Talk:Jersey Girls

message: I have removed They have each received millions of dollars in settlement moneys from the 9/11 survivors fund. If someone can cite a valid source for that information, I would be more than happy to reintroduce that sentence into the article. Thanks, Sango123 July 1, 2005 01:49 (UTC)
From a United States Department of Justice press release (11/25/2003): 
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/November/03_civ_648.htm
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Claims for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund must be filed by December 22, less than 4 weeks from now, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Fund’s Special Master announced today. Those eligible include family members of the 2,976 who died and those individuals who were injured as a result of the terrorist attacks. 
The Fund, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on September 24, 2001, has received to date more than 3,583 claims (including 1,876 claims received from families of deceased victims representing almost two-thirds of eligible claimants) and paid out more than $1.2 billion, Feinberg announced today. The Special Master anticipates that nearly 90% of the families who lost family members will file before December 22 with the Fund. 
The average amount of compensation paid to date to the families of those who died on September 11 is $1.7 million.  Individual compensation amounts have ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million.
How come 3 of them have an article and 1 doesnt? --*kate 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You (or anyone) are free to start an article if you want, by editing this page:  Mindy Kleinberg George100 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, but do the first three have some sort of superiority or signifigance to Kleinberg? I'm just not sure. --*kate 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it.  --George100 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2005

message: Cut from intro:
:They were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission.
Who says? I found no reference to them in our 9/11 Commission article. --Uncle Ed 21:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a lot more information here.  Right now the Ann Coulter section is the biggest part of the page!  Without the Jersey girls, there likely would have been no 9/11 Commission; certainly not an independent one.  They were definitely instrumental in Kissinger's decision not to head the Commission, which did wonders for its credibility.  It's on my watchlist now; I'll get around to adding some research at some point soon.  But it's pretty embarrassing to have the Coulter section be the main thing on this article.--csloat 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumental claim

message: I don't know if anyone here was aware, but the term "Jersey Girl" can be considered a derogatory term (it carries connotations of overprivilege and arrogance).  Wikipedia must not engage in structural bias by assisting efforts to apply negative terminology.  I'm aware that the terminology is in widespread use.  What is important is noting, preferably in the intro, that the terminology has been applied by others and is not an original invention of Wikipedia.  Kasreyn 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the intro accordingly, to clarify that the terminology is in widespread use by the public, justifying its inclusion in this project.  Kasreyn 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name? 

message: Really?  Guettarda 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell it is not.  An article (very sympathetic to them, I might add) on commondreams.org  declares the women are referred to by that moniker in Washington, D.C., and uses it to identify them a few times.   If you can find any evidence to the contrary, do share. Lawyer2b 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be.  Or, it could be that commondreams has been suckered into a reframe.  Both parties are constantly trying to bias discussion with politicized terminology which have the effect of biasing discussion in their favor.  Depending on the origination of the term, it could be simply an innocent reference to the foursome's state of origin, or an attempt at a slur which commondreams either failed to recognize, or went along with in order to get more Google hits.  Kasreyn 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My response will only be to point to Occam's razor. Lawyer2b 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember, that's merely axiomatic advice for constructing arguments...  in the real world, sometimes the more complicated answer is true.  ;)  Kasreyn 05:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not used as an insult? 

message: This article has a LOT of words on Ann Coulter's criticism of the Jersey Girls. Many if not most of them are repeated in the article on Ann Coulter. IMHO, this article, the one on the Jersey Girls, should mention Coulter's criticism and possibly quote it, then refer people to the Ann Coulter article for more detail. Lou Sander 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by that. She would seem to be peripheral to the subject. Rob Banzai 15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That leads us to an even more important question:  who first called them that, anyway?  I think it would be very notable to mention whoever it was that gave birth to this gem of wit.  *sarcasm*  Was it a TV pundit, a newspaper, Coulter's Godless book, or what?  Does anyone know?  Kasreyn 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were called that long before that attention whore said a word about them.  And they were well known by people following post 9/11 events closely.  Anyone who thinks Coulter invented the Jersey Girls has not been paying attention.  We definitely need more informaiton here, and if Coulter's comments are going to be here they should not be like this, with no discussion or critique.  Her comments were by far the stupidest things ever said about the Jersey Girls yet there is not a single critique of her comments here; as if they were simple truths.  Pretty wretched.  As I said above, I'll do some research and try to address this in the coming weeks.--csloat 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If the name "Ann Coulter" doesn't mean much to you, there's not much I can say, except this:  I'm not going to determine which Dutch public figures are important, and which are not, since I'm not familiar with them.  You might do likewise.The fact is, the Coulter section has been cut down in size significantly, and should definitely stay where it is.  -George100 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about the Jersey Girls, not about Coulter.  She has her own page and we can put that stuff there.  I think a sentence mentioning that the Jersey Girls were attacked by Coulter and that some controversy resulted is fine, but an entire section?  Come on.  Especially the way it was stated as if Coulter's comments were true!  The ensuing controversy was not about the Jersey Girls - who pretty much emerged unscathed by the attention - but rather about Coulter and how mean-spirited and sensationalistic she is.  No question about it that her publicist played up that passage in the book in order to sell more of them.  Anyway, I deleted the section; someone can replace it with a sentence that simply states that Coulter made unprecedented attacks on their character in her book and some controversy ensued.--csloat 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, Coulter's remarks are extremely pertinent to the Jersey Girls' notability. If I ever heard of the se people before by that name, I had totally forgotten before they were mentioned by Coulter. I just vaguely remember that there was a small vocal group of people using their victimhood to make political points. I don't want to get involved in editing this controversial article, but IMHO it's whitewashing their story to remove Coulter's bombastic but mostly accurate criticism of them. Maybe take out the bombast, but retain the criticisms. Lou Sander 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you weren't paying attention; they have been in the news long before coulter got to them.  They were not "using their victimhood to make political points"; they were instrumental in getting the 9/11 Commission off the ground.  Because of them, Henry Kissinger was not the head of that Commission.  There is nothing at all "accurate" about Coulter's criticism; it is a hysterical personal attack.  But that is neither here nor there - I am fine keeping a line about Coulter in here, but an entire section, with the full quote, and stated as if it were truth, is absolutely ludicrous and POV-pushing.--csloat 18:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you say they were trying to score political points?  Because the evidence that some, possibly very important, information was not addressed by either the administration or the 9/11 commision. (The fact that it did not even mention, in 571 pages, building 7) This has, of course, been rectified in the eyes of some by the release of the NIST report.  But that is an opinion issue, with regard to an individuals belief or disbelief of the contents therein.  However, to say that 4 women are essentially fame seeking, politically motivated "harpies" because they doubt a man who essentially told the American public to "trust" him on it should be beyond the pale of human conduct (particularly one who calls the left "godless", I feel that her attacks violate, on many levels, the very idea of christianity and relegion, but that is, of course, an opinion.  What if we had taken Nixon at his word that he was "not a crook"?  I fail to see how exercising the right to free speech and difference of opinion/dissent can be seen as politically motivated. It, IMHO, was truth motivated.  If Ann Coulter had merely stated that she, "disapproved of them using the crisis for political gain" that would be one thing.  I would not be inclined to agree, having followed their story quite closely, but that his HER right to her opinion.  However, calling names, insinuating a motivation of greed and "bush bashing" seems a blatant attempt, by Coulter, to do the very thing she accuses the widows of.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.27.43 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Coulter? 

