sincere gratitude to all the hard work that appears to be happening here but the issues at stake have not been properly presented because, I believe this user was unfairly blocked, violating Block. Furthermore I put it to you that the POV issue still exist within the article. I sugest that a todo list be started immediatiatelly. Furthermore I suggest cplot be unblocked so he may express his facts in this todo list. (For more reasons you may see user_talk:Mongo page.) Once these facts are brought out we may be able to mediate as I have also suggested on Mongo's talk page. Thank you and may we all be able to properly edit wikipedia in a fair manner. Let us all make sure unfair block never occur when the issue is trully a content dispute. --CyclePat21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Take your issue to Mongo's talk page, its not relevant here. Stop trying to enlist more people to your seperate issues. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, be civil. I am very displeased with your response. I find this to be very defensive for absolutely no reason. I am trying to help the article and no you are telling me what to do. Essentially to fuck off! Not only have I brough this subject up to MONGOs talk page but I've even indicated this in the afformentioned message. I take this as a personal violation of CIV and I would appreciate an emediate appology. Thank you. --CyclePat21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am telling you is that if you have a problem with Mongo and his blocks you should discuss it with Mongo or on AN/I and not attempt to rally the troops here. If you take it as a violation of CIV then you need to read COOL and chill out and possibly take a wikibreak. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

May I also add that MONGO immediately http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidentsdiff=90870974oldid=90870148 took the block to ANB/I to get additional input. Several admins supported the block. --StuffOfInterest21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for much more civil tone. I would still however appreciate an appology. Secondly, I am simply saying, as an advocate for cplot, I will be helping him present any objections he may have, including his previously alleged "POV issues in this article". Again, I am his advocate from a neutral point of view and would appreciate that an appology for your previous abruptness and that we concentrate on the subject mater here. I agree with you, the block should and is being discussed on Mongo's page. Sorry, I guess I did axe my above conversation on the block a little to much. Thank you. --CyclePat02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this article; please keep discussion of blocks on the relevant pages. (MONGO's talk page, while he's amenable to it, Cplot's page, etc.). x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we please mediate or come to some sort of agreement? All this stress is going to kill me.-- 06:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We "have" come to an agreement. It is clear from the above discussion that we "several times" have come to agreement. We agree that:

The article should be NPOV. This means factual with no speculation and no unverifiable statements.

The article should NOT include unproven alternative theories, but because of the popularity of some of these theories, they should link to a separate page that discussed those theories in more detail.

The article should be tagged as POV if and only if, there is a substantial disagreement about the articles POV backed up by substantial claims. (Substanctial in this context meaning "having substance". The claim "there is a dispute" is not a substantial claim. The claim "The sentence so and so has a bias towards foo and is unsourced" is a substantial claim).

The people who are of the opinion that the article is POV should here in the talk page put forward substantial claims of POV point by point, for each claim to be handled separately. No effort to "fix the POV" or "add balance" should be done until it has been shown that it is POV or needs balancing.

These things have all been discussed above, and nobody seems to have disagreed with this. Yet, yesterday, one or several people from the POV-camp broke this agreement, and hence the page quickly got protected again. "'We "have" an agreement"'. I think we should start honoring it. --Regebro10:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"'We agreed to nothing and we have resolved… nothing"', however, I've certainly learned a few things which I really didn’t wont to know! Your constant refusal to recognize dispute is not helpful at all… your failure to click on history and at least check the headings don't interest me at all. To say that everything is topsy popsy is wishful thinking… your dismissal and removal of RS and V sources is not acceptable. http://thetriffids.com/lyrics/faq.php?answer=194cat_name=Ccategory_id=4194 Who is breaking all the house rules? Sing that RFM please… and unblock one of the involved parties too. Lovelight12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the concensus here has agreed, sorry if you are not part of that. However I think many editors here do not want to go in circles with adding a NPOV tag that noone will explain how they can improve the article to remove it, except broad steps that do not even specify problem sections etc. I agree with Regebro on his statement. If sections are presented, paragraphs / setences that are problems, then we can all work on them, however I believe the concensus here, minus Lovelight, is that we will not chase phantom POV issues. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 12:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good then, I'm assuming a good fate, remove the protection and let me reinstall that link… Lovelight13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I had no problem with your link if you mean the timeline, and still don't. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight, firstly, these things have been stated before, one by one, and no objections have arised. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that there was a consensus on these four points. If you don't agree with the four points above, can you state why you don't agree with them?

Secondly, I do not in any way refuse to recognize dispute. But you have yet to actually tell me what you are disputing. You just claim there is a dispute. About what? What is it you are disputing? Why are you unwilling to say that? How can we judge if there is something wrong with an article if you refuse to say what is wrong, and just over and over repeat that something is wrong? This current state where we are disputing whether there is a dispute is ludicrous. If you have something to dispute, dispute that. Do NOT once again claim that there is a dispute without saying what that dispute is about. That behaviour is simply only disruptive and can lead nowhere.

Thirdly, if you want to reinstate the link, why do you not do what you repeatedly have been asked: Start a section here in the talk page, and explain why you think the link should be added? "Why do you refuse to come with specific claims and specific change requests?" --Regebro13:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, not again… here…

Thanks for removing that link without any valid explanation… it's my POV as I understand? Collaborate and elaborate joint endeavor based on facts apparently isn’t good enough? Is it what's wrong with cooperative research, or is it what's wrong with Wikipedia? You know, it's wrong to say that youtube is poor source, especially if clip represents news report from mainstream media, or testimonies or any other form of factual/historical documentary… it is also wrong to dispute such places as 911 timeline… These locations are gathering and archiving news reports from mainstream media, so if we dispute them, we also dispute AP, Reuters, BBC… and all other media outlets… under some other circumstances I would love to discuss the complicity of mainstream in keeping a status quo, but… Anyway, "'anyone who disputes that spring should take another visit, click on any section and verify that all articles are properly sourced and cited… Just leave it there…"' Lovelight20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Lovelight 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) x Lovelight 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed any link. You have countless times been asked you specify point by point, what you want changed and why. Why don't you do that? --Regebro15:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WOT

You had a good will of reliable resources from me already… and you know it. US administration repeatedly linked 911 to Iraq, link proved to be as false as claims about WMD's. There is no article more appropriate to describe this outrageous lie. Should I start one? That claim was a turning point for that brilliant, I like to call it, "blood for oil" initiative. That is a fact, why would anyone neglect it? Apart from that, I've just pointed above what Rumsfeld said on that very day… why should anyone close an eye on such things? And apart from that, construction of WOT section remains illogical. How can you state second big-operation without addressing the first one? Adding one sentence certainly isn’t: "diatribe about the Iraq War" in this article. I'm interested to hear your reply's, and it would be interesting to see your agreement/disagreement on that RFM too… Lovelight 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight, this has been mentioned to you repeatedly...Iraq came more than a year after 9/11. This article is about the events of that one day, a little of the the rationale for what the motivation was and a little of what the effect was. We are not going to go into a long diatribe about the Iraq War in this article. We have the 2003 invasion of Iraq which is the article you need to discuss that kind of alteration to.--MONGO 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mongo but I also do not totally agree. If there is a link with the attacks and the war in Iraq then perhaps a misly .5% of the article could be utilized to say something like. "According to ___(dunno... George Bush)___ the war in Iraq(wiki link here) has been linked to september 11, 2006 because point 1, point 2 and maybe point 3"(reference)(next subject) --CyclePat 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is not a diatribe, this is half sentence, one sentence most… It is not an issue that needs explaining, it's common, well referenced knowledge. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/archive229.2F11-Iraq_Link take a look at draft, proposed changes are in "'bold"'… as you see its tiny little edit, and it doesn’t have to be referenced nowhere but in WOT section. To be honest, I wouldn’t push it so persistently, but if we cannot agree on obvious, how could we have a decent discussion about more concerning issues? Lovelight13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you reposted this? This is the third time you have posted the text above in this article. This time you included the answers. They exist also above. I will assume good faith and let you explain this behaviour. --Regebro15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to have continuous discussion and you are continually disruptive? If you would please step a side so we wouldn't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANI an incident, thank you. Lovelight16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"The http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," George Bush via Lovelight16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA What's up?

You didn't answer my question: Why did you repost a part of your discussion, available above in this talk-page, again? You say you want a continous discussion. Then why do you copy it over so it is in two places? That is not continous. It would be nice if one of the administators can shed light on how this type of behaviour is normally seen. To me it is disruptive to see the same statement posted several times, it makes it hard to follow the debate properly. Also, instead of answering CyclePat inder the section where he wrote the answer, you copied it to a new section. Too me that looks like you are trying to hide your answer from him so he won't see it. By as I said, I will Assume Good Faith, and give you a chance to explain this behaviour. --Regebro17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to have a continous discussion, could you please indent more carefully? Indent one more indentation than the comment you answer, please. This is so it's possible to see what you are answering. That is, if the answer starts with say, ::::: your answer should start with ::::::. That is, one colon more than the answer. That makes it clear to who you answer. --Regebro17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"'Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,"' http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf United States Senate via Lovelight17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime." President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003. Lovelight17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the conspiracy theories and controversies surrounding 911, regardless of rather or not they hold water-tight reasoning, are an important aspect of this topic. There doesn't seem to be any significant opinion that suggests that the theories of evolution, scientology, christianity, or the JFK controversies should be excluded from Wikipedia merely because the theories aren't watertight. As such, it seems unreasonable to completely exclude conspiracy theories from the main 9/11 article, merely because they can't be proved with 100% accuracy. The September 11, arguably, form the most controversial issues of recent current affairs, yet from reading through the article this isn't immediately clear until reading the conspiracy section mid-way through this, very long, article. I think a good solution would be to put more detail in the conspiracy section, mention that there was widespread controversy regarding the attacks (including conspiracy theories) at the start of the article, and provide the link to the main 911 conspiracy article. I would hope that people could agree this to be a fair resolution which everyone could, take a pragmatic view and, accept. --"Signed by:" Chazz88 Chazz - . @ 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are not neglected in this article. They are properly treated in accordance with SUMMARY, as are other subarticles such as September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks, Collapse of the World Trade Center, Health effects of September 11, 2001 attacks, etc. --AudeVivere Aude 14:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aude, this is also about first impressions, amount of traffic, notability, current perspectives, public opinions, decency… and so on. Such issues whether Boeing 757, Pinocchio, Superman or flying Dick Cheney penetrated Pentagon shouldn’t be discussed in article, however, fact that after five years of public demands for more evidence, no such evidence is presented should definitely be presented. I see no reason whatsoever to tie valid questions with term conspiracy. If evidence presented is disputed, we should acknowledge the fact; it is not for us to guess why clear video feed of that particular event is withheld from public. CCTV in London has all those face recognizing features, and I would guess that sweet spot as Pentagon would have something better... if one (majority) find's all that reluctance to release information puzzling, does that constitutes conspiracy? Same goes for all other clear, obvious, factual, verifiable… peculiarities of that day. We have RFM, I would once more kindly ask if all involved parties would sing… Lovelight16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to allow x Lovelight to "'summarise"' facts relevant to the conspiracy in the conspiracy section, of course with a "'summary"' of any opposing facts. "Signed by:" Chazz88 Chazz - . @ 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You want to know my problems with the article? It reads as if the 9/11 attacks, as the government described them, are the way the events happened, and it treats the conspiracy theorists as a tiny minority that are hardly worth mentioning. I want to expand the conspiracy theory section to reflect the fact that a lot of people believe that the government had some involvement as well as naming prominent adherents, and I want to change the wording around, (murdered and massacred to killed, for example) at the very least, and at the very best, showing that there are many questons raised about the events. I don't think I can make this any more clear, though obviously it's vague because this is the third time I've brought it up. Mediation should be done, regardless of whether we think there is a dispute, remember, if there is disute over whether a dispute exists, then a dispute probably exists. That's in Wikipedia Policy.-- 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is when cplot was asked "what sentence or paragraph do you feel is POV", he would respond with the whole thing is POV. We need a basis to start from. I personally do not mind changing all isntances of massacre to killed, however massacre seems to be explain it when its in the thousands of victims. As for conspiracy theories I do not think they should take up too large a portion of the article as none have really gained any traction or are being actively appropriately tested. This leaves you with 2 options I can think of, start picking paragraphs and let everyone chime in, explain in detail what you think is wrong or POV about it and we can work together, or you can attempt a complete rewrite on your talk page in private or with everyone chiming in suggestions and edits. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The news media (around the world, not just the U.S. media) has written about and reported about 9/11 endlessly. These tend to be reliable sources that are appropriate for this article, and also comply with V. In addition to countless witnesses and survivors at the WTC, there were many phone calls from the four flights, and numerouse witnesses at the Pentagon who saw an American Airlines passenger jet and saw bits and pieces of the airplane in the Pentagon, on the lawn, and on the road. The government is only one source for the mainstream account in which Al Qaeda hijackers crashed planes into buildings. The number of reliable sources about conspiracy theories pales in comparison to information available that is consistent with the mainstream account. We need to discuss all these various aspects of 9/11 in summary here, leaving details to the subarticles. Conspiracy theories are just one of many aspects, and we do not need to give them any more space than they presently have. --AudeVivere Aude 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly are you pointing Aude? Are you saying you're ready to discuss and add all facts about "notable inconsistencies" of 911? If so I would tend to agree, however, if you are referring to such "inconsistencies" as to conspiracy talk, that would mean your usual suggestion of forcing a status quo, however, status quo is not acceptable on present day. There were all sorts of "confusing reports" from mainstream media. There are all sort's of important issues which are missing from http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a630vigilantguardian context. Apart from that, assertion how; "The number of reliable sources about conspiracy theories pales in comparison to information available that is consistent with the mainstream account.", sounds outlandish… Lovelight19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want, you say the article is POV but dont name sections, you say you want "alternate theories" introduced to the article, which others are calling "conspiracy theories", what are exactly are we talking about here? Is it Person X believes Donald Rumsfeld blew up the Twin Towers"? kind stuff, is it outlandish like the "Hologram Theory" which suggested that Cruise missles from US warships blew up the Twin Towers but used sophisticated holographic technology to disguise the missles as jumbo jets? What exactly do you find to be a credible "alternate theory", and how much space do you envision being dedicated to talk about it in the current article? Can you write something up and source it appropriately so others can look at it? Sourcing appropriately meaning of course sources that pass RS and V. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point? Such issues whether Boeing 757, Pinocchio, Superman or flying Dick Cheney penetrated Pentagon shouldn’t be discussed in article, however, fact that after five years of public demands for more evidence, no such evidence is presented should definitely be presented. I see no reason whatsoever to tie valid questions with term conspiracy… As for that other question I'll certainly point some refreshing issues, as soon as we resolve this one… if you wondering which one, read from top of the section, and be certain to take a look at that draft… I would be interested to hear your opinion, earlier you stated: " "What does Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks at the time of them happening, the Iraq section should say that it was part of the WOT at most, which sprang from 9/11." Which is exactly my case… Lovelight20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he missed your point. We all did. Once again you say what what you don't want to do. We have asked you to say what you WANT to do. Why do you refuse to do that? How do you expect to get through the changes you want when you refuse to say what they are? --Regebro20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an Iraq section ... I am confused. If we add an Iraq section we have to add a section on Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa, Operation Enduring Freedom - Phillipines, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan, Operation Active Endeavor. All of these predate Iraq, so I dont see why we should add one, or if its there why it shouldnt be removed since it doesnt make sense to have only a section about the latest and not all the predating ones. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's about simple, yet relevant change to existing section in the article. Paragraph in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacksThe_War_on_Terrorism War on Terrorism, and for your convenience proposed change are pasted here, in bold:

War on terrorism: In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that they had "changed the world forever." The Bush administration declared a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. "'Immediately after 9/11 attacks US officials accused Saddam Hussein for harboring and supporting Al-Qeida. False statement served as turning point in means of justification and pubic acceptance for 2003. invasion of Iraq."' The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the overthrow of Afghanistan's Taliban government, by a U.S.-led coalition. The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic extremist terrorism…

As you've noticed RS and V sources are everywhere, and if you dislike wording say so, this is draft only… Lovelight22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheney wont's a word and his say is: "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/ Lovelight23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you so very very much for being specific! :) It is so much nicer to talk about something concrete, and not just butting your head against a wall of generalities. Anyhoo, here are my questions:

That paragraph is about the US government response to the attack. Are you saying that the Iraq war was a "response" to the attacks? Because that's what your addition says. I'm not sure thats a generally accepted viewpoint, to say the least. I'm pretty sure most people feel that they used the war on terrorism as an excuse to get popular support for the invasion. I know I do. --Regebro00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute that there were "allegations" of "complicity" on the part of Iraq. And that "'is"' reported in the appropriate articles - there's no cover-up. But no justification has yet been proposed as to why it should be mentioned in the "'summary"' article. Bear in mind that the hijackers, whatever other terrible things they may be criminally responsible for, are "not" responsible for anything connected with Iraq. Peter Grey02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hijackers? How is this related to hijackers, its related to the War on Terror, US administrations response and invasion of Iraq... with regards to this event and in appropriate section of the article... Lovelight13:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You may find the justification in presented fact's, if on 9/11 Rumsfeld pointed nowhere else but to Iraq (which is based on such reasoning as there are no good targets in Afghanistan!?) then why should anyone neglect such fact? You are all well aware of consequences of that warmongering talk, you know the state of ME today, there is origin of that actuality, it is 911 and that is common knowledge. Mainstream media was more then complicit in staging that whole play, little spin here, little spin there…, well, the facts are known today. I'm not sure if there is a need to point this out, but I certainly don't expect from you folks here to act with such patriotism which will bend reality or change factuality of events. What is that? Honestly, I said it before, I know its disturbing from US perspective, I can sympathize with your outrage (if any) because of those lies, however, emotions are not of issue here (Regbro), there is no nationality here, we are Wikieditors and we deal with facts. Peter, when I presented original proposal all of your (repeatedly) stated concerns were taken in account, I've provided you with poll's which clearly show that vast majority of US forces believe they are in Iraq because countries connection with events of 911 (even today). There is a lot's of "peer" articles which will reflect this fact if it is stated in "seed article". Origin of 911/Iraq link is nowhere but here, yet Iraq is conveniently missing from article (it is sort of masterpiece apart from that little irrationality in WOT section). Addition is factual, verified, clear and relevant. It just fits that empty space there, it is properly added variable. Case was made crispy clear, and for you to question its importance from historical perspective we have today, honestly? Lovelight12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And again your point is that the link is indirect, existing only as a "political" construct "unrelated" to the actions of the hijackers. Thus by your own arguments it does not belong in the summary article. Perhaps among the other 1,510,850 articles in Wikipedia there are some where that particular point needs greater emphasis, but that should be brought up on the talk pages of the corresponding articles. Peter Grey13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hijackings are addressed above.., this proposal is "'very short,"' "'factual"' and "'relevant summary"' which fits current summary... if you are ready to dismiss that you shouldn’t dispute that POV tag… Lovelight14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with general opinions which are generally clear about this particular issue for years now. Apparently, and for reason unknown these facts need to be proven every once in a while… which is kind of amusing, it must be some sort of collective memory loss or something? A digression as such bygone and fact is Regbro that I'm not saying anything, fact is that I'm presenting facts. Just facts. If you won't to plea against facts go to your own Senate. Or feel free to dispute its findings. You know what is also a fact? Your perception of general opinions is mirrored reflection of articles as false as this one. Case is made clear. RS and V are met. Feel free to suggest/improve the wording but please, leave the meaning intact and clear. Lovelight00:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, facts is facts. So why don't we change the sentence to say "In 1914 war broke out in Europ". It's a fact. It also, just as your fact, has nothing to do with the paragraph in which you want to include it. --Regebro08:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition is quite clear I believe, "imo" the section is more then appropriate, if you would prefer a different one say so but I believe it should be brief and to the point. Have my apologies for such inappropriate reply, but your accusations of me reposting and disturbing the flow of thought in the moment in which I tried to summarize it and restore it did throw me of the track there… there is also this issue of repeating, since you keep repeating how I should state the case while case was constantly swimming in this little flow of thought we have here;). We had a few disagreements yesterday… let's leave them there? Lovelight12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The addition is super clear. That's not the problem. The problem is that by adding it in that section, you say that the Iraqi invasion was a "response to the attacks". This is a highly controversial POV, and is based on Saddam Hussein somehow being an accomplice to the attacks, which we have seen no proof of. It's therefore adding government POV to an article you claim has too much government POV already. That makes no sense... --Regebro12:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Since, you put it that way, yes apparently in this case I'm for introducing that government POV;). Government POV doesn’t really help the government does it? But those are not my concerns, and I'm not considering it as POV at all. Iraq was a part of direct response with regard to 911 events, or as Dick Cheney would put it: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.". It makes sense to me…;) Lovelight13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with helping anybody. It has only to do with one thing: POV. And it is POV to accept the controversial statement that Iraq was a part of the war on terror, and it is even more POV to claim that Iraq was accomplices to the 9/11 attacks. --Regebro14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of conclusion is that? And who are we suppose to help? How can you conclude such thing? What to hell your post has to do with my proposal? I'll answer you and save you some time, this things you are throwing at me have "'nothing"' to do with it. "'Not a thing"'. Read it carefully, because it was constructed carefully, it is intended to serve as note in encyclopedia you know?

"'Immediately after 9/11 attacks US officials accused Saddam Hussein for harboring and supporting Al-Qeida. False statement served as turning point in means of justification and pubic acceptance for 2003. invasion of Iraq."'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA What's up?;)))Lovelight15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote you included now is directly contradictory to the change you wanted to make before. Iraq can not be both a response to 9/11, and 9/11 cannot be used as a false justification for Iraq at the same time. If it is a response, it is not used as a false justification. If it used as a false justification, it is not a response. --Regebro15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is old proposal; it is same as it ever was… it doesn’t change and its clear for everyone, especially if you carefully go through this section and original draft. You, are not helping at all, and your attempts to spin the facts are, politely said… not a appreciated. Didn't you see my replay on talk page? Would you like me to throw a POV? Lovelight16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are other concerns, such as how to reflect the importance of those "inconsistencies" or how to distinguish reality from conspiracy… it would be lovely if we could finally wrap this one. Aude? Would you share your thoughts? Suggest wording? You had no other dispute I believe? Lovelight13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Acebrocks question: "You want to know my problems with the article?":

Yes, I want to know your problems with the article, thank you for answering and being so clear about it. Perfect! Your suggested changes seem very minor, and are hardly changes that require or deserve a POV tag. Can you make concrete "exactly" what changes you want? Preferably in a section below? --Regebro20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid all the stress involving debates, I'm rewriting the article in my userspace and noting changes in the respective talk page, so as to make points for discussion. Boring, but it goes somewhere. I'd recommend the oters who believe that the artice needs to be changed do the same, so we have some idea about what each of us thinks and can use the best points-- 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you revert to the "the whole article is bad but I won't tell you why" stance. It's not constructive. --Regebro08:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Communcations pointed to Osama?

"On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.37"

sourced with: ^ "Latest on the attacks on America, 7:00 PM", CBS News, September 11, 2001.

