Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 23

message: Don t know where to put it, but beautiful hint to 9-11:
"Dean had a sweater wrapped around his ears to keep warm. He said we were a band of Arabs coming in to blow up New York." (page 112 - Penguin Edition. For all others: At the end of the second chapter in Part Two of the book.) 88.73.57.205 16:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Kerouac "On the Road" 

message: Stop deleting the information! edit it, don't delete it!
:it has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.--Tbeatty 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, what has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? This looks like censorship.  This is the talk page.  Some one post something here, and we all get to decide if it has something to do with the article.  You are not the only one who gets to decide.  So, I stand by the original poster... Stop deleting the info! Slipgrid 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 11th Events 

message: This section begins "Within hours of the attack". Surely someone was aware that the planes had been hijacked before they crashed. Was this really the first government response? Kernow 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Government Response 

message: There's not a NPOV; only the governments POV.  The Responsibility and Motives section only gives the governments POV, with no evidence.  How is a "1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden" related, and where's the evidence that shows it relates?  If this is the "day that changed everything," then why are the only Long-term effects the Economic aftermath and Potential health effects?  How about a section about the perpetual war?  How about some info about this event being used as a reason to invade Iraq?  Why is there such a limited amount of media on this page?  Right now, there's four different movies in Google Videos top 100 about this day, and I believe they are all public domain videos.  Lets add them!  We have video of one plane hitting one tower; lets get video of all three towers falling!  There's endless hours of video and audio that would be suitable for the media section.  Why is the control of this article in the hands of a few, like Tom Harrison?  Was Wikipedia meant to be used as propaganda?  I only ask, because that's what it seems like it's being used for.  Here's a list of about 100 basic and unanswered questions related to this event.  I have only one question... why doesn't this article address any of these questions? Slipgrid 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does address many of those questions, and the conspiracy article does the same.  However, it goes without saying that many of those questions are misleading.  Terms like "perpetual war" are POV, not "Economic aftermath".  I suggest you cut the crap and be a little more constructive. -Maverick 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, you don't like the term "perpetual war," then how about a section called "War on Terror."  What would you call the hostilities sparked by this event, and why isn't it a subsection of the "Long-term effects?"  You want to know my POV?  It's anger, because this article is a farce. 71.72.236.245 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You say, "article does address many of those questions, and the conspiracy article does the same," but what's the conspiracy article, and why does it exist?  Both articles report a conspiracy.  Why do we need two articles?  Let's merge the two articles!  Or, is there really a conspiracy against the truth. We shouldn't allow two articles.  If you want to create a 9/11 Commission Report book report, then that's fine; It shouldn't go here. Slipgrid 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it's generally frowned upon to string togeather terms like "discredited conspiracy theories," "thin veneers," "unrelated to the events," and "dubious information," without using any thought as to what they mean.  I mean, which story includes "discredited conspiracy theories?"  A large number of Americans, and an even larger number of people across the world would say it's the story in this article. 71.72.236.245 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said, and well named section here. Raise that banner high up! The one which states that this article is fictional satire… lock it up, and let it stay locked until our amendments are implemented, and our questions answered… you vile conspiracy theorists yet have to produce that Boeing 757 whose tale section ricochet from Pentagon and cut support columns of building 7!;)… Lovelight 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Slipgrid, guess who's watching? Homeland Security! :-) So cut that anti-American crap before you get packed off to Gitmo. Cerebral Warrior 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is by far your last warning: Cut with the homeland security, "lol they're watching" crap. I banned you once for a threat that you said was a joke; the joke's over. Stop it, now. --Golbez 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry man. But I will remind you that what I said is not entirely false. Many countries do scan certain popular websites to prevent terrorists from using them as propaganda tools. I'm sure Wikipedia is one of those sites. Also what Wikipedia guideline have I violated by making my earlier statement about Guatanamo Bay? It wasn't a personal attack or a legal threat (I didn't threaten to pack him off to Gitmo). Cerebral Warrior 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not false, that's irrelevant - you don't need to point it out every time it comes up. It's annoying and disruptive. --Golbez 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: People do go off topic on talk-pages. All I was trying to do was point out that blatant anti-American rants are hurtful and bigotted and hence must be avoided. Cerebral Warrior 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: People who were (and are) obstructing neutral point of view within this article are directly responsible for this… I remember those government warnings on this talk page well, and if someone was out of line here, then it's those peopling who put those silly banners on top of it all… Fact is, 911 already blew back, this damage control that we are witnessing here is nothing but pathetic try to avoid inevitable. It's like watching Bush, Rumsfeld, Dick or Rice traveling the globe, talking and fueling more nonsense, while they should be in prison or even better, they should be gently put to sleep…  imho, of course… Lovelight 13:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golbez, why is it that you reprimand me for my comments while letting Lovelight get away with his irrelevant rants? Cerebral Warrior 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not telling people they're going to jail for saying things. --Golbez 21:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant rant my plum!;P Isolating this event from global perspective is like writing while blindfolded… I tried to be as decent here as one could be, tried to implement small (rather then jumbo sized) but necessary changes in kind and polite manner… which all together turnout to be nothing but a waste of time. This talk page deserves no better, what is there to talk about? What is there to suggest and/or improve when dozens and dozens of well known facts were repeatedly answered with such well elaborated replies as Mongo's: "No thanks…". Pih… This whole backstage is like divine comedy, free will Vs. determinism… Well, Slipgrid put it really well there, so there is no need to repeat obvious... Lovelight 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Least I replied...but since many here completely fail to understand what an article talk page is about, not much more than "No Thanks" is really necessary.--MONGO 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Embarrassing Wiki Ever 

message: This image has no source and was removed by OrphanBot: :Image:WTC1 on fire.jpg  Does anyone know what the source is?  I'm thinking it probably is copyrighted, but I haven't figured out the source.  
If we can't use that image, I'm trying to find alternatives.  
# On the German article, they use :Image:Twin Towers in fire - 911- Fema picture.jpg.  This is from chapter 1 of the FEMA report , figure 1-6, which has "OEM" as the author.  I think that's the NYC Office of Emergency Management, who's material I don't think is public domain.  
# In going through the chapters, I see that FEMA notes the copyright holder/photographer, next to most photographs.  But not all, such as Figure 2-24, 2-26, 2-29 in chapter 2.  Perhaps this means these photographs are public domain, and are usable here?
# On Flickr, I found some photographs uploaded by Comerking that are marked as Creative commons by-sa, such as this.  I have seen these before.  But, I can't remember the source.  Perhaps these were taken people in a NYPD helicopter.  Or perhaps by Federal authorities?  
# There is another set (creative commons by-sa) on Flickr, taken from more of a distance (from Brooklyn) 
# Lower resolution photos available include a few taken by the National Park Service from Ellis Island.
# Public domain pictures from the Pentagon are easy to come by, such as :Image:Pentagon taxi hit by lightpole.jpg. 
# Here's the commons category, which aside from :Image:Apicofwtc.jpg, includes mainly pictures of the recovery effort.  
If anyone knows the source of the aerial shots, or the image removed by OrphanBot, it would be helpful.  Or has other thoughts on what should be used as the top image? --Aude (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is in U.S. Givernment papers, brochures and their websites, if an image IS NOT attributed to someone outside of the agency, then the image is within the public domain. I'll search around as well and see what I can find.--MONGO 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I thought, in regards to the images in the FEMA report.  Of what I've found so far, I think those are the best.  Chapter 5 of the report shows one of the aerial shots (noted in #3 above, in Flickr).  These are attributed to OEM, and not in the public domain. I'll keep looking and see if I can find anything else, but the image that OrphanBot removed looks indeed like fairuse and not suitable. --Aude (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These bots do fine most of the time, but I noticed one lately that was removing the capitalized article titles from text, leaving only the noncapitlaized wording and thereby forcing a redirect to the other article...I generally recheck bot work when I see this, but as you said, the image isn't probably suitable for use. I do wish we had more images or that some folks would be more liberal in allowing images to be in the public domain.--MONGO 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Re that article: hahahahaha... my favorite part is how when the mistake was corrected and the CNN list was used it is implied that Wikipedia (described as a singular malicious entity no less!) was "covering their tracks."  I guess the author didn't know about history and/or talk pages.  Thanks for that it was really hilarious. Rtrev 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image 

message: when i called the Zionist terrorist, Begin, a "terrorist" i got warned by Wiki. When i referred to his attacks on the King David Hotel as a "terrorist attack" i got warned. But when Arab Muslims attacked us on 9/11/01, it is perfectly okay to to call a spade a spade.
:You were not warned for calling Begin a terrorist, or for calling the King David hotel bombing a terrorist act. You were warned for interjecting opinions into articles. You woyuld have received the same warning if you had called Begin a statesman of the first calibre, or defended the bombing. The issue is not who you are calling what name, but the interjection of opinions.
:Additionally, please sign talk page comments with four tildes ~~~~, as you have been advised on your talk page. Justin Eiler 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This and all your other contributions prove that you must be one of those Minnesota taxi drivers... 82.230.180.185 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia hypocracy 

message: In September 2006 the Sundance Channel broadcast an hour length documentary, "Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11."  I wish to enter this into the Multimedia reference list. Dogru144 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, took a look at that flick, and I've noted the relevance, you have my support… Lovelight 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. Hey, you folks at the "Ministry of Truth" are bound to appreciate the fact that BBC is editing old articles to keep history in perspective, right?;)… brrr, shivers from my part… Lovelight 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to enter 'Dust to Dust' to Multimedia list 

message: This diff from 11:56, 26 October 2006 removed among other things the section on Responsibility and motives. This revert on 11:57, 26 October 2006 failed to restore it, so I put it back manually. Tom Harrison Talk 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Failure to place every crime Osama bin Laden is wanted for on a wanted poster is not cause to state that he is not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Justin Eiler 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you then present that he was responsible when the FBI has made public that he's NOT wanted for this incredible crime? A spokesman for the FBI saying they have no evidence of his involvement in the attacks and therefore do not seek him isn't enough? Even Bush admits that he does not care about Osama anymore. Why would he do that if Osama was responsible for the death of 3000 US citizens? I was under the impression that Wikipedia seeks to present facts and not myths and conspiracy theories? I guess I was wrong. Ecke 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again--just because the September 11 attacks are not listed on the poster does not mean he is not wanted for that. The difference is that he has been formally arraigned for the embassy bombings--he has not been formally arraigned for the 9/11 attacks. Justin Eiler 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It says on the Most Wanted Terrorists page, that "The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."Kruegerrands 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility and motives section 

message: This page has been receiving very heavy vandalism from anonymous and new users. I feel permenantly semi-protecting it might really help reduce the vandism, but then again, who knows? If anyone has a better solution, let me know. SilentWind 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permenant Semi-Protection 

message: Tom, would you please be so kind and explain why you removed that link from the article? I see that Path to 911 is there as a relevant reference, while we all know controversy behind that piece? In my opinion Loose Change (the most wanted and most watched documentary about 911) should also be referenced, would you folks share your thoughts about these issues… 
*911 Press for Truth
*911 Mysteries
Lovelight 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External links do not belong in the See also section. Links to conspiracy theories should go in 9/11 conspiracy theories if anywhere. Direct links to videos at Youtube or Google video should be removed in most cases. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theories? Wouldn’t you agree that there is world wide consensus on fact that official story is the greatest conspiracy of them all? Perhaps we should have some vote about this whole issue, just to see where we all stand? If you would be so kind to inform me how to put such notion in motion? For example I would like to see that banner which says that neutrality of the article is disputed (since it clearly is), how, where and to whom would I address such plea? I believe that vandalism would be suppressed if main article would decently point to the dispute we have here… Lovelight 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 911 Press for Truth would fit in the 9/11 Commission article. Peter Grey 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 Press for Truth 

message: Part of the motive, which should be included, is the rejection of Western ideals, which the U.S. is the greatest symbol of. It the most powerful nation and is not Muslim. The terrorists object American policies in regards to the Middle East. They despise large influential country that is not run by Muslims or serve Islamic fundamentalist interests. They are radical Islamists who have been indoctrinated and have called for the "death" of America for many years. They blame the troubles of the Arab an Muslim world on the U.S. and West. They do not accept democracy. They hate the Western/American ideas of freedom of speech, press, religion. They hate the liberal attitude, for example, in terms of women, sex, dress, religion, gender roles, divorce, entertainment, and many others. They see the American way of life as highly sinful. They may have also wanted something to get the U.S. into war and wage jihad. --Shamir1 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section for motive.  It might help to have more opinions from different (and credible) sources, recognizing that all the theories are speculative, and any statements by the organizers are unreliable. Peter Grey 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this very important to take a look at Osama statements with scrutiny. What would be your propesed edit? For me, it shows exactly this that Osama used 9/11 events (prepared by him, or not) to defend his country. SalvNaut 12:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive 

message: 1 )   AA flt. # 11 was compromised via their security C/P @ Boston / Logan's Terminal B, contractually operated by Globe Flight Services.   UA flt. # 175 was operating from Boston's Terminal C;  run by Huntleigh - USA Corp., also by contract.   The two flights targeting D.C. were flying from Newark Int'l. ( UA - 93 ) & Wash. - Dulles ( AA - 77 ).   Both of their C/P's were contracted by Argenbright Holdings, Ltd.   All four C/P's compromised were being operated by Contract Screening Companies that worked for the applicable airlines directly.   The ONLY oversight of these operations was Federal, under the FAA.   State Airport Authorities then had NO oversight authority over departure C/P operations !
2 )   Since the Airline industry was de - regulated by Pres. Carter, in 1978, the airlines had been permitted to "low - bid" their contracts for security.   Following the TWA flt. # 800 incident;  the Gore commission recommendations, in 1997, enabled domestic passenger "profile screening" ( At first, by 'manual flagging';  until the first CAPPS software was actualized, in 2000. )   --Mikemoran576 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, Mike. None of this is really directly relevant to the article itself. Several of your points are opinion that would require substantive documentation from reliable sources, others siply are not relevant (such as the Stinger teams--a Stinger cannot stop a 747 beyond a certain radius, and I doubt Stinger teams are actively on White House deployment when the president isnot in residence). Justin Eiler 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 article is unnecessarily opinionated, factually inaccurate &/or incomplete in parts. 

message: The tower collapse section, 4.4.1, refers to a CNN timeline (cite number 85), stating the south tower fell at 10:05.  The article using the cite says 9:59.
Plus, the number of minutes is not computed correctly, since 9:03 to 9:59 (or 10:05) is not 58 minutes.
Not as major as all the heated discussion here, but a simple pair of fixes to improve overall accuracy.
I leave it to the folks with correct data to confirm the tower collapse time, and to then calc the minutes off that correctly.
CodeCarpenter 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed your comments here...  The CNN timeline  was published on 9/12/2001 and seems to contain some inaccuracies.  I've added a new reference , which is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere.   In all, the time from the first plane to the collapse of the North Tower was 102 minutes, hence the title ("102 Minutes") of Jim Dwyer's book which documents the events. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just some math changes on the timeline. 

message: At what point is something a conspiracy theory? Where does Wikipedia draw the lineDictionary.com defines a conspiracy theory as:
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
Aren't both sides equally conspiracy theories?
:Why not check Wikipedia itself?
:A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Advocates of conspiratorial views claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
:(formatting removed due to quick cut'n'paste).
:I don't think the al Qaeda-based explanation of facts matches this description.  Al Qaeda's actions, while secretive in the planning stages, became both "overt activity" and not "behind the scenes" upon execution, as Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the events. Jpers36 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy Theories" 

message: There is no justification whatever for constantly using the word "kill" and its variants ("killed", "killing") when the precise words are "murdered" and "massacred". The latter words are objective, fair and accurate, although there's nothing wrong with using "kill" for variation and to avoid constantly repeating "murdered" or "massacred." The truly odd thing about descriptions of 9/11 is that the word "killed" is used too much when these words work better by being more exact. 
It might be objected that "murdered" and "massacred", while accurate, are unnecessarily emotive, but I can't see how, regarding a subject like this, a few words would introduce emotion -- the emotion is in the subject itself and the emotion inherent in the words only adds drops to that ocean.
So I've changed "killed" and even "fatalities" in a few places to "murdered" and (as a noun), "massacred." 
Incidentally, the use of the words "murdered" is absolutely no violation of NPOV. There's nothing subjective about it unless there's an assertion that the deaths occurred accidentally, and no such assertion has been made. Nor does the word itself carry an accusation to anyone in particular.
In general, it's better to be precise with language and better to call something what it is rather than use vaguer, more abstract words when we know the more vivid words are accurate. If nothing else, it helps us think a bit more clearly.Noroton 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper terminology for illegal, premeditated killing 

message: I was about to add this site (The Complete 911 Timeline) to the external links, when I noticed the following:
:ATTENTION! DO NOT ADD LINKS WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE. OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE REMOVED.
This raises two questions for me?
# What is the basis for this warning on top of “Editing of this article by unregistered or new users is currently disabled.”?
# Is this common on Wikipedia? (I have not seen it before.)
Getting back to the link; It is a very detailed—and very well documented—timeline of events leading up to the attacks, and is required reading for Richard Clarke’s class at Harvard.  Based just on its level of confirmable detail (every entry has a link to the original source, all of wich are mainstream), I think a link should be included in this article. —MJBurrage • TALK • 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, just to share with you, this particular page is frozen in time, it is in status quo for years now… IMO, those warnings at front are not going anywhere since article is obviously biased, and as such it is attacked as soon as Ministry of Truth lets it guard down. Of course, the link you provided should be enlisted, good luck with it… Lovelight 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... of course here on Wikipedia, we have some administrators that know very well the only truth and they can properly decide without blinking how this article should look like. This link (and 9/11 Press for Truth) should be here as it is a part of common, notable, verified knwoledge about events of 9/11.  SalvNaut 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Complete 911 Timeline 

message: ===Unnamed 'substantial conspiracy theory'===
I have noticed that the main Wikipedia page on 9/11 refers to it as "a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals".
As you all know, there is a very substantial conspiracy theory doubting this simple explanation.
Because the article does not have a section on the conspiracy theory, I believe that the listed explanation should be listed as a theory rather than facts.
Otherwise it can be extremely misleading. Everyone is entitled to their point of view and beliefs and the article should cater for both sides of the story, the conspiracy theory and the "suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals" theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron beauchamp (talk • contribs)  at 12:55 on 21 November 2006
:'Is the Earth flat? Some people think otherwise, so it should be listed as a theory rather than facts.' --CalendarWatcher 13:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the conspiracy theories have been demonstrated to be "substantial". A substantial alternate theory, based on evidence instead of misinformation and speculation, would be another matter entirely. Peter Grey 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: People have spent a lot of time on this article over the years and are sensitive to wholesale changes without discussion and consensus on the talk page.  Please discuss your proposed edits here, make a case for them and see if you can get others to agree or come to a compromise.  --PTR 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't you make the case, then too? What do you disagree with exactly? I say - it is improper to point to Jewish conspiracy without remarking that the movement does not encourage it,  It is to the contrary. I'll restore again and pleas point out which things you dislike. (There is no rule in Wikipedia that you shouldn't make edits without previous discussion. This not some major edit.) SalvNaut 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You made a statement that someone is doing something. That requires a source. We do not make unsourced statements here. --Golbez 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all explained in 9/11 conspiracy theories article as all other statements in this paragraph. We also don't make unsourced, unverified accusations, that is we do not put statements under some sections to create (false) impression of a nature of a topic. Do you agree? SalvNaut 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one breaking consensus, it is on you to discuss changes to a well-edited article like this. I will not justify my edits further than I have, it is your responsibility, not mine. --Golbez 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are your only arguments?? I discussed it - why would argument by ADL be the one deciding here? ADL job is to give statements like that? Why is the voice of the 9/11 Truth movement, ones who are accused of anti-semitism, doesn't count here? Stop with this well-edited article, please. It's no-argument. I bring this topic, and it hasn't been discussed before. This sentence is unjustified false-POV creation and it goes. I'm making my change as you did too much too and not provided arguments. SalvNaut 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While according to the Anti-Defamation League, 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"[80], a fraction of conspiracy theorists claim there was an Israeli or Jewish involvement in the September 11 attacks. Others within the movement have worked to debunk their claims and to expose websites and individuals engaging in Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.(here could be a ref. to MUJCA, Hoffman's or others articles, but it's in the main article already)
Other option would be not to mention ADL at all, and leave it to the reader to read about it in 9/11 conspiracy theories article (it seems Ok to me,  too). The way it is now creates false impression of reality and it's defamation itself. I'll make this proposed edit. Please answer with arguments, if you don't agree. SalvNaut 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You insist? Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't have to respond to anyone insisting.--MONGO 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say I insist? I used word "please", too. But again... it didn't work. You don't want to provide arguments but become hostile. Is RfC my only option here?
----
Thank you for your understanding and your edit Tom Harrison. Still, I don't see how it is justified to put an opinion by ADL in such a small paragraph about 9/11 CT. What would be sources for that (except ADL of course)? 
The problem is that 9/11 Truth Movement is not documented well in mainstream media. And from what was documented (Loose Change, article in Times, Popular Mechanics, etc) I see nothing that would justify immediate connection between 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories about Jews. Any opinions here? I'm leaning forward complete removal of this remark (all is described in the main article) SalvNaut 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories - the argument is back 

