Talk:September 11 attacks/FBI poster controversy

message: This page is a split-off of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, as the discussion over this particular issue was being interrupted by other discussions, and fragmented over the archives.
- Please do not react above the #Continued discussion from talk page-section, since this was copied. -
— Xiutwel (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

message: ::: . Despite this fact, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not specifically mention 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him "other terrorist attacks" http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm  
:# (cur) (last)  10:36, 22 September 2006 Golbez (Talk | contribs) (no thanks. the only point of these edits is to push the pov.)
:# (cur) (last) 10:19, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // reformulation ; SEE Talk page PLEASE)
:# (cur) (last) 01:36, 22 September 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rv - not a reliable source; rm innuendo)
:# (cur) (last) 00:54, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // ref // Morton please be more precise in your comments)
:# (cur) (last) 00:26, 22 September 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (revert to version without unsubstantiated bullcrap)
:# (cur) (last) 00:25, 22 September 2006 JustFacts (Talk | contribs) (/* FBI "wanted")
:# (cur) (last) 00:22, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - Muckraker)</pre>
Golbez, I'm sorry you feel this way.  Similarly, one could argue that the only point to remove this neutral, unbiased, information, is to push the government POV.
The dispute flag goes up. If anyone would like to point me to previous discussion / consensus, please provide a date (from your own edit history?) or link to the talk page, because I don't see it.
What a waste of our energy this is, wikipedia !!! Should we not have a broad discussion on how to allow for several 'POV' facts simulataniously in order to make all 911 articles NPOV? 
*e.g.: Wikipedia_talk:911 POV disputes<BR>
— Xiutwel (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite this fact is incorrect, since it is not in contradiction to the previously discussed rules for the most wanted list. Aside from questions of fact, I would suggest as a matter of style that the relevant section is already too long and is not improved by adding a critique of the wording of a fugitive notice. Peter Grey 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The fugitive notice is being misrepresented to create unsubstantiated doubts as to the identity of the parties responsible for the attacks.  "Mind reading skill" is not necessary when the intentions, even assuming good faith, are so transparent. Peter Grey 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the reason for not indicting Bin Laden may be how the Bush administration views terrorism and 9/11 (acts of war), versus the Clinton administration which handled terrorism as more of a law enforcement and criminal matter.  Also, consider the Moussaoui and other cases, where significant amounts of evidence were derived from intelligence sources, such as al Qaeda detainees.  To file a criminal indictment, requires disclosing intelligence information and perhaps sources/methods.  With the ongoing "War on Terrorism", the administration probably doesn't want to do that. Nonetheless, this document from the U.K. government outlines evidence that makes them confident that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.  They also note "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources." To ignore all these reasons why Bin Laden hasn't formally been indicted and simply insinuate that the government doesn't think Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is disingenuous. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. --Golbez 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In other words, you yourself are asserting it fails relevance?  Anyway, the mention would clearly fail WP:NPOV since, even on this talk page, it has caused confusion about the role of the list in law enforcement and the role of law enforcement in the overall response to the attacks, so the result (whether or not intentional) would be to make the situation less clear to the reader.  However, there probably is a suitable sub-article that could stand to have more detail about how the response to the attacks fits with the criminal justice system. Peter Grey 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, it does seek him. The FBI seeks him. He cannot, however, be on the 10 most wanted list because he has not been indicted. Lack of indictment does not mean they seek him. So... --Golbez 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL (which they do) is not the proposed edit under discussion.  Peter Grey 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're proposing the dispute flag because there's consensus?  When bin Laden is listed by the FBI as the "MOST WANTED TERRORIST", do you believe that "most wanted" does not represent a high priority?  Have you considered that police services do more to apprehend suspects than simply print posters?   Bill Clinton, in his infamous recent interview, explained quite clearly and concisely that after the 1998 United States embassy bombings the pursuit of bin Laden had escalated far beyond law enforcement.  The irony is that under President Bush, the pursuit of bin Laden by the US Government has been less than whole-hearted, and this is a noteworthy fact, but petty questions about details of police procedures only serve as a distraction.  Distractions are not constructive additions to the article. Peter Grey 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no thanks" FBI poster dispute 