I think it should either be sourced better, or be removed. On the day of attacs there were numerous claims (6 airplanes hijacked etc...) which turned out to be false. (the same goes to Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article) SalvNaut18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone is aware if this fact found it's place in 9/11 commission (ommission) report? SalvNaut20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This was already answered above so asking twice is disruptive...don't be disruptive.--MONGO20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

??—Preceding )

Mongo, stay on topic. SalvNaut is clearly trying to fix these serious NPOV problems. You cannot simply say "well the article reflects my POV so I've asnwered you". One suggestion would be to restate this as: "CBS News reported that on the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.' This way it makes it clear and verifiable. A reader can verify that CBS reported this. A reader cannot veify that US intelligence agencies interecepted communications. --70.8.139.19221:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First off...get a username...secondly, Osama admitted to being the mastermind. I don't care if the CBS news issue is removed, but we're not going to alter the facts to fit some POV that Osama had nothing to do with the event, when the preponderance of evidence indicates he did. As far as "serious" NPOV problems...what...shall we have the article become full of conspiracy theory nonsense, or stick to what is provable? There is no POV issues, except from those that want to believe the impossible...that was addressed above.--MONGO21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Provable? I don't think that that's in wikipedia policy. Verifiable, yes, provable, no policy that I've seen. The conspiracy theories are verifiable, they aren't Original Research, and they can be presented in a Neutral Point of View, so for the most part that argument is moot--Acebrock21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That there are conspiracy theories is a fact....that the theories are based on fact is the issue...they are not based on facts and hence, in accordance with the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy, they get a passing mention and a link to their own article under appropriate titles.--MONGO21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahoy mate, good to see you up and runnin' ;P Lovelight00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I quote NPOVundue weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and "'should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."' It's a prominently held view that 9/11 was caused by the government, as shown by google results. Also I quote Jimbo:

***If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

***"'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"'

***If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

many of the conspiracy theories meet criterion 2, not 3 as you seem to believe. A full third of people is a significant minority, and as such it is currently unduly underweighted--Acebrock22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are opinion based...we don't reference opinion based nonsense to accodate your POV. I am well awre of the undue weight clause and it doesn't matter how many people "think" the government was behind the attacks or anything like that...the fact that it is not supported by the verifiable evidence is the reason such nonsense is relegated to the appropriately named daughter articles. It is a violation of the undue weight clause to include them here. They are mentioned and linked...this has been disucussed with POV pushers of nonsense for years now and the conspiracy theorists have brought zero new evidence to the table to refute the known facts.--MONGO07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

who says that the government's story isn't based on opinion? The causes of autism article is based on scholarly opinions. And the "'extreme male brain theory"' section is based purely on opinion, yet the opinion of a reputable researcher, and apparently a number of people believe it. Also it's the Christian's "opinion" that they will be raptured away, the only proof is in "one" edition of the bible. And cite one policy that says that there has to be evidence to have something included in an article. If one third of americans believe that the goverment had something to do with 9/11 than it's notable enough to recieve more than a blurb--Acebrock18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469 statistics. Apart from that, do you folks remember the initial reaction of Osama? He said: "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,"… it was on Al Jazeera, as well as http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ CNN. Lovelight00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo wrote: "First off...get a username...secondly," Mongo do you have no regard at all for what Wikpedia is trying to accomplish. Everywhere throughout Wikipedia there are users who take NPOV seriously; who take verifiability serioiusly; who take no original researcy seriously, unlke you. And many of those who make valuable contributions to Wikpedia do so annonymously: another tenant of wikis. Again, if you don't like the idea behiind wikipedia, then don't participate. But please don't come in here and insist Wikipedia be like Fox News or the New York Times. Just go participate in those insitutions if that's what you're looking for.

Secondly, Osama bin Laden is a living person and so we must be careful to adhere to Wikpedia's policies on that. There has not been any indictment of Osama bin Laden on this: let alone a conviction. Most of the evidence that I presume exists has never been aired in a court of law. Now I believe Osama bin Laden had something to do with these attacks, but that doesn't let me (or anyone else) run rough shot over over Wikpedia policies and guidelines. We're here to write and encyclopedia: a wiki encyclopedia. Join in that process or just recuse yourself. Looking through these dicussion archives I find a lot of evidence that you're here to disrupt and not contribute.

Now that it's clear that there is not a concesnsus among editors, it's time for us to figure out a way to make this artricle meet Wikipedia's standards. There are so many problems in this article it's going to take a log of work. Your attempts to shout down every editor you don't agree with only makes it that much more cumbersome to fix the article. --68.30.46.22822:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you luck POV pushing in this article...and don't tell me to go elsewhere...how dare you! All I asked you to do was to get a username...you'll be much more likely to have your efforts here treated with respect if you create a username and use only that when you contribute...that is simply the way it works on an article such as this one, whether you like it or not. Osama has admitted to masterminding the attacks...that is about as clear as it can be.--MONGO07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Admitting to "masterminding" is orthogonal to being guilty of masterminding. Don't you remember 80's/90's when afer each terrorist attack numerous terrorist organizations claimed responsibility? Anyway, I'm sure that people connected with Osama had something to do with 9/11 - question is what exactly, where did the money come from? etc.

Getting back to the point again: Changing this sentence to "In the evening of the day of attack CBS reported that....,which hasn't been confirmed later." is a good proposition. I already made some research into this and couldn't find nothing more about it? Has anyone found something? We don't want to spread disinformation, do we? SalvNaut11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What I've found so far is this report about communication intercepted betwen Osama and his stepmother on 9th of Septemberhttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinestartpos=1100a090901stepmother. So... who knows what CBS report was about (foreknowledge?). Maybe it's not a good idea to use CBS report from the day of attack as a source? SalvNaut21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.37"

Please remove this unverifed statement per arguments above. We are not here to repeat everything what media says. This sentence should be at least clarified with "On the day of attacks CBS reported that...." but even then, I see no reason to include it. There were numerous false statements in the media on that day. Or it could be sourced much much better to explain who, when, who intercepted, etc. I've only found info about Osama and his stepmother on 9th of September. SalvNaut22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A new source has been presented - very good. The problem is that there is not a word in this source about Osama bin Ladin. Only about "interception of telephone conversations between jubilant terrorist supporters" and from the article it can be read that those were other terrorist cells. Please, stay strict and sharp minded, and if you want to have it here rephrase it appropriately (to whoever made the edit). Replacing "Osama" with "members of Al-Qaeda" or something similiar. Don't you think it's stupid that the article, at its present form, states that Osama called hijackers on the day of attacks, while even FBI admits that they do not have enough proof to pursue Osama for 9/11? SalvNaut00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but a source is given, just because its not a website you can google doesnt mean it doesnt exist and as such should be left alone, V doesnt mean "items that you can get to by your web browser." As such the original source given should be the one in the article. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The source says "From known bin Laden supporters". Maybe we should replace "that pointed to bin Laden" with that wording instead? It makes less conclusions. --Regebro17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

THe original source simply stated as, ""Latest on the attacks on America, 7:00 PM", CBS News, September 11, 2001."?

I think we should leave the wording alone unless we can get that source and see what it says, else just leave it all alone since its clear SalvNut has not gotten his hands on the source to allege that its not valid. Again RS and V does not mean stuff you can google. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but shouldn't we keep the orginal source as well, until SalvNut has done that? --Regebro17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is unless it can be shown that the original source given is faulty, noone should just remove it because they do not have access to it and do not believe what it says. So unless Salvnut has seen the source and can prove its bad, it should stay and this really isnt an issue. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what ABC News had to say at 8pm on 9/11/2001:

"Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, told the Associated Press that US intelligence intercepted communications between supporters of Osama bin Laden discussing the attacks on the World Trade Center. And he then goes on to say, I'm just going to get his quote accurately here, 'They have an intercept of some information, including people associated with Osama bin Laden, who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit.'"

The various sources from the day of the attack, and the weeks/months after, indicate many different communications intercepts of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden supporters, as well as communications of Bin Laden himself (to his mother). If I keep sifting through the articles, I'm sure I'll find more such details that could be added to the article. I don't mind if we replace the CBS source with other sources that provide more details about the intercepted communications. Though, I also entirely agree that reliable sources that can't be found on Google are entirely acceptable. --AudeVivere Aude 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice finds, I was mainyl concerned with protecting the existing source, however you have found suitable replacements that perhaps people will have less an issue with. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those "new" sources resulted from a very quick search of news article databases. There were hundreds of articles (from only the month of Sept. 2001) about intercepted communications somehow related or connected to Osama bin Laden. I did not have time to sift through all the sources and read them all. There are 1600+ such articles from Sept - December 2001. Some may be false positives, but a spot check shows most are relevant. I just clicked on one that says:

"Suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden told his mother there was "big news" on the way, two days before the September 11 terror strikes, it was reported last night."

"An unnamed foreign intelligence agency reportedly intercepted a call in which bin Laden said: "In two days, you are going to hear big news, and you are not going to hear from me for a while."

"The call was made to Al-Kalifa bin Laden, who is either his mother or adoptive mother, a wife of his father who may have raised him after his birth mother died."

This is from the Belfast News Letter, dated October 3, 2001. It's also reported in the Globe and Mail (Toronto) on October 2, 2001, and over 100 other news articles.

Since the article is protected, I don't want to add these details and sources just yet. --AudeVivere Aude 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The news databases also contain transcripts from CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and other broadcast sources. The CBS News source is a transcript from the evening of September 11, 2001, when more facts were beginning to come in. Any university as well as many public libraries can provide you with access to such databases. --AudeVivere Aude 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what we have now, is communication between Osama and his stepmother intercepted on 9th of Septemberhttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinestartpos=1100a090901stepmother and ""... an intercept of some information, including people associated with Osama bin Laden, who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit."" (on 11th, right?) Can someone make an edit that would reflect just that? SalvNaut20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove protection to add link?

Is it possible to remove the edit protection to include a link to the September 11 2001 fifth anniversary page?

No, maybe if it weren't a stub with four notices at the top. --Golbez13:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what version you were looking at, but it's quite a substantial article. "Rich Farmbrough Rich ", 16:18 4 December 2006 (GMT).

terrorist?

isnt calling 9/11 a "terrorist" attact POV? one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Keltik3116:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The aim of the terrorism does not change its status as terrorism. --Regebro16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Then the state of Israel is a terrorist nation and Ariel Sharon is a terroristKeltik3117:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to bring it up on Israel. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The definition of terrorist is an interesting topic that has no business here. Take it up in Terrorism if you like. I would also recommend you to take greater care in your choice of tenses. "was" and "is" is not the same word. Sorry for this interruption, now back to our regular programme. --Regebro18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried. But it gets deleted by the PC Police. I have referred to the acts of terror against the British in Palestine as terror and called Begin a terrorist and I get scolded. Keltik3118:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should put a

helpme

tag on your talk page and get a more experienced users advice, or ask an admin for assistances in dealing with that, either way this is not the right place if your issue is with Israel. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose dumping the word terrorist entirely, or at least rewording all mentions of it it, because it's listed at WTA-- 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I reject this, I believe everyone considers this a terrorist attack from every news publication that meets RS that I have seen to every other encyclopedia and government official. I have yet to see anyone actually deny it was a terrorist attack, they may have said "they deserved it", but they all said the it part, was a terrorist attack. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, but they're called such in the narrative voice which, under WTA, should not be done without qualification. It should say something like: 19 men associated with Al Qaeda, a group on America's homeland security terrorist watchlist, hijacked four planes. The rest of the mentions of terrorism could be removed or changed to hijackers as appropriate. Here is what WTA has to say about using terrorist:

1. "'The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article."' In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

2. "'It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are."'-- 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The last one is also just a good writing technique, it's called show, don't tell-- 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And while we're on the subjec of implying a view, I found this in WTA:

Article structure

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

From Wikipedia:Words To Avoid:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

frpm NPOV:We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all "'significant, competing views"' sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.

In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism.

And one can, and many do, see this as happening in this article, and as such I see no reason to not expand the conspiracy theory section.-- 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They are working on that above I believe, someone is rewriting the article if I am correct. As for the terrorist stuff it would be quite silly to list who when its the free world. Do we write, Germany, US, UK, Canada, India, Japan, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and list over 30+ nations then list international organizations such as Red Cross, UN, NATO, EU, etc ... Then we can go into new agencies to make it clear they do as well, stating BBC, FOX, Turner Broadcasting, CNN, then into newspapers ... I mean its probably the only universally accepted terrorist attack in the world. If you want to weigh against all that then provide evidence someone doesnt consider it a terrorist attack and we will list the excluded ones since the included ones is far too many, adding all of them would seem like a POINt violation. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed version

I have created a proposed version of the aricle Acebrock/9/11 here. Do not edit the page, but do read through it, look at the history, and comment on each edit on the talk page

You have been asked to discuss here the changes you want to make, one by one. Your continued refusal to do this and instead continue to treat the article as a whole makes any constructive progress impossible. --Regebro10:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

if you actually looked you would see that the changes I made were given point by point and each one could be added if it gained consensus. If one didn't I would just toss it away without adding it to the article so in a way, that's exactly what I did, made my points one by one and incorperated them in a test article. Read the talk page of my proposed version-- 17:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This creates two articles with two talk pages and is very confusing. Why not just copy the paragraphs into this talk page (one at a time) and have discussion on them (one at a time). That would make it easier on everyone to discuss the proposed changes without having to switch back and forth. The paragraphs can then they can be added as consensus is reached, here. --PTR18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll just copy over the current talk page as well as some relevant paragraphs that have been added or changed (I turned all of the ref here into links):

Edit 1

Massacred and murdered to killed

Comments

Removed all mention of terrorism per WTA

Comments:

WTA does not state that you cannot use the word terrorism and I think this is gongi to prevent anyone from actually accepting this rewrite, personally this is the only issue I have with the rewrite. As noone has really come forward denying this was a terrorist incident it defeats the point of WTA to not call it one. Further if we were to follow WTA by the book and not the spirit, then that would cause us to list every nation in the UN / NATO before we cite it as a terrorist attack, instead of just accepting its the general world view with noone disagreeing that I have ever seen, even Al Jazeera called it a terrorist attack. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is why we have discussion. I'm planning on adding the changes that are accepted. those rejected are thrown down the memory hole-- 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously on the talk page with consensus that "terrorist" is entirely appropriate here. 9/11 fits the definition of "terrorism" in every respect. --AudeVivere Aude 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reworded pentagon hit a bit (probably going to be challenged come game time)

Now says "It is generally believed that the pentagon was hit by said flight"

Comments:

No weasel words please. Even among the "truthers", some are coming around to believe the flight crashed into the Pentagon. --AudeVivere Aude 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is generally believed that the pentagon was hit by said flight". Yes, and it is generally beleived that 2+2 is 4, but of course, we know that to be a government coverup. ;) Anyway, you are here mixing up several edits into one, claiming it to be one edit. That makes discussion hard. Please take up the changes ONE BY ONE. And we can discuss them. Don't claim that a rewording of once sentence + the reformulation of the word terrorist + the change of "massacred" to "kileld" is ONE edit. It is clearly THREE edits. --Regebro23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

three edit done at once. I added a comment section for each change, in case you didn't notice. Look at the history of my porposed version and you'll notice I often did several things at once. Also I modified it right when I was creating it, which is edit 1-- 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to with what you do at once or not. I repeat: Please take up each proposed change "'one by one"' with an explanation of why you want to that change. And don't refer to a fuzzy "Edit 1" on a subpage, which requires people do go in and look at a diff on a subpage to understand what you wnat to change. Don't fork the article, don't treat the changes as a whole, don't refer to the article as a whole as being POV without arguing for it. Just simply describe the changes you want to do, one by one, and your reasons for the change. I really don't understand why you still refuse to do that. It's not like it's hard to do, right? --Regebro13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I showed my changes. you're free to comment on them. I have no reason to respond to your trolling, as I see it. If you can actually comment on the changes suggested and avoid coomenting on the way I go about doing things, which is not at all constructive, we might get somewhere. I do things my way and you do things your way, I do't see why I have to do things the way you want me to. I have free will, I do things my own way, and you continually try to disrupt my attempts at making the article less POV by finding something that you think should be changed in my way of doing things. I ask you to stop commenting on my way of doing things NOW-- 07:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

YOu make it difficult to see exactly what changes you have done and are proposing. That will in practice mean that your changes will be ignored. Is that the reason why you are doing that? If not, then why can you not simply take up your changes, one by one, with a clear description of exactly what you want to change, so it's easy to understand what you want, ask we have asked so many times? --Regebro08:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit 2

Expanded conspiracy theory section and provided reliable sources

Comments:

The following should be rewritten more encyclopedic ""and that the beams got rubbery with the burning jet fuel everywhere."" --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed.-- 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

section with changes

"'Conspiracy theories"'

Various conspiracy theories, have emerged that question the mainstream account of the attacks. Conspiracy theorists as well as notable celebrities, such as actor Charlie Sheenwww.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm and William Rodriguez, A janitor working in the towers at the time of the attacks,http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Charlie-Sheen-Making-9-11-Conspiracy-Movie-3293.html have said the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by planted explosives. Some say a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most conspiracy theories say individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and let them happen, or actually planned the attacks. While conspiracy theories about Jewish or Israeli involvement are "a core part of the belief system of anti-Semites and millions of others around the world (unchanged cite here), in the United States a minority of conspiracy theorists say there was Israeli or Jewish involvement in the attacks.

One Poll by Scripps Howard and the Ohio University system found that 36% of Americans suspected Government involvement or complacency in the attacks. Another poll by Zogby International concluded that 49% of New Yorkers suspected that the US government had some involvemement in the attacks.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

Many groups have sprung up with evidence of government involvement, most notably The 9/11 Truth Movement, which notes that the government failed to intercept any of the hijacked planes, and that the World Trade Center fell into it's footprint. However, the latter has been challenged by structural engineers, who say that a building weighing a million tons, and being 95% air could only come down in that fashionhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/ and the burning jet fuel caused the steel beams to get soft and rubbery, eventually resulting in failure.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/3/

Also noted by conspiracy theorists is the fact that the CIA warned President Bush that "there was a high probability of a spectacular terrorist attack."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/2/ Also noted by conspiracy theorists is the reports from several firefighters that they saw flashes and heard explosions just before the collapse.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/3/ Many conspiracy theorists also think that United 93 didn't crash into Shanksville PA. and and flight 77 didn't crash into The Pentagon, but when asked where the planes and passengers went they say it doesn't matter.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/3/

Edits 3 and 4

fixed typos and added info I forgot about.

Comments:

Edit 5

Massive additions to the 9/11 conspiracy theory section. Kept it fairly neutral and cited the media (and MSNBC "is" a reliable source)

Comments:

(see above)

Issue

Probably in the original as well but the WOT section needs sources, the view of most US citizens? that kind of comment definatly needs sources and the rest of that paragraph as well.

Final paragraph in "Fatalities" before "Damage" needs sources.

"The hijackers" this section needs sources. Is "Arab men" appropriate? Doesn't Arab refer to Saudi Arabian only?

"9/11 Commission Report" Should be expanded.

--x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Definately from the main article. I'll see what I can do in the space of an hour. After that I'm signing off-- 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do not take these as remarks against your rewrite, just notes that I will move to the other talk page as well. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd focus on npov stuff before hitting existin citation problems. npov problems are huge. --SoLittleTime23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the NPOV problems I saw were fixed and I cited some sources. I'll pull them up

"'Damage"'

In addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, five other buildings at the World Trade Center site, including 7 World Trade Center and the Marriott Hotel, two New York City Subway stations, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church were destroyed or badly damaged. In total, in Manhattan, 25 buildings were damaged and all seven buildings of the World Trade Center Complex had to be razed.http://nreionline.com/other/nyc/real_estate_derelict_ground_zero/index.html Two additional buildings were later condemned: the Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex, due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office towerhttp://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/AR/20040227r.asp and Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway due to extensive damage in the attacks.http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/fitermannews/ These buildings are both (as of September 2006) slated for deconstruction. http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx

Communications equipment such as broadcast radio, television and two-way radio antenna towers were damaged beyond repair. In Arlington County, a portion of the Pentagon was severely damaged by fire and one section of the building collapsed.(source already here)

Arab men was changed to men of middle eastern descent and sourced

Didn't tackle the challenge of expanding the 9/11 commision report section

Much improved

how timely? just visited talk page to say that this article misses bad on NPOV policy. Then i see your post at bottom. this is much better than what's there. i couldn believe how pov the current one is. one other suggestion. "conspiracy theories" seems a bit off too. even more than 'terrorist'. after all isn't that just used to dismiss dissenting viewpoints? how bout something like 'further evidence" or 'dissenting viewpoints'. Seems much more encyclopedic to me. --SoLittleTime23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not accept that, the truth is most are conspiracy theorys, stating the US government took down the buildings and covered up the fact is a theory on a conspiracy ... --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

so is stating a worldwise cabal of moslem extremists conspired to attack the financial and military symbols of the united states. its all a bunch a theories bout conspiracy. but the phrase 'conspiracy theory' means somethin else. also it sounds like you're not up to date on your familiarity with the literature on this topic. you can't just read popular mechanics to understand this stuff. sorry. don't mean to insult you but its true. --SoLittleTime01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't take advice from sockpuppets, goodbye cplot. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

what evidence do you have that he's a sockpuppet? the fact that he doesn't agree with you and is willing to debate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppetsUser:Cplot There is no conclusive proof that he is a sockpuppet so wait until the admins come to a conclusion-- 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logtype=blockpage=User:SoLittleTime you can post your apology on my talk page. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish consopiracy nuts

should add citation of a specific prominent theorist who thinks the jews coordinated the attacks. otherwise the quote from the adl looks way too defensive. the way it is now it just comes out of nowhere.—Preceding )

Care to provide a name so I can get a source? You're right, prominent theorists should be named but I cant find him/her in my google search-- 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's the end of the talk page there.

Proposed changes

Okay, here is the first paragraph of proposed changes from Acebrock. The major changes to the paragraph are the removal of the term "terrorist" and the addition of "is thought to have crashed into the Pentagon" for flight 77. Please comment below. --PTR19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The "'September 11, 2001 attacks"' (often referred to as "'9/11"'—pronounced ""nine eleven"") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The victims were predominantly civilians.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen mencite 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

affiliated with al-Qaedacite news | title = Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11 | publisher = CBC News | date = 2004-10-29 | url = http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

| accessdate = 2006-09-07 hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. The hijackers crashed two of the airliners (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC). A third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) is thought to have crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.

Comments

I don't agree with removing the word "terrorist" since it is used by all RS sources. This is considered and called (by all reliable sources) a terrorist attack and not a suicide attack. I don't agree with "thought to have crashed into the Pentagon" since we have no sources with that wording. All the RS sources we have say the plane crashed into the Pentagon. There are those who have other thoughts and theories but these are not supported, at this time, by reliably sourced facts.--PTR19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur 100% with PTR. No weasel words please. --AudeVivere Aude 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "terrorist" stays. --Shamir121:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PTR has it nailed. --StuffOfInterest23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There does not exist a definition of the word "terrorism" that this event does not match. The word stays. --Regebro13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist seems to be the only term that "isn't" a POV term, so yes, keep it. —Doug Bell Dougnbsp;Bellnbsp; 08:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Changing "terrorist" to "suicide" is a subtle but deliberate insertion of POV into the very first sentence. "Thought to have crashed..." is less subtle and more obvious. --Valwen04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing terrorist to suicide is an insertion of POV? One could argue the opposite way just as easily. The other one was in response to all of the questions raised by conspiracy theorists, which have a mainstream following. Have we stopped assuming good faith?. Remember, we must present all views fairly and equally and no one here seems to be trying to that. I cite NPA:

Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesising these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that "'we are all part of the same community"' as we are all Wikipedians.

And yet many people here believe that "conspiracycruft" doesn't belong. The biggest thing that I feel needs changing is the conspiracy theory section needs to be expanded, or workd in throughout the article, because there are more than a few wikipedians who say that the government had some sort of involvement in 9/11. I'd prefer working it in throughout the article, which would result in a far more NPOV article in my, and quite a few others, opinions. Maybe we should take a giant straw poll to see if the article is POV? Would that convince you that change is necessary? Or are you too blinded by your own POV to see that the article has problems? Remember, the government's POV is hardly NPOV-- 08:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling a terrorist attack a suicide attack is definitely a POV. A suicide attack is something used also in wars and in defending yourself. It's a much wider word, and it also implies a certain amount of heroism. It's a very POV word. This was, according to all definition that exists, a terrorist attack. --Regebro08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"thought to have crashed into the Pentagon" this surely has to go, I mean if we are to give more weight to Scholars for 9/11 then every other RS source then why not state the other 2 planes are "thought to have hit thw WTC", I mean one theory is that cruise missles with advanced holographic systems disguised as jumbo jets did it, or that it was controlled demolition and that the planes were jets or rockets, at what point do we give in to conspiracy theories? Also the word terrorist should stay since even the conspiracy theory people call them terrorists, they are reffering to the CIA black helicopter people, but they still use the term. Further I do not like this "al-Qaeda affiliates, OBL has already stated he choose them, that is more then AQ affiliated, that is AQ recruited, or AQ led etc. I think affiliated is too soft a term, makes it seems like they were not AQ members or given orders by AQ etc, all things OBL has already admitted and proved in film. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The word terrorist is POV, as is recognised everywhere else in wikipedia. I tried to make the change here some time ago but was shouted down by the mob. The problem is there is a group of flag-waving Americans hanging around this article pushing the inclusion of this POV term. Why can't wikipedia just present the facts of the attacks, without editorialising? Damburger12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

""a group of flag-waving Americans hanging around this article pushing the inclusion of this POV term. Why can't wikipedia just present the facts of the attacks, without editorialising?"" Ask yourself. Comment on content, not other people. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 12:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"thought to have crashed" in the Pentagon sentence is weasel worded, in my opinion. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add icelandic interwiki

As the article is locked, could someone please add interwiki to the icelandic article: is:Hryðjuverkin 11. september 2001. --Jóna Þórunn20:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --AudeVivere Aude 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected request

Please add following: "Immediately after 9/11 attacks US officials accused Saddam Hussein for harboring and supporting Al-Qeida. False statement served as turning point in means of justification and pubic acceptance for 2003. invasion of Iraq."; to appropriate place (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksWOT discussion) in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacksThe_War_on_Terrorism The War on Terrorism section.

Lovelight

10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's out of order to be making these requests while you are a listed party in an active request for mediation on this article. Please refrain from making editprotected requests of potentially disputed content unless "all" editors listed in the RfM sign the request. Thanks, —Doug Bell Dougnbsp;Bellnbsp; 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the rules there, but I'm pretty sure that request for edit is valid since it has nothing to do with issues raised in RfM, RfM is about: "Whether including conspiracy theories in detail is POV." This addition is RS and V, and it is not disputed… once again, anyone is free to dispute such source as this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf one. Lovelight11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide the page number in the report so this can be referenced? —Doug Bell Dougnbsp;Bellnbsp; 11:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Details are in section "III. Iraqi Links to Al-Qu'ida.", conclusion is on page 105. (under G. Conclusions), however, you may also consider http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm this link as reference… It is interlinked with Senate report in question… Lovelight12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's out of order or not, but I'm happy to see that Lovelight is now doing simple and clear requests where he explicitly says exactly what he wants changed. Thank you (yes, I really mean that, I'm not sarcastic or anything).

Though I basically agree with the statement itself and don't find it POV or anything, I have doubts whether this article is the correct place for such a statement. It just doesn't seem to actually have much to do with the topic. (It also lack a reference, and it should not say "immediately" but specify when, but those are easily fixed details). --Regebro12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Regebro, and I mean that sincerely, as you are well aware of, I was always making simple and clear requests, thanks for pointing that out… details are in section "III, Iraqi Links Al-Qu'ida.", however reference should point to the conclusion on page 105. (under G. Conclusions) of report… Please allow a few minutes and I'll provide alternative, equally suitable reference, it is from mainstream media and interlinked with one in question… Lovelight12:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

That link unfortunately doesn't really support the statement. It supports the idea that Rumsfeldt wanted to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11 (but the again he might have wanted that before 9/11 as well). What needs to be found is a link to the first reasonably official statement that Iraq harbours Al-Queda terrorists, and the word "immediately" to be changed to reflext when this statement was done. The of course there is also the question if this has anything to do in the article, or if it's too off-topic. --Regebro14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to previous discussions (please read it carefully, it's ongoing for way too long now), all of your repeatedly stated concerns were repeatedly addressed. Appropriate links/references were provided. Feel free to suggest and "clarify" that word… Lovelight14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If appropriate links where provided then, why can you not provide them now? If my concerns has been adressed, why does that sentence read "immediately" instead of having a more specific time? No, Lovelight, you are still pretending to not listen. That doesn't help you improve the article. --Regebro15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Specific, verifiable accusations from named officials would be encyclopedic, but even then it is still an "indirect" link to the summary article. The attacks were exploited by Bush, but they were not the cause of Bush's bad judgment and deceptions, and Bush's fixation on Iraq is known to predate 11 September 2001. Peter Grey02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

dispute, POV

Well Reg, thank you for turning this into circus, I'm afraid that I'll call for meditation/arbitration on this one, you were free to suggest and/or "clarify" that word, you continued to disrupt discussion, you failed to check already provided references and I have no intention to repost them especially for you… Neutrality of the article is disputed, place appropriate tag at the entrance point or inform the world that this page is property of US and that simple truth has no place on it… Lovelight19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody except you, Cplot and the other conspiracy pushers have turned anything into a circus. We have requested millions of times that you take up requested changes or parts you think are POV, one by one, whith explanations of what you want changed, why you want it changed, and with verifiable sources to support your claims. This has not happened once. Your last attempt failed on the fact that is was off-topic for the article, plus you have no verifiable sources. It's as simple as that. You continues claims of disruption are personal attacks (and lies, too). If you don't want a circus, stop claiming I disrupt things because I request of you to follow Wikipedia policies. --Regebro22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I demand your apology – immediately… Lovelight23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for you calling me disruptive and you accusing me of making this a circus. Please accept my full apologies for your behaviour. --Regebro11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't pursue this further in such manner, I'll reply and illustrate below… Lovelight13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No NPOV dispute has been identified. Repeatedly asserting bias that even you yourself cannot substantiate is not editing in good faith. Nor is "demanding" an apology when someone states facts about your edit history.

Look! Is it a man or is it a mouse? Or is it just a voice, a strange disturbing voice from the dark… Lovelight10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Other WoT issuess

Since we have a War on Terrorism article, I would suggest reducing the War on Terrorism section to just the first sentence of the current paragraph and putting the above discussed information in that article. Since this is an article on the attacks, there are several parts of this article that can be pruned in the same way. Currently the article attempts to discuss too many issues in too much detail.--PTR15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence? That would be weird. But I agree it has sentences that doesn't seem to belong: I'd suggest removing "The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban rule from Afghanistan, by a U.S.-led coalition." which seem completely out of place, and also "Because the attacks on the United States were judged to be within the parameters of its charter, NATO declared that Article 5 of the NATO agreement was satisfied on September 12, 2001, making the US war on terror the first time since its inception that NATO would actually participate in a "hot" war.84". Since when is this article about NATO? So I suggest we remove these two sentences. --Regebro15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. How about something like this:

In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that the attacks had "changed the world forever."

The Bush administration declared a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks using economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic extremist terrorism.

Although I don't really like the wording of the last sentence. --PTR16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine by me, but I agree the last sentence also is a bit off topic. --Regebro16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IF you change Indonesia to Pakistan you can mention that the US helped those nations increase their military readiness, keeping ti a bit more on topic. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, two people agree on something on this page! Hopefully others will comment so we can see if they agree or disagree. --PTR17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. "Rich Farmbrough Rich ", 16:19 4 December 2006 (GMT).

The decision by NATO makes a notable statement about the seriousness of the attacks, although it adds little to the summary article. The overthrow of the Taliban, as an accomplice to the attacks, is a relevant item, but "second-biggest operation" is problematic because it's only correct if you specify the US "Global War on Terrorism"; it was the largest operation actually in response to the September 11 attacks or to terrorism in general. Peter Grey03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected request

Please add the POV template to the top of the article. The preceding discussion demonstrates a clear dispute over NPOV problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IS1A1hsJ18 * Lovelight21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to point out one single thing that is POV. None of the disputes above is about POV. They used to be about whether there was a dispute or not. There wasn't. There is currently not one single ongoing dispute. The only thing even remotely resembling a dispute the last day is me requesting that you in your change requests are clear about what you want to change, why you want to change it, and support the statements in your changes with verifiable references. That is hardly a dispute at all, and it is in absolutely no way even remotely resembling a POV dispute. --Regebro22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One more time, you've deliberately posted defamatory and false statements about me and my contributions… I'm expecting statement in which you are expressing your remorse for such action. Conspiracy pusher? Have you no decency at all!? Lovelight00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

x Regebro's statements appear to be neutral and factual. A general accusation of "defamatory and false statements" could be considered a personal attack unless you can identify the offending statements. Peter Grey03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User Regebro is disruptive and repulsive liar. I demand apology for his defamatory and false statements about me or my contributions to Wiki… Until there is clear notion of repentance I will continue to point this out. If Regebro has any problem with my "'clear and open"' accusation I would suggest that he state his case in front of our honorable committee… As for evidence, well Peter, you should really look around… Lovelight08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody except you, Cplot and the other conspiracy pushers have turned anything into a circus." --Regebro

Regebro, you need to chill out. You're being extremely hostile. While I understand that you disagree with the content of the linked page, and that the discussion on this talk page can get heated, and perhaps frustrating for all participants, you have to be more civil. Debate the merits of the link, citing specific reasons you oppose it; do not accuse LoveLight of trying to intentionally unbalance the article. x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not hostile. I am being clear, and yes, repetetive. I have asked numerous times the same thing which never happens: That Lovelight requests changes one by one (this happened), specifies exactly what he wants changed (this he also did) and that his request are supported by verifiable sources (this did not happen). If I in any way sound hostile it's because I have to repeat this over, and over, and over, and over, while Lovelight calls me disruptive, a liar and accuses me of making thsi a acircus and other things. I am not hostile, I am just running out of patience. If you regard "conspiracy pusher" as being uncivil, that may be so. I regard it as being a factual statement. If Lovelight gets upset by that, I'm sorry. --Regebro11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Lovelight, independence does not equal NPOV. You seem to think that only the goverment has a POV and everybody who are independant from the givernment somehow are neutral objective and unbiased. This is not so. POV/NPOV is about being based in facts instead of opinions. That link is FULL of opinions, and hence, it's POV. It happens to be YOUR POV, but that is irrelevant. I have no right to link to a webpage that call conspiracy theorists "Deaf dumb and blind basketcases". That may be my opinion, but it is my POV (and yes, I am as independent as they come), and it has nothing to do in the main article, just as your POV has nothing to do in the main article. Is anything about this unclear? --Regebro 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Link in question is: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/aboutsite.jsp Complete 911 Timeline… x Lovelight 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

…"Deaf dumb and blind basketcases". That may be my opinion, but it is my POV... Nobody except you, Cplot and the other conspiracy pushers have turned anything into a circus… "As you see Reg, due to this unfortunate syllogism what you actually did was calling me: "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase…" Lovelight13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, is somebody who pushes for giving conspiracy theories more weight in this article automatically also a conspiracy theorist? Or is it simply so that you see yourself as a conspiracy theorist? --Regebro14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you have no right to call me conspiracy theorist; especially since you have so clearly presented your POV about that term… is somebody who pushes for giving conspiracy theories more weight in this article automatically an: "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase", as you have put it? And, no, "imo" I'm as far from conspiracy theories as official story is far from actual events of that day… Lovelight14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

""What I'm saying is that you have no right to call me conspiracy theorist;"". I have to my knowledge never called you a conspiracy theorist. I hope that clarification can enable us to put this behind us now. --Regebro15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I demand apology... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAExamples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LovelightIncorrect_use_of_a_POV-tag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LovelightLies.2C_bloody_lies_and_conspiracy_theories Lovelight08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A minor editprotected request

In the second paragraph of the article, right before the table of contents, there's the sentence:

In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.

If you come to the main article via a redirect, clicking that link reloads the page before jumping to the anchor link. It should just link to Fatalities. Dcandeto dcandeto 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Doug Bell Dougnbsp;Bellnbsp; 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems so easy when you say it like that ;p Lovelight09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trojan

I'm certain that many of you consider a four year long protection of main article absolutely normal occurrence, but this protection of the talk page? Lovelight09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only semi-protected. Is that a problem that somehow keeps you from posting with your username Lovelight.--MONGO10:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There you are..;), nope, no problem here mongo, I'm not sure where are you pointing (would guess though), my record is clean as it ever was… I'm just pointing to the fact that there are these walls around this article… but I understand the need, it is because all that outrageous vandalism… Lovelight10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit summary last time arond...if your record is so clean, then how come you're calling Regebro a""disruptive and repulsive liar.""http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=prevoldid=92186557--MONGO10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Because he is mongo, because he is… you see, I tried to listen, then I tried to avoid him, ignore him, point that he shouldn’t disrupt, that we would end up with incident… but he just wouldn’t listen, the kinder I was the more consistent and persistent he was… now I demand apology, my actions and intentions were made clear, his comment were defamatory, harmful and unnecessary. If Regbro believes that my response on his continues provocation is unfounded he should report a personal attack… Lovelight11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see...he claims that the stuff on your usertalk posted by a vandal account are ""Lies, bloody lies and conspiracy theories""http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALovelightdiff=92113697oldid=92104107 and asks you to remove it from there. I don't see what he has to apologize for...he certainly didn't call you a liar, he was referring to the information above his comments. What I see are your comments here on this page where you call him directly: "User Regebro is disruptive and repulsive liar" and now also affirm that you feel that way. You're entitled to your opinion, but calling someone a liar, and adding "repulsive" is a bit over the top, I would have to say. Can you show me a diff that suggests he has been this incivil to you?--MONGO11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You should start at the top of this page, and come to the point where Regbro called me conspiracy pusher. You'll see that he accused me for not stating my case, while I'm stating it clearly for months now ((I could call you to testify on that fact MONGO, would you?), he accused me that I'm not providing verifiable and valid sources, while its absolutely clear that I provided RS and V references. Not to mention those accusations about me introducing POV to the article and so on… All this allegations are bogus, and enough is enough… You know, it's all right here, on this talk page, study it if you have to… if Regbro thinks I've overreacted he can report personal attack, otherwise he can simply apologies… right here, in front of everyone… as for what's going on at my talk page, I'd say things are clear there… Lovelight11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight, "repulsive liar" is harsh. He also has asked repeatedly that you remove that info from your talkpage as it was added by a now blocked account. Musical Linguist removed it and you replaced it. I can't regulate what you have on your talkpage, but it is actually an attack on a number of editors, so continuing to keep it up is not a very good show of support for our no personal attacks policy. I do see that Regebro has called you a POV pusher. I want to mention as well to you again what I stated at least twice already to you. There is no reason to go into an examination of the Iraq War in this article. Whether you think that 9/11 was some federal conspiracy to give rationale to the Iraq War is besides the point...this article summarizes the events of one day, a discussion of the planning and the motivation. The Iraq War started a long time after the event of 9/11. There are other articles that might be better to expand on that theme you keep proposing. In addition, videos from youtube, and links from blogs and websites that are controled by one webmaster are simply not reliable sources in most cases.--MONGO11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You had a good will of reliable resources from me already… and you know it. US administration http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3816963.stm repeatedly linked 911 to Iraq, link proved to be as false as claims about WMD's. There is no article more appropriate to describe this outrageous lie. Should I start one? That claim was a turning point for that brilliant, I like to call it, "blood for oil" initiative. That is a fact, why would anyone neglect it? Apart from that, I've just pointed above what Rumsfeld said on that very day… why should anyone close an eye on such things? And apart from that, construction of WOT section remains illogical. How can you state second big-operation without addressing the first one? Adding "'one"' sentence certainly isn’t: "diatribe about the Iraq War" in this article. I'm interested to hear your reply's, "'and it would be interesting to see your agreement/disagreement on that RFM too…"' Lovelight15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"The http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," George Bush via Lovelight16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)x Lovelight 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"'Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,"' http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf United States Senate via Lovelight17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt directed at Lovelight and really is directed at both sides of this polarizing debate, but why is the Senate only right when they agree with people? They are right when they goto war, wrong when they say no links to AQ. Wrong when they vote to goto war, right when they say no links to AQ. Its just amusing to watch a source be discounted for their foolishness, then praised for their level headed judgement. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting insight indeed, but let me remind you… we deal with the facts… who's wrong and who's right is not an issue here, at least not in my opinion… but perhaps I've misunderstood what's this project is all about? Have I? Lovelight16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There already is an entire article that discusses the "link" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda...and for the last time, there is no reason to go into any discussion on this article here about it. Bush's belief that their was a coorperative relationship between the two has nothing to do with 9/11, the scope of this article. If I write an article I don't make it discuss things that are unrelated to that article. Do you have anything to add about 9/11?--MONGO16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is about particular section in the article, the section is appropriately named as "War on Terrorism".., we could also pursue such train of thought you suggested, in other words we could easily remove that paragraph altogether, of course with brief explanation why is it missing… Lovelight17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought I stated this was not directed at you? Its a general observation. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what's on your mind? I've just added observation of my own… As far as I can see what you wrote have nothing to do with the dispute, and there are very few voices to be heard… that's all. Say, remember how confused you were when you've noticed that section about Iraq is missing? "lol", I'm cool tempered you know (wouldn’t last that long here if it would be otherwise…), and I'm certainly not pushing anything, except logic perhaps… Anyway, I'm really not for those smiles floating around, but I'd bet that some folks would have a dream come true if I would just pack my things and leave… is there a need to clarify that this was (hopefully) humorous observation, no second thoughts all that:)… Lovelight17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

War games

There were some Vigilant war games on that day, why are these not presented? They were more then crucial for cascading failures of 911… Lovelight17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

War games (a) occur frequently and (b) are generally isolated from civilian activities. If they truly were "more than crucial", please provide a reliable source. Peter Grey17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Lovelight. Per chapter 1, footnote 116 of the 9/11 Report, the transition from exercise to real-life response took "about 30 seconds," and the 9/11 Commission found that, if anything, exercise involvement actually accelerated response because all relevant units were already in motion. x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll address this properly and show the relevance a bit later… shouldn’t have started that heading without resolving other issue… there are other concerns at the moment, and I might be out of this discussion for few days… if you would like to weigh assertion in mentioned footnote listen to the excerpts from NORAD tapes provided in main article… Lovelight18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"I'll address this properly and show the relevance a bit later", well, no, there really can't be a discussion until then, although, assuming good faith, this is reasonable question to raise. Peter Grey22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

External Link to Cooperative Research

I am opening the discussion regarding this link here, because I feel it was not argued on its normal basis, that being EL. The inclusion or exclusion criteria for an external link is not based on NPOV, and so it should not be included or excluded based on policies that do not apply. I will layout the criteria per EL as our meter for inclusion and exclusion of external links:

There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible to the reader? "'Yes"'

Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? "'Yes"'

Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? "'Yes"'

Each link be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

What should be linked to:

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. "'N/A"'

An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. "'N/A"'

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. "'Yes, highly detailed"'

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. "'Yes, complete news articles"'

Links to be considered:

For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. "'N/A"'

A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. "'N/A"'

Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. "'Sections are divided and contain mostly text, also highly annotated"'

This is directly from the EL page. If anyone see's anything that is on EL that would cover this project then please bring it forward for discussion. Again, issues of conspiracy theories and inapplicable policies are not appropriate. The sources on the page all meet RS and V as they are major newspapers and reports; Reuters, New York Times, CNN, etc. Thank you and I look forward to everyone's opinions. Please do not simply state yes or no, as this is a discussion. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The link is directly related to the content in the page because it covers not only the events of that day in complete detail through news reports, more detail then the article, but it further shows information on events before and after, further supported by RS and V sources. I am willing to wikilink to the date specifically if that makes people feel better about context. However it should be noted that the job of External links is to provide informatino that cannot be included in the article due to size contraints etc, which this would surely do. Its important to note that the "spinoff" articles exist because the size of this article, not because this article should only contain information on that specific day, which as noted, this link also covers in great detail. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it very hard to add anything to your reasoning or arguments, therefore I'll simply agree… Lovelight11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't understand the opposition to this URL. Unless I'm reeeaaallllly missing something here, I see no reason to exclude this link. x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because when you click on the link the first page (at the top) says:

This is the home page for the Complete 911 Timeline investigative project, one of several grassroots investigations being hosted by the Cooperative Research website. The data published as part of this investigation "'has been collected, organized, and published by members of the public who are registered users of this website"'.

This doesn't sound like it meets V or EL. Other reasons have been discussed on this page in Time to Unprotect and NPOV Dispute sections. --PTR15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is annontated, and a collection of sources, nothing is stated without a source. Where does it fail EL? It doesnt go under V because its not a source. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

EL disallows: Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see V) --PTR15:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a blog, nor personal website or anonymous website. So I still do not see your objection, can you please clarify further how what you posted applies. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From their web site: "Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content." It certainly is an anonymous website... Rx StrangeLove16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can submit content to BBC, it doesnt make it a blog. The blog criteria is below and it fails those markers. The website is not providing commentary, nor is it a personal diary, nor can you comment on items, which is something you can actually do on most major news papers websites. So again, using the criteria for a blog, please tell me how its a blog. Thank you. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Further as you noted all of those are negated if it passes V, which being so highly annotated, it surely does. Verifiability is the key you seem to ignore, all of those entries contain RS and V sources supporting their claims, many you don't have to goto the library to research because they are linked directly on the page. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It fits the definition of a blog:

Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. --PTR16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you may want it to be a blog, however you cannot leave comments and there are no entries and it doesnt function as a personal diary, its not providing commentary either. Its not interactive ... where is the blogness of this? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Wiki and an anonymous website, it's not large enough to be a qualifying Wiki. So for at least those reasons it needs to go. Rx StrangeLove16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Go where, please clarify? Lovelight16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Its very much not anonymous, its far from on Geocities and its not a wiki, size does not define if something is a wiki. Again, please backup your statements. You have gone from stating its a blog, to now its a wiki, to its anonymous. Which I have refuted all so far. http://www.pir.org/Search/WhoIsSearchResults.aspx?txtWhoIsSearch=cooperativeresearch that is the website's information as registered through PIR. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It allows anonymous contributors....and it allows anyone to contribute. That's a Wiki in any meaningful sense. And since the contributions are anonymous, it's a anonymous website. And if you'd read EL you'd see why I mentioned the size thing. Also I never claimed it was a blog. Rx StrangeLove16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They are contributing news sources, sorry but you are failing to make this arguement, also as noted by PTR "'Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see V)"' And since the sources pass V, its permissable. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, stay calm and stop yelling. Please see EL 12. This discussion is on External Links not sources, the point here is if that link should be included. And, as you can see from EL it can't. If there are allowable sources, then include those. But not a Wiki with an agenda. Rx StrangeLove17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agenda? Wiki? You have yet to prove the wiki point and instead call it a wiki cause its a big anonymous site, however I disproved the anonymous portion already, and anonymous sites arent wiki's so thats dead. I thank you for your input however you are arguing in circles the same disproven points. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't have to prove anything to you. You've become uncivil in this discussion, please stop. In the meantime, anyone else reading this should refer to Wiki and it's definition:

"A wiki is a type of Web site that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove, and otherwise edit and change some available content"

Here's what they say about themselves: "Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content."

From EL: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

So there you have it in a nutshell.