message: Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth.  Badagnani 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion vote / film featuring Jersey Girls 

message: The  template seems inappropriate.  I'm personally not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but the article strongly implies they were pursuing the actual truth, not the conspiracy theory misinformation. Peter Grey 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - that template is bogus.  The "truth movement" should not be collapsed with the conspiracy theories like that; this has nothing to do with controlled demolition of bldg 7 or with "in plane sight" or any of that other crap.  I'll remove the template for now; someone should separate it into different templates and then it might perhaps be relevant.--csloat 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This question has been brought up on the Template:911tm talk page; if a connection cannot be verified the template will be amended, and excluded from this article. Peter Grey 04:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Truth" Movement template 

message: The current article states that "Together with William Rodriguez, the Jersey Girls were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission."  The footnote given to this seems like a rather minor source -- an article in a minor publication about Rodriguez.  The claim about the Jersey Girls is supported in the next sentence in the article, however.
I only began reading about Rodriguez today, but frankly, he seems like something of self-publicizing con-man.  I am frankly wondering whether his mention in this article is actually accurate and -- if so -- is his role so notable that he is worth singling out for mention in this article (there were many families of victims who were calling for investigation in the months and years following the 9-11).  
So my questions here are two-fold:
1) Is the claim that the "Jersey Girls" were "instrumental" in the formation of the 9/11 Commission truly accurate, or is this an exaggeration of their role?  "Instrumental" is a strong word, esp. in the context of the current article, and implies that they set the process in motion in a way more significant than other parties... [Later note: Ok, I'm seeing a lot sources supporting the significant role they played, but I'll let this question stand anyway. More important is #2 below...]
2) Even if #1 above is accurate, does the mention of William Rodriguez belong in the same sentence?  Is he truly an "instrumental" figure in this regard?  Can someone verify this from more mainstream sources? The claim seems highly spurious to me, and suspicious as being a merely self-serving insertion into the article.  
It is worth noting that even in the main Wikipedia article on William Rodriguez, there is no mention of a specific role in the formation of the 9/11 Commission, but only his lawsuit against the United States and his role in the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement."
StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Rodriguez... and "Instrumental in the 9/11 Commission" 

message: The Commission website has a transcript of her testimony :
"MR. KEAN: Thank you.
Dr. Rice, would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. RICE: I do. "
Source : http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing9/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-08.htm
Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm deleting the part where it says she was not under oath.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.204.221 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the part about condi not being under oath 

message: Kristen Breitweiser appears to lack any real notability outside of being a member of the Jersey Girls, for which the article is now quite extensive. Dedicated articles for the other 3 members have already been converted to redirects to "Jersey Girls" and Breitweiser's probably should be too. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is media coverage on Breitweiser that does not mention the "Jersey Girls", so her position is somewhat different compared to the other members of the group.  Cs32en  00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is sourced in the article is extemely flimsy: a piece from a local paper in 2005 and a small mention from a recent CNN piece ("But Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband was killed on 9/11, said she welcomed the trial..."). Is there substantially more? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Redirect

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472
*:Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The senate was written to and meetings were held when legislation 42 usc10609 sec 3d blocked the 911 families who has eligible judgements from collecting from the VSST if they collected funds from VCF1. When asked for a revision the senate solidified it in recent legislation  Mzlaady123 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 9/11 families being blocked from the VSST 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jersey Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104012221/http://nbs.gmnews.com/news/2006/0615/Front_Page/036.html to http://nbs.gmnews.com/news/2006/0615/Front_Page/036.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221162451/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/8/101032.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/8/101032.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618115326/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-05.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jersey Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105000357/http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/04/02/widows/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/04/02/widows/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified