Talk:The Terror Timeline

message: There are two footnotes and they both point back to the person this article is about...why?--MONGO 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, would you mind explaining your point more clearly please. You seem to be saying that an article about a book should not have any information about the author of that book, but this is information which a reader of the article is likely to find informative and interesting. It is an obvious thing to have in the article. Tyrenius 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is self referencing 

message: Morton, you have deleted material again, and left the edit summary "Wikipedia is not boosterism". There is no such thing in guidelines. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this? The information is referenced from a major publisher. It is relevant to the book if someone of note (which I understand the Jersey Girls are) says something of this nature about the book and its author. This is interesting and informative material for the reader. We are here to provide information, not censor it. You have complained that conspiracy theorists are intent on pushing a POV agenda on wikipedia, and I have agreed this is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to try to undermine any information or anything that is favourable to such theories. That is also POV. If you wish to participate in this article, perhaps you could help to find material to add to it. Tyrenius 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were talking about a NY Times Book Review, or any review for that matter in a mainstream publication, it would be notable.  Book jacket quotes are by their very nature subjective editorialisms, intended to promote the book -- hence "Boosterism".  Otherwise, they would not be placed on the book.  Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement is an official policy of long standing.  Morton devonshire 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the charge of boosterism borders on a charge of bad faith. In order for me to "advertising" the book, I would have to have some interest in promoting sales. I have done nothing to warrant that accusation. I am simply interested in determining the facts about this book's influence. In the process I've already learned several intersting things. Subsequent readers of this article will have an easier time.--Thomas Basboll 23:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do, however, agree that quoting the blurb tells us very little about the book other than who wants to see it succeed. That fact warrants mentions, though. I've changed the text accordingly.--Thomas Basboll 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morton, you completely misunderstand policies and use this misunderstanding to remove material from the article. This is not helping wikipedia. Using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertisement is done by someone, as Basbol has pointed out, who has something to advertise. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any articles, as everything could be seen as advertising something; at least we would not have anything positive to say about anybody or organisation in any article. It doesn't apply to an wikipedian's editorial decision that there is a comment of significance to the subject. If it was a publisher's comment about the book, of course it would not be suitable for inclusion, but this is a comment by a third party, and the fact that a well-known person is prepared to say these comments is of significance. Please note the publisher's blurb has not been quoted. Tyrenius 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy I am referring to is WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically this section.  The purpose of the policy is to prevent people from using Wikipedia to promote a work -- we are obliged by Wikipedia rules to objectively describe a subject, and not to engage in promoting a subject -- the Breitweiser quote is PR-promotional-speak, not real content.  Additionally, I've checked all of the citations in the article, and they all seem to cite directly to the book, or to some blog.  Please cite to the reliable source where Breitweiser makes the claim -- I don't see the secondary source that you keep referring to.  Lastly, why do you keep bringing up my original comment -- I meant no offense, but I apologized for offending you anyway, and do so again.  Morton devonshire 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm an experienced Wikipedian, so I see where this is headed, and I don't want it to go there. I am going to disengage from you and the 2 articles for a week, let other editors work on the Thompson and Terror Timeline articles, and hope that things will calm down by then. Happy editing.  Morton devonshire 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boosterism

message: The fellow is significant for an article, regardless what one thinks of him.
Keep the article.
Many Arab names are popular.  So it is not surprising to find two or many more people with certain Forename and Surname combinations.  Dogru144 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Ziads question and the deletion issue

message: This page is included in :Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks.  I can’t speak to the printed book (The Terror Timeline), but if said book is just a printed copy of the website (The Complete 911 Timeline) then it is a list of very well supported information as reported the mainstream press, and not a theory. —MJBurrage • TALK • 06:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory or list of facts?

message: I believe it should not be merged since its already been stated that 'The Terror Timeline' is deserving of its own article. The book has been the foundation of a website, used by the Attorney Generals Office, used by terrorism experts to teach others at Harvard, used as a basis for a movie, and published by a highly recognized publishing house. On top of that seperatly Paul Thompson has been regarded as a terrorism expert, called before Congress to testify on his knowledge, cited by Esquire in their "Genius Issue", is an established author who's work was published in a major publisher, and has participated in over 100 interviews on his personal research, only some of which went into the book, interview locations including Fox News and Air America. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Thompson isn't even a real person -- it's just a pen-name, and therefore inseperable from the book itself.  In additon, the last Afd of the author's pseudonym resulted in a merge and re-direct.  Morton devonshire 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I adressed the issue of the last AfD, admins seem to believe you are wrong that it cannot be recreated. As for pen names they are allowed on Wikipedia unless you have proof otherwise. --NuclearZer0 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: The Breitweiser quote seems gratuitous here.  Should it be in the article at all?  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goes to show notability, if you feel its too much for header, move to influence I guess. --NuclearZer0 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's on the jacket cover, so it's used to 'influence' sales of the book, not the other way around.  Morton DevonshireYo 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your point is. Still goes to show influence. You quoting some policy? If so please direct me to it, thank you. But items found in the jacket of a book are not banned from inclusion. The article is not suppose to read like a book sale, doesnt mean any item from the book cannot be included. Again please direct me toward the policy that you feel the item is violating. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#SOAP.  Morton DevonshireYo 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt apply, the person giving the comment is notable and goes to show notability of the topic. Further its third party verifiable. Since articles need to establish notability, praise from notable people is permitted. Again, if you prefer to move it to "influence" feel free. Please be careful however not to remove items that go to secure the articles place on Wikipedia, by establishing things like verifiability and notability. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#SOAP is about neutrality, not notability.  Its purpose is to prohibit self-promotion, which is what this book jacket cover quote remains.  And I think you know this, but are adopting a contrary point of view as part of your "switcheroo" gamesmanship.  Morton DevonshireYo 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to assume good faith, I find it disappointing that you cannot do this. Anyway, any quote that is positive cannot be argued to be WP:NOT#SOAP, the fact that someone notable stated that the author is notable, goes to show his notability. You still have not argued against this. Again, please be careful not to remove items that go to secure the articles place on Wikipedia, by establishing things like verifiability and notability. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Jersey Girl