message: I have noticed that the main Wikipedia page on 9/11 refers to it as "a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals".
As you all know, there is a very substantial conspiracy theory doubting this simple explanation.
Because the article does not have a section on the conspiracy theory, I believe that the listed explanation should be listed as a theory rather than facts.
Otherwise it can be extremely misleading. Everyone is entitled to their point of view and beliefs and the article should cater for both sides of the story, the conspiracy theory and the "suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals" theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron beauchamp (talk • contribs)  at 12:55 on 21 November 2006
:'Is the Earth flat? Some people think otherwise, so it should be listed as a theory rather than facts.' --CalendarWatcher 13:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the conspiracy theories have been demonstrated to be "substantial". A substantial alternate theory, based on evidence instead of misinformation and speculation, would be another matter entirely. Peter Grey 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnamed 'substantial conspiracy theory'

message: I made changes. Please revert only those you don't like and discuss. The part about Jewish conspiracy is described in 9/11 conspiracy theories. And it's just true. No-one ever from 9/11 truth movement supported any of these.(sorry for a rude description of my edit - I wanted to write more but pressed enter accidentally)
SalvNaut 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People have spent a lot of time on this article over the years and are sensitive to wholesale changes without discussion and consensus on the talk page.  Please discuss your proposed edits here, make a case for them and see if you can get others to agree or come to a compromise.  --PTR 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't you make the case, then too? What do you disagree with exactly? I say - it is improper to point to Jewish conspiracy without remarking that the movement does not encourage it,  It is to the contrary. I'll restore again and pleas point out which things you dislike. (There is no rule in Wikipedia that you shouldn't make edits without previous discussion. This not some major edit.) SalvNaut 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You made a statement that someone is doing something. That requires a source. We do not make unsourced statements here. --Golbez 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all explained in 9/11 conspiracy theories article as all other statements in this paragraph. We also don't make unsourced, unverified accusations, that is we do not put statements under some sections to create (false) impression of a nature of a topic. Do you agree? SalvNaut 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one breaking consensus, it is on you to discuss changes to a well-edited article like this. I will not justify my edits further than I have, it is your responsibility, not mine. --Golbez 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are your only arguments?? I discussed it - why would argument by ADL be the one deciding here? ADL job is to give statements like that? Why is the voice of the 9/11 Truth movement, ones who are accused of anti-semitism, doesn't count here? Stop with this well-edited article, please. It's no-argument. I bring this topic, and it hasn't been discussed before. This sentence is unjustified false-POV creation and it goes. I'm making my change as you did too much too and not provided arguments. SalvNaut 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While according to the Anti-Defamation League, 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"[80], a fraction of conspiracy theorists claim there was an Israeli or Jewish involvement in the September 11 attacks. Others within the movement have worked to debunk their claims and to expose websites and individuals engaging in Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.(here could be a ref. to MUJCA, Hoffman's or others articles, but it's in the main article already)
Other option would be not to mention ADL at all, and leave it to the reader to read about it in 9/11 conspiracy theories article (it seems Ok to me,  too). The way it is now creates false impression of reality and it's defamation itself. I'll make this proposed edit. Please answer with arguments, if you don't agree. SalvNaut 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You insist? Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't have to respond to anyone insisting.--MONGO 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say I insist? I used word "please", too. But again... it didn't work. You don't want to provide arguments but become hostile. Is RfC my only option here?
----
Thank you for your understanding and your edit Tom Harrison. Still, I don't see how it is justified to put an opinion by ADL in such a small paragraph about 9/11 CT. What would be sources for that (except ADL of course)? 
The problem is that 9/11 Truth Movement is not documented well in mainstream media. And from what was documented (Loose Change, article in Times, Popular Mechanics, etc) I see nothing that would justify immediate connection between 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories about Jews. Any opinions here? I'm leaning forward complete removal of this remark (all is described in the main article) SalvNaut 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to "Conspiracy Theories" subsection

message: Ok, let's try again. I insist on the edit proposed by me. Someone would like to explain to me what is the rationale behind including a statement by some organization (ADL) in this small paragraph about 9/11 conspiracy theories? This of course creates a notion in reader's head that 9/11 conspiracy theories are about "same ol' thing", while obviously they are not, and people from 9/11 truth movement have been rejecting this ideas strongly. For example, David Griffin, K. Barret and others are members of MUJCA (Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 911 Truth). Jim Hoffman wrote articles exposing Jewish conspiracy theories within 9/11 movement. S. Jones couple of times rejected ADL's accusations, by saying his words were misinterpreted, response forced by radio host (this case was very ugly, I discussed it on Steven Jones talk page) and that he prefers to stick to science.
I'm not an editor who prefers to delete material, I understand that ADL statement might be appropriate to few of the people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy. That's why I proposed this edit, and I stand behind it:
:While according to the Anti-Defamation League, 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"[80], a fraction of conspiracy theorists claim there was an Israeli or Jewish involvement in the September 11 attacks. Others within the movement have worked to debunk their claims and to expose websites and individuals engaging in Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.(here could be a ref. to MUJCA, Hoffman's or others articles, but it's in the main article already)
Other option would be not to mention ADL at all, and leave it to the reader to read about it in 9/11 conspiracy theories article (it seems Ok to me,  too). The way it is now creates false impression of reality and it's defamation itself. I'll make this proposed edit. Please answer with arguments, if you don't agree. SalvNaut 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You insist? Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't have to respond to anyone insisting.--MONGO 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say I insist? I used word "please", too. But again... it didn't work. You don't want to provide arguments but become hostile. Is RfC my only option here?
----
Thank you for your understanding and your edit Tom Harrison. Still, I don't see how it is justified to put an opinion by ADL in such a small paragraph about 9/11 CT. What would be sources for that (except ADL of course)? 
The problem is that 9/11 Truth Movement is not documented well in mainstream media. And from what was documented (Loose Change, article in Times, Popular Mechanics, etc) I see nothing that would justify immediate connection between 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories about Jews. Any opinions here? I'm leaning forward complete removal of this remark (all is described in the main article) SalvNaut 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again, please

message: BTW: What is this that ppl revert edits basing it solely on "previous version being stable"? Shouldn't we learn to listen to arguments each time? Newtonian physics was stable for some time, too. Holocaust denial was stable for some time after WWII, and few cared to discuss proofs for it. History is echoing.... SalvNaut 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Stable version"=

message: Excuse me for barging into others' business, but Golbez and SalvNaut seem to have an edit war. Could you two please discuss before doing this revert war? bibliomaniac15 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Is it possible to remove the edit protection to include a link to the September 11 2001 fifth anniversary page?
:Just as a note, I added a proposed deletion tag to that article. See the page for explaination. Rx StrangeLove 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional pages 

message: I just began reviewing this page recently and find some serious abuses of Wikipedia policies. First, the discussion page (from the significant portion I've read) indicates very much dissent from the supposed consensus about the article. I see in the history moments where edits are made and then quickly reverted with the claim that a consensus has been built. Then I look at the discussion history and there's clearly no consensus.
I also do not see much in the history that would justify the extreme measures taken to lock this article down. When compared to other articles there is really not that much vandalism or edit wars at the times when it's unlocked. Sure these disputes happen, but they happen everywhere on other articles and those articles routinely move out of protected status.
Rather here it appears that a few editors have parked themselves on these pages and try to keep others away from editing. I even see evidence of administrators abusing their privileges. For example, there is an edit by JoshuaZ to remove comments from the discussion page that contain no personal attack, but rather expressed the frustration I can see many editors are experiencing with these abuses. Please understand that the Wiki concept can't work this way. It has proven itself elsewhere, but this article is not working as intended. If these administrators want complete control over the content of their web page, I suggest they start a blog.
I was barred for supposed disruption (violation of the 3 revert rule) of this page for making a few edits on a small subsection of the page. I discussed those edits prior to making them here, though the reverting editors simply reverted them without any comment on this discussion page (again citing the "stability" of the article). Keep in mind that the sole purpose of Wikipedia is not to stabilize articles. This has to be balanced against other policies and guidelines. The edits I tried to make did nothing to changes the facts presented. Rather I was simply removing words and phrases that were pejorative, unencyclopedic and in violation of the NPOV policy. Those reverting my edits cited nothing to support their reverts, but rather again used pejoratives to back up the use of pejoratives. Though I have been blocked (even from appealing my blockage), I thought I'd begin some discussion here about what appear to me to be inappropriate behaviour by admins and a wish to treat this article as not part of a Wiki. I'm not sure what can be done about this behaviour. It's similar to the  pegasus affair where an editor sought administrative status simply to exercise arbitrary power over other editors. However, my hope is that we can find some impartial admin who will somehow facilitate making this article into a part of the Wiki community.  --67.175.134.6 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious administrator abuse 

message: * There were numerous polls conducted which show that majority of Americans do not believe official account. That is why Cplot's arguments are even stronger. All claims should be clearly sourced to make it possible to the reader to determine who makes them. Rationales for other claims, inclusions or exclusions (like the Jewish conspiracy remark I discussed) should be discussed and/or sourced. This is not about "conspiracy cruft" - it's about general disbelief and recognition of facts and myths. SalvNaut 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment What a relief to hear another voice of reason, thank you Acebrock. SalvNaut 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment Keep in mind that it has only been an hour. Normally an NPOV tag should be expected to stay of for days. In the case of this article (after reviewing its history), I would say more like weeks. It's a bit silly to start counting votes now, but it's really ridiculous to claim a consensus on the topic after a few minutes elapsed. Do these editors think we're all paid to watch this page? In the US it's the Thanksgiving holiday. Many editors are spending time with their families right now. It's only the die hards that are around right now. Within a few weeks a doubt we'll see any consensus for maintaining this NPOV and Verifiability violating article in this way . --Cplot 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  agree 

message: Tbeatty, there is clearly no consensus yet on the NPOV. How could their be there's only been minutes since the tag was placed on the article. It would normally take 10 days or so to make such a determination. In the case of this article I would imagine it will take much longer since so many dissenting editors have been chased away by a poorly behaving core group of editors. --Cplot 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see talk archives. This has been discussed for years. Please do not add conspiracy cruft here, this is not the place for it. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute (no way to claim consensus either way) 

message: There's quite a few disputes going on here, so I've full protected the page. Perhaps a nice short outline of what specifics we have would be nice? One of the concerns I've seen is that of NPOV, so perhaps specific paragraphs could be listed below neatly? Thank you. Cowman109Talk 05:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes 

message: A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue was quoted as saying: 
“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5568518.ece  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This means what? Also, when adding a new section, do it at the bottom please. --Tarage (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Société Générale