message: I am sorry to notice that Aude has removed the dispute flag without acknowledging this clearly. I hope this was a sloppy mistake, not intent.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=77295791&oldid=77195278#Responsibility
So we seem to agree that:
*OBL was not indicted for 911
*OBL was indeed indicted for e.g. the Kenya bombing
*people can only be announced wanted AFTER being indicted
*we can bomb a country back to the stone-age in the process of looking for a suspect, before indicting them (no source needed, self-evident)
Until we get Reliable Sources for the above three facts, the dispute flag has to stay up, I'm afraid...
— Xiutwel (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're proposing the dispute flag because there's consensus?  When bin Laden is listed by the FBI as the "MOST WANTED TERRORIST", do you believe that "most wanted" does not represent a high priority?  Have you considered that police services do more to apprehend suspects than simply print posters?   Bill Clinton, in his infamous recent interview, explained quite clearly and concisely that after the 1998 United States embassy bombings the pursuit of bin Laden had escalated far beyond law enforcement.  The irony is that under President Bush, the pursuit of bin Laden by the US Government has been less than whole-hearted, and this is a noteworthy fact, but petty questions about details of police procedures only serve as a distraction.  Distractions are not constructive additions to the article. Peter Grey 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued dispute 

message: I have no intent of putting these questions into the article. Just the fact that the info is not on the poster, and anyone who thinks this is logical, should source that belief.
Do you agree with this?
*Me, and several other wikipedians, feel that it is proper to include the information on the FBI poster into the article.
*This is contested, this information would be irrelevant, because there is nothing strange about 911 not being on the OBL-wanted poster
*we have provided adequate sources for the fact that the poster does not explicitly mention 911
*should you then not be obliged to give sources for your claims, if you want to convince me not to include this bit of information, which complies with wikipedia standards?
*This is not about satisfying MY curiosity, this is about substantiating YOUR claims.
I propose you give it some thought, if you cannot give arguments I will put the dispute flag back up tomorrow, making sure it refers to the right section this time - sorry! — Xiutwel (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proof what you claim

message: I am going to put the dispute flag back up (I've seen no response to my queries). To summarize:
*OBL is on the FBI website, wanted for terrorism, stating explicitly: for e.g. the Kenya bombing but not for 911
*at first glance, this might suggest he is not deemed connected to 911
*according to the Muckraker report, the FBI stated they have insufficient evidence to support such a claim
*many wikipedians claim that
*#the Muckraker report cannot be a reliable source
*#911 is not on the poster, simply because of burocratic issues. OBL "has not been indicted for 911" yet.
*This could be true. However, it could also be a total fantasy, grasping at straws. Who knows?
*So I asked and asked again for substantiation of these claims regarding common burocratic procedure.
*No reply was given, nor a link to a previous discussion on the talk page where these issues would have been addressed. (I can find none myself)
*In conclusion: 
*#if it is only logical that 911 is still not mentioned on the FBI poster/site, then this fact would not be very important (we could nonetheless include it, with explanation, to help our readers understand the issue when they might come across it elsewhere, outside wikipedia)
*#if the above claims re burocratic procedures are mere speculation, we are left with the facts. It is a reliable fact that 911 is not on the FBI website. It is sourced. It is not original research, because this was not found out by wikipedians but by the Muckraker report. It is interesting, because it could be an anomaly to the official story. So, why not include it?
This is all I can see and say about it. I hope we can come to a decision, so we can resolve this and remove the dispute flag.— Xiutwel (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks. Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the incidents.
*With respect to the first sentence: it is a known fact that the US government stated this explicitly, over and over again. Whether all entities within the government believe it, is something else. The FBI matter needs resolving, and until it is resolved, this wording is not acceptable. I would at least replace determined with stated, but I think we should include something on the FBI website also. Suggestions on how to go about this are welcome! — Xiutwel (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: summary FBI poster dispute flag

message: Sorry, I'm actually on a wikibreak but could not help and peep.
What I want to convey to the reader is:
#The US government publicly accused OBL and went to war to capture him dead or alive
#The US government fails to mention OBL's suspected involvement on the wanted poster
#This appears to be due (acc.to statements) either to a lack of evidence or a failure to indict (explained or unexplained)
#After five years of war, there might be an inconsistency in the policies  used in order to capture OBL: on the one hand, wage a war to arrest him, on the other hand, fail to indict. An inconsistency of due process on the judicial track, and cowboy-style action on the other track.
I actually feel this apparent inconsistency is rather obvious and perhaps need not be elaborated on so much as I did just now? PTR, can you work with this? Thanks. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued (conclusion)