Re:Agenda, from their about us page: "we unabashedly focus on failures, problems, and controversies" `

It's a Wiki in any meaningful sense and the link has to go. If there are sources you'd like to add from that site, use them. But we're not using a Wiki with an agenda in our External Links section. Rx StrangeLove18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"'I don't have to prove anything to you"' ... I am becoming uncivil? Actually if you are gonig to remove content from the article you do in fact need to justify it. Submitting content is not the same thing as editing the page. You can submit content to BBC, however that does not allow you to edit BBC pages. Further focusing on "'failures, problems, and controversies"' does not = agenda it does equal a purpose however. Its almost like saying we cannot use anything from Dateline because "they have an agenda" yes its to expose news, gasp egad. I think you should calm down a bit stop throwing out accusations and realize yuo are gonig to have to use policy and not accusations to convince me. So do we agree that submitting content is not the same as editing the page? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to check I registered an account earlier and you cannot edit pages, you can submit with sources information. I am guessing the webmaster or editors look over it and verify from there. So your wiki idea is not relevant it seems. You can register an account to if you like to confirm my statement. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to become a member of a project. You register, send them an email about which project you want to be a member of and then you can edit.--PTR19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes you are. This is not the BBC we're talking about. And besides, we already have a 9/11 timeline September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks. Again, from EL: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. It has a admitted agenda that guides what content it includes, unlike your example of Dateline which does not "unabashedly focus on failures, problems, and controversies" pertaining to a single topic. Rx StrangeLove18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperative Research doesnt deal with a single topic. The fact you would imply it does means you didnt read the site or visit it long before casting your stone in this. Now we moved onto a new EL point, let me address this one. CooperativeResearch provides a detailed timeline of the events of that day, in greater detail then any article on Wikipedia can, especially due to size constraints, it does it in time order, and completely sourced with RS and V links. This couldnt provide a more unique resource beyond what this article contains. This article is about the events of 9/11, a fully detailed, sourced, timeline couldn't be a more unique resource. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also this article cannot contain in it the entire timeline hence need for a external link, the one int he other article is not as detailed and not sourced from multiple sources, but simply one, where this source actually shows multiple reports which contain different times, making it a further resource over what is already on Wikipedia or could be achieved due to size contraints. It also offer a further glimpse ahead of the day and behind it, giving further context beyond this article and the other timeline which does not contain multiple reports or inline citations etc. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a timeline link for the attacks. However, the link you've entered requires anyone interested in viewing the attack timeline to find the appropriate link on the page which would be this http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinetimeperiod=1:00am%20Sept%2011%202001 "Complete 911 Timeline" minute by minute - Provided by the "Center for Cooperative Research" link. This link does not include the links to articles with commentary on the website front page including disclaimers by the website. --PTR19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with maknig a direct link and have told Lovelight this as well. I believe you are correct. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, after such interesting discussion, I'll tend to agree… Lovelight19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would find it odd that you would complain over this source and not the one in multimedia which fails EL by requiring specific software to view it. Or that you would not have a problem with the BBC one which isnt as detailed or culminated from multiple RS sources, giving it less of a POV. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a site that accepts anonymously submitted material, a site that has an agenda, a site that doesn't offer anything more than a featured article would (not counting material that's irrelevant) and a site whose members can submit material...if you look at the recently added events section:

"Hijackers Almihdhar and Alhazmi Supposedly Work for Saudi Intelligence, Around 1997-September 11, 2001, posted by KJF"

You see that things are posted by it's members (after sending an email expressing interest in a project, no other vetting is done.) and they themselves do the verifying....and just look! These guys " supposedly" work for Saudi intelligence. How do we know that? An unnamed former CIA officer....that's how. That's not reporting and that's not reliable. That's fine if it's in another context but not on a web site that accepts anonymous content. And not in our external links section. Rx StrangeLove19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (by the way, this is how you can create content there:)

If you would like to contribute to one of the timeline projects, send us an email and provide us with your username and the name of the timeline project you would like to contribute to. We will then make you a member of that project so you can begin adding/editing events to the timelines.

Its still through submission, also the items you complain about is sourced, its meets the same criteria as Wikipedia RS / V source ... so whats your complaint? Let me address your concerns. Agenda? Doesnt matter, RS and V and EL do not state the source cannot have an agenda, its like discounting a human rights organization that posts a piece on human rights, hmm they must have an agenda ... like exposing human rights. Next, "'anything more than a featured article"', thats not what EL says, it says if this was a featured article, not if one somewhere existed. So this link does contain more information then this article would contain if it was a featured article. The exact wording is "' Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what "the article" would contain once "it becomes a Featured article"."' as you posted it. Notice that its talking about the article in question, not just any old article somewhere around Wikipedia. So it passes this criteria and this criteria in fact further justifies its inclusion. Your complaint about "unnamed former CIA officer" is really more for an essay on newsreporting. I do not see you stating we should discount BBC because they have used "anonymous sources" which you seem to imply means its made up. When you start removing every source and link to any news agency that uses anonymous sources, I will take this arguement seriously. Also you get to submit articles, you are not posting directly. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All said and done, and all policies aside, I'll just repeat a simple fact. Strangelove, Aude, PTR… every single entry on that timeline is properly http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_kimball cited and referenced; "rx" your example is way out of context… that aside, I fail to understand this resistance, this talk about agenda? That site goes both ways in great detail; it is extremely valuable resource… excellent research tool if you wish. I simply don't understand why is that so hard to recognize? Do you remember similar opposition to Vanity's NORAD tapes link? Never really understood what was wrong there? Well, cooperative search declares itself as open content civic journalism (project) and it surely acts like one. And please, don't consider this as a try to continue discussion, just wanted to state my opinion… Lovelight20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-WP:EL discussions

Lovelights comments split from above portion and are directed at PTR

What you're trying to do is to insert another minute by minute timeline, which we already have… would you consider removing other timeline (rhetorical q)? Before anything that link is EL, would you care to share the keywords u used to present that particular context? I'm not sure why you have to disagree? As stated earlier: "anyone who disputes that spring should take another visit, click on any section and verify that all articles are properly sourced and cited…" Lovelight15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about consider removing the other timeline. Are you asking if I would consider removing the link to September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks? I'm not sure what you are asking about keywords to present that particular context; are you asking about the EL reference or the quote above at the top of the link page? I am only following the statement on the article page that says ATTENTION! DO NOT ADD LINKS WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE. OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE REMOVED. --PTR16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note that you guys are going off topic once again and are no longer addressing EL. Further that bold rule has no basis because its not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. There is no such thing as needing concensus opinion before editing. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTWikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files is official policy and CONSENSUS is a guideline that state "Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors, has been adjudged a violation of consensus" Insisting on adding link that many oppose also goes against consensus and is not allowed. --AudeVivere Aude 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow isnt that a frakenstein of situation. NOT deals with articles not external links, if you cared to read further you would see it states items like "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories", which means the entire article cant be a bunch of links. Please read the policies before stating them to support your arguements, its surely not appropriate here. As for CONCENSUS, which again more deals with article instead of external links is quote by you as stating "insignificant factoid", which the entire timeline sourced with RS and V sources surely is not an insignificant factoid. What you are quiting is actually for article content, not external links, which is why I stated above this discussion should focus on EL, which is the guideline/policy that handles this situation. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also we do not work concensus by the arguement of "because I said so", which is what the discussion above is about, what exactly prevents this from being able to be added according to EL. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia" -- NOT. We need to carefully chooose what to put in the external links, through consensus. Otherwise, anyone could add any number of links. Since the topic of 9/11 is broken down into many subarticles, not all links related to 9/11 need to be in this main article. In general, I'm for removing links and would favor trimming some of the other less essential links from the article, as well. --AudeVivere Aude 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, since you feel this link would put us over, I will remove the video one in Multimedia since it requires a specific software to view which is against, EL. Thank you I am glad I was able to come to a middleground with you, one out, one in, same size, no dwarfing. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

left|20px "'Protected:"' See complaint filed at AE. I will review the situation tonight after work. I have protected the page in the mean time. Hopefully there will be an amicable resolution before I come back to this. 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it since RX refuses to talk since he says I personally attacked him, and Tom refuses to participate here as well after two requests on his talk page. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion. In this article I see a timeline box, and multiple wiki articles supporting it. I do not believe the proposed http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinetimeperiod=1:00am%20Sept%2011%202001 External Timeline deserves inclusion. I read through the external timeline ( and it's a long read ) and found it to be exhaustively detailed, but conspiratorial in tone. An example: in the timeline is an alleged Bush Assassination attempt in Florida. In the timeline, several newspaper citations place middle eastern men and George W Bush in Florida on September 11th 2001. But it is the editor at History Commons that makes the leap, and alleges those middle eastern men were on an assassination assignment. Since History Commons is not a news organization, I don't think their spin on cited sources deserves inclusion in this hot topic. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So according to EL it fits, but you just don't like the tone of it? You state the person makes the leap yet the cited news report is titled "Possible Longboat terrorist incident", which does more then just "place middle eastern men and George W Bush in Florida", it states the men may have been terrorists. Looknig through them further it seems the same newspaper wrote another article title "Two hijackers on Longboat?" and goes on to state Atta may have been there as well. Which further shows there is no leaps being made, but just citing what the news sources stated. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't know whether the History Commons editor is accurately portraying the original sources. That is part of the problem. The original source is not linked. We have to take it on faith, unless we dig out five year old newspapers. Divining whether the History Commons editor is correctly channeling original news reports puts us into OR-land. For a raw topic like this, we shouldn't be adding sources we already implicitly question. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They are fully cited, its like stating you read a book and that book is not RS because the book doesnt contain the entire sources of things it cites. Further the articles are available online,y uo can search by title and find them easily for those not directly linked. Since they are all RS sources and verifiable and fulled annotated, I do not see the issue. We accept sources that require actual library research to be done, obscure books etc, but not something you can find on google? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While the link might be appropriate among others in Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks, an external link to any time line is not useful on this page, and invites other external links, adding cruft at no profit to Wikipedia. We have a link in the template to our own timeline, and to my mind that is enough. If a link must be included (and I do not see why), I prefer the link to CNN's timeline as more reputable. I notice that one edit not only added the cooperativeresearch.org timeline, but also removed the html comment urging people not to add external links without consensus. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because concensus is not required before hand to editing Wikipedia. You know that as an admin. Its why its not on all pages, because its not a real rule. Thanky uo for finally comnig to the talk page. Per EL do you have any objection to this link or is it simply because you do not find it reputable? You state CNN would be ok, but not a timeline that links to CNN, Times, and other major news sources? Why is that? What makes this timeline cruft and not the others? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While the link might be appropriate among others in Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks, an external link to any timeline is not useful on this page, and invites other external links, adding cruft at no profit to Wikipedia. We have a link in the template to our own timeline, and to my mind that is enough. If a link must be included (and I do not see why), I prefer the link to CNN's timeline as more reputable. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have external links in the article, why is this one not permitted? I do not see what your point is, you call it "cruft" but dont state why, you say you dont like timelines but will take CNN, without saying what the difference is, you do not address the issue of EL stating its permissable at all. You say its not useful, yet its already been noted that it is more detailed. Can you provide some specifics, you are being very vague. Considering Cooperative Research, includes links to CNN articles as well other sources, wouldn't it be less bias then having a timeline link that uses only one source? Also are you admitting that EL states this link is permissable? I see you didnt mention the guideline for external links at all. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your point about EL. Surely you are not arguing that any link anyone wantw to include must be included unless forbidden. Otherwise, I have made my position clear and see no reason to repeat it again. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 18:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me why policy is more important then your personal opinion? I do not get the question. I asked you numerous question, one being why you do not emntion the policy guideline regarding external links. Instead you just say you do not like it, its cruft, we do not need timelines except for CNN etc, so vague so vague. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Beyond this article, there has been strong debate about EL itself over the past month+. There have been revert wars, over which version of EL has gained consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_linksaction=history

Wikipedia_talk:External_linksAnonymous_websites

Wikipedia_talk:External_linksNo_consensus

There has been discussion over applying the principles of reliable sources when it comes to choosing links to include. The cooperative research timeline seems to word things in a misleading way with many weasel words. For example, on the http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelineday_of_9/11=ua93 timeline concerning United Airlines Flight 93, scroll to the bottom and see where it says "(After 10:06 a.m.): Witnesses Report Lack of Plane Wreckage at Flight 93 Crash Scene". It seems they are selectively choosing quotes and sources to imply something that the references really don't support. For example the timeline only quotes Frank Monoco, "If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap. There’s nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It’s just littered with small pieces" The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reference supporting a "lack of plane wreckage" also says quotes Jeff Phillips "There was one part of a seat burning up there, that was something you could recognize." http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp I'm an ardent support of RS and strongly believe it applies to choosing external links. I don't think the cooperative timeline, given its anonymous nature and the way it puts sources together, is a good reliable, neutral source that we should include here. --AudeVivere Aude 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RS does not apply to external links. It applies to sources. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is debate about this on the EL talk page, with the following wording having been developed:

"Links normally to be avoided: 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources."

The way cooperative research puts the sources together is questionable and should be excluded per this point. I think we should hold higher standards on Wikipedia, including with our selection of external links. --AudeVivere Aude 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The material is not factually inaccurate, its all sourced and citations are given. Its not unverifiable because all of the citations are given so anyone can easily verify what is written. Your complaint is of neither of the issues being addressed, you feel they are using sources to advance a bias, that is different then being factually inaccurate or unverifiable. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to recap why this link doesn't belong here.

-EL says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article"

We have a detailed timeline article on that subject now.

-EL says: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"

Cooperative Research is a Wiki by any reasonable definition, anonymous contributors can add content after emailing the administrators which sections they would like to contribute to. This content includes unverifiable research and misleading material. (see my comments above)

The Cooperative Research link is not and can never be complete because of their self admitted "unabashed focus on failures, problems, and controversies" If a external timeline must be included I put a CNN link forward as a compromise, but that has been regularly removed by NuclearUmpf. If our timeline is not detailed enough (or somehow lacking in other ways) I would suggest that work be done on it to improve it instead of edit warring over a POV external link. Rx StrangeLove19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first point is you misreading, this article once it becomes a featured article would not have a complete timeline, hence reason 1 is wrong. You have not proven this site is a wiki since you cannot freely edit it, instead you submit items. I have already told you that, the site tells you that and I have even went and got a login to prove it. Thank you again for not addressing this opposing points and ignoring them. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

left|20px Unfortunate little edit war you have going on here. I count 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 from NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors (5 each by Tom H and Rx Strange), with no attempt at dispute resolution, by editors who should know better. The argument over external link policy is largely fruitless; even if the link is within policy, it still requires editorial judgement to determine whether or not to include it. And when a group of editors can't come to an agreement on matters of judgement they are expected to use the dispute resolution process such as a third opinion, RFC or mediation. Regarding the complaint forwarded to AE regarding NuclearUmpf, I'm not going to sanction one editor out of a 12-person edit war. If you attempt some type of dispute resolution and he does not accept the outcome, bring the case back. Regarding the broader issue of the link, Abe Froman has given you a third opinion, and for what it's worth I'll give you a fourth. I don't like it. Whether it is a wiki-like open collaborative project, or the entries are selected by an editor, it clearly has a strong editorial voice, and we don't know who that voice belongs to or what his or her credibility is. Any timeline of the terrorist attacks that opens with a newspaper editorial against the administration is pushing an agenda, and if we are going to try and exclude conspiracists who argue the attacks were a brilliant scheme of the all-powerful US government, we ought to also exclude people who argue that the attacks were the result of a criminally incompetent government. Plus, they're selling a DVD and doing open fundraising on the site. If Abe's and my outside opinions are not sufficient, I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process. Further edit warring may result in re-protecting the article or blocking the involved editors. Remember that edit warring is not tolerated period, and that just because there is a written policy and bureaucracy for enforcing a 3 revert limit does not entitle you to 3 reverts in 23.9 hours, or 4 reverts in 24.1 hours. Settle this without further edit warring, please. 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy

What's the conspiracy theory?--Kingforaday162022:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hate crimes

The paragraph on hate crimes resulting from the attacks says ""At least nine people were murdered within the United States as a result"". This is a strong assertion, and one which I can't find the backing for in the http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/ source cited by the paragraph, though it does verify the rest of it. Have I overlooked something in the source or does this need its own citation? --Samuel Blanning Sam Blanning 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. The only murder directly mentioned in the source is a Mesa, Arizona slaying. However, perhaps the firebombing (mentioned in the source) was responsible for the eight remaining deaths? It is a mystery - a mystery that certainly requires its own citation --Action Jackson IV14:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the other eight people had died "all at once", we should be able to find a story about it - lots of stories - without difficulty. --Samuel Blanning Sam Blanning 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph to better reflect the source. --Samuel Blanning Sam Blanning 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

America's Glory Fades

This article is a terribly sad testimonial to the decline of American civilisation. Although the evidence (constituted by still and video photography as well as eyewitness accounts) is plain to see for anyone who cares to look, those who are being paid to dupe the American people from knowing the truth seem to be winning the battle. Is it credible that in this age of mass communication and higher education an utterly fallacious account such as that presented on this page continues to be peddled as the truth "without serious challenges from the community of Wikipedians". The terrifying reality is that the evidence against what is presented in this article is so overwhelming that it beggars belief that the American people are not rising up to demand a full independent inquiry. Can anyone explain why, in the face of such clear and incontrovertible evidence that the 9/11 commission report is fraudulent, journalists are remaining so pliant? Have none of you guys got any balls (or integrity)? User:Langdell .08/12/06

I agree, on all accounts… it's because conservative nature of wikipedia, at least that's what I've been told… Lovelight12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a structural engineer, I really do not know how can you say anything is "overwhelming". I guess we can ignore studies and go with the computer engineers theory over the structural engineer and senate panel etc. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission report has its own article. The total absence of "serious challenges" would suggest the existing narrative is correct, rather than "fallacious". Peter Grey12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree. The mere fact that people can find anything to question in the face of overwhelming consensus amongst the mathematical and scientific communities (thusly putting their faith in Hollywood depictions of similar events at best, putting their faith in naive superstition at worst), and can attribute to the Bush administration a level of finesse, secrecy, and efficiency never seen before or since, truly speaks wonders for the self-gullibility of a portion of the American people. To put it another way: Can you tell us a story about the Grassy Knoll, the Moon Landing, and/or Jimmy Hoffa? Bonus points for including Freemasonry. Extra bonus points for referring to me a "plant" or a "spook". --Action Jackson IV13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use this talk page as a soapbox. --Samuel Blanning Sam Blanning 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Targets

This has probably already been brought up, but in the offchance that it hasn't - this is in response to the info bar, which contains the text "Target(s)World Trade Center and The Pentagon (fourth hijacking is unknown)". I recall hearing/reading that the "original" targets were the World Trade Center, the White House, and the Capitol. The latter two were aborted towards the last minute when the terrorists realized that Bush was out of town - one of them went into the Pentagon, and the fourth was thought to be heading towards Camp David.

Perhaps, at the very least, the text could be changed to "Target(s): World Trade Center, Pentagon (fourth hijacking is unknown, but thought to be Camp David)"? I must admit zoning out over most 9/11 news, so I don't know if the theory I mentioned was ever disproven. --Action Jackson IV14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Any sources? Weregerbil20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN timeline

I changed the timeline link to the timeline CNN produced. At the very least the cooperative research link doesn't have any consensus for it's addition. The CNN produced one might be a little more agreeable to everyone. Please just don't blindly revert, discuss why CNN's timeline should not be the one used. Rx StrangeLove21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Concensus has already gone for the cooperative research timeline. Sorry. We could put them both there if you'd like. --SavoirFaireIsEverywhere22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it hasn't, not by numbers or by logic. We don't need 2, and CNN is a good compromise. Rx StrangeLove22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (compromise is a good thing)

Not as detailed and since no arguement has gone forward for the change according to EL, I am putting CR back. A timeline compromised of multiple sources stands up to more scrutiny then one compromised of one source. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise is a good thing when there are differing viewpoints. Please discuss why you won't compromise on this. Rx StrangeLove23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct but we should not sarcrafice a good link for a bad/singular view point one because you simply do not like CR. You have argued every point in EL and been refuted. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also already 3 CNN links in the EL section. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the CNN link, it's a good compromise as there is clearly no consensus for the CR link. Please stop edit warring in an absence of any agreement. If this compromise won't work for you then we'll remove both until it gets worked out. But please don't treat this article as yours OWN. Rx StrangeLove18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We have an article on the timeline. I'm not sure we need a link here at all. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but we have an article on Geneva Convention of Conventional Weapons are you stating that no External link should ever be included to the GCCW? Do yo uplan to argue on the basis on EL or just what you "feel"? We have guidelines for a reason Tom, and I would assume this arguement was somethnig you really felt but you put CNN back in your earlier edit, so its obvious you do not feel timelines are pointless. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we do either, I made that point above...I'd be happy to leave it out but I thought in the spirit of compromise we'd try this. But you're right, we have this already and if there are people that do not think it's adequate then they should be working on that article. Rx StrangeLove19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What arguement have you not tried? Please argue on the basis of EL please. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the timeline is essential to anyone who would like to gain more knowledge in 9/11 events. And per Nuclear: "A timeline compromised of multiple sources stands up to more scrutiny then one compromised of one source". Anyway, CNN's timeline is infintely less detailed, while Complete 9/11 Timeline is a whole database of information. Why would Wikipedia, whose primary goal is to bring information, choose less detailed source over more detailed and researched source? What the compromise will be? Both or Complete 9/11 Timeline? SalvNaut20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "a" timeline is essential, the one at issue here is a contentious one and lacks consensus for it's addition. If you feel that our timeline is not adequate work on that one. As you can see above there are valid reasons for not including the CR timeline. The compromise is the middle ground CNN timeline, if you must have an external link at all. Otherwise improve the one we have and the problem is solved. Rx StrangeLove20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Contentious on what basis? I do not see it lacking concensus simply because you do not like it, if you cannot make a EL arguement then you are just arguing your feelings, which doesnt stack against concensus based on policies and guidelines. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"your personal problems are touching" (from your edit summary) You need to read Civil The next step is dispute resolution if you keep it up. I've been arguing EL all along, your assertions that I haven't are deeply flawed. Rx StrangeLove21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job not covering the point, your bouncing from EL statement to statement and failing is documented above, if you have new objections please present them. Perhaps less crying over edit summaries and actually addressing guidelines would help. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please replace the Cooperative Research link.-Slipgrid05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was reading the CR debate above, and I believe that's where you should have commented to have this link removed. In that discussion you make absurd claims about the site being a wiki, and then a blog. You clearly don't seem to know what a wiki or a blog is. Please replace the link.--Slipgrid05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Scots version

I wrote it recently, 11t September Attacks.http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/11t_September_attacks It doesn't show up.

I added a link; you have to add the links manually. It's nice work. A bit slanted, but its commendable brevity more than makes up for that. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Box Cutters

This article neglects to mention how the hijackers managed to get the box cutters on board; I think the 9/11 Commission Report discusses art supplies, or something to that degree. --MosheA18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Saudi flight

According to the 9/11 Commission Report the controversial Saudi flight did not depart until September 20, 2001. However, according to the Saint Petersburg Times, these individuals departed on September 13, 2001. Although the Report came out later (July, 2004) than the article (June, 2004), it seems unlikely that the authors of the Report would have had time to take this article in consideration. It is therefore likely that the conclusion drawn in the Report is a conclusion irrespective of the findings in the article. Does anyone know if anything credible besides the Report has been written on this topic that also evaluates the findings in the article at hand? PJ 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp --PTR20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I neither understand why that would be relevant for this article, or why Saudis flying to Saudia Arabia is controversial. ;) --Regebro14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Honorable Colin Powell said: "the flights were well-known, and it was coordinated within the government." http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinestartpos=1700a091301phantomflight Here, if you wish to read further… Lovelight16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And that makes them relevant for this article and/or controversial? --Regebro16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the fact that controversial 911 commission report is based on incorrect, inaccurate and/or false facts/statements should be completely ignored. Further more, fact that those Saudi's fled to Saudi Arabia via private flight while all private flights were grounded is to be considered as normal as collapse of building 7. "Why would Saudis flying to Saudi Arabia be controversial?" You really got me with that one… Lovelight18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Full commercial airspace was reopened on or around 11am Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 13 September". "According The New York Times, US airspace was reopened to private aircraft on 13 September 2001 at 5:50pm EST". (http://words.grubbykid.com/2005/03/). So, no, I still don't understand what is controversial with this. And even if they were on a private flight, and they got a special permission for that private flight, nobody can still tell me why that would be controversial. So stop the sillyness. This flight has NO relevance for this article, and there is nothing fishy about it. --Regebro18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

US airspace wasn't opened to general aviation (part of aviation consisting of privately owned and operated aircraft) until 14 September. Lovelight19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So? Airspace was gradually opened starting the morning of the 13th and that opening was finishe dthe 14th. There is nothing that says that this flight somehow broke these opening rules. Nothing. And even if it did, so what? So they got a special permission? Yeah, and? Nobody still have come with one single itsy bitsy argument for why this has any relevance for anything in this article. And that's the end of that from my side. --Regebro23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because it's evidence of a crime or cover-up. People related to the person who would be blamed for this attack were moved out of the country without being properly interrogated.--Slipgrid05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"...if anything credible besides the Report has been written on this topic that also evaluates the findings in the article at hand?" Issues regarding the 9/11 Commission report should be raised on the corresponding talk page, and it seems unlikely that there is a critique anywhere specifically relating to a June 2004 Saint Petersburg Times article, except perhaps a subsequent issue of the Saint Petersburg Times. Regarding the flights themselves (not the question asked, by the way), they are another point that is a consequence of George Bush's failure of leadership, but not a direct consequence of the actual attacks. Peter Grey19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox Enigma05902:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}]]

30pxnote-type-WikipediaModel_note-type-WikipediaModel_ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks_note_note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)