Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 11

message: My understanding is that the same boldness generally encouraged in articles is discouraged on talk pages. I believe it is usually considered bad form to change or move people's comments in a way that the writer disagrees with. Rebroad or anyone else, if you disagree with the placement of the "terrorist" notice, please state your concern and leave my writing as is, and where it is, unless you get a consensus. Maurreen 21:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification:The paragraph above applies specifically to 
the notice on the word "terrorist." Maurreen 21:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette

message: Rebroad, I'd like to stress Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus. Notice that no one else working on this article agrees with you. Maurreen 16:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I've listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Maurreen 16:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I have deleted it from RfC. Maurreen 06:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Slim, I noticed you described what constitutes a terrorist attack.  Well, according to you, most military action by the US army is terrorist in nature.  If we go by what you say (which I agree with), then we have to label most US military action accordingly.
You can't have your cake and eat it - either killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is terrorism or it isn't. (Posted by 82.35.107.44)
Hi Anon, I'm not sure where I've described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Can you be more specific?  Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean this one: "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [1] (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html) "Academic Consensus Definition":
:"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
The U.S. government isn't a clandestine or semi-clandestine individual, group or state actor; and it doesn't choose as direct targets of violence people who are not its main targets. Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Not quite true - the CIA is a clandestine state actor, and has been engaged in actions targetting people who are not its main targets, e.g. Nicaraguan peasants, et alia. Graft 05:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of terrorist and their implications 

message: The attacks were the most lethal attack ever by a foreign force on the U.S., and the first upon the mainland since the War of 1812.  -- Oh ye of short memories, have you forgotten the Japanese balloon bombs of 1944-5? They may have been largely ineffective, but 1000 of them did reach North America, and six people (including five children) were killed in one incident. -- Arwel 17:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The attack on the Pentagon was Hoax done by the Air force.--SPOC 03:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: Is there somewhere to move that image at the beginning of the page? I hate left-justified images (they mess up the text), but I can't move it to the right, because it'll conflict with the template... ugen64 01:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The link in the section about insurance claims and lawsuits is unclear, and the citation (link numbered 5) is not correct (it links to a Salon article called "Guru of the Unix gurus" about Rich Stevens).  The unclear part is, specifically, "In April 2004, a U.S. District Court jury rejected claims [that 9/11 was two incidents for insurance purposes]." followed by "In December 2004, a federal jury decided [that there were two claims]."  (I don't know the Wikipedia rules on date formatting, but should there not be commas in those dates to set off the years, as well?)
Anyhow, the U.S. District Courts are the trial courts of the United States federal court system.  Was the December jury decision in the same court as the first one?  Was there an appeal to one of the Circuit Courts of Appeals which then remanded the case for a new trial?  What happened, here? Ari 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: The Pentagon is clearly a military target, and the World Trade Center housed military intelligence offices thus it is a military target as well.  As far as the idea that any military action by a non-government is automatically "terrorist", that is ridiculous at anyone who looks at the root of the word, and more importantly does not fit the Wikipedia definition of the word terrorism.  In addition to that, Al Qaeda claims the mantle of the Saudi Arabian state.  Being as for the past decade the Saudi dictatorship has only maintained itself by way of the presence of US military bases, it is an open question whether that puppet regime is the Saudi government or what is contained in this nationalist movement. Ruy Lopez 14:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia definition of the word terrorism." ROFLMAO!!!! The forces of anti-Americanism define a loaded term to their liking, then cite that definition to justify their further POV edits. That's why there is the real world, and there is Wikiworld. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Sloppy rationale. The WTC was not selected for any military affiliation, but rather its symbolic value as an economic hub of American empire. More to the point the planes used in 9/11 attacks were civilian. I agree an encyclopedia should not rush to judgement on what is "terrorism"; since the government and media is all too willing to manipulate language to suit its interests. However, just because there are nasty things and deals with the "devil" a plenty in the world; we should not bend over backwards to rationalize terrorism. As to the issue of Saudi Arabia you lost me... the Saudi government is still the regime; are they in a difficult position of their own making (religious fundamentalism)? yes, but it doesn't change the nature of the government itself. Hence the internal struggle in that country which is underway, and was certainly long in coming. - RoyBoy 800 07:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrorism 

message: Removing references to "terroist" with the explanation that the "WTC was a legitimate military target" and the fact that the mention of the attacks as war crimes (with citations) is excised are more than mere embarassments to an alleged encyclopedia. The fact that we have a cadre of Wikipedians intent on finding excuses for mass murder go a long way to explain why the U.S. acts "unilaterally" in the world to protect what it sees as its vital interests. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they're trying too hard to find excuses.  Actually, the Pentagon is clearly a military target, but that civilian airliner the terrorists used to strike it was clearly a war crime. Randy 21:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorists and war crimes and ... 

message: I've removed it because it is a conspiracy theory unsubstantiated by any reliable or trustworthy sources. The "main article" it links to is similarly nonsensical and a probable copyvio. — Dan | Talk 02:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! Arno 09:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: *The deleted segment establishes that war games were taking place on that day. Fair enough, and well-documented. However, is does not establish any causal relation between the war games and the attacks. It also does not explore whether war games were being organised in the US on days other than 9/11, or that 9/11 was unique in that it was the only day in recent history on which war games were being conducted. Because of all this, the extensive reporting on the exercises in the 9/11 article, while probably factually accurate, does not add any relevant information and reads like original research. The only well-documented effect of the excercises I could find was reported in the testimony of several FAA and military personnel, who said that they thought at first that the attacks were part of the excercises, possibly delaying the response. That bit of information could warrant a couple of lines in the article, but not an entire section. --Plek 12:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *However, reducing the section to a few lines would have the disadvantage of not allowing us to use a plethora of military acronyms and code names. Graft 15:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution of 9/11 attacks 

message: I think that decribing the official story (that 19 al qaeda terorists hijacked airplanes...etc) as being 100% de facto true in this article is not 100% objective. There is a considarabel minority in US and even bigger around the world that think it wasa not completely true to say the least. So i only added "Under the official story" before continuing witht the sentance 19 hijackers...etc. This does not say anything about it not being true or that there was certanly a domestic conspiracy. It only makes the article 100% objective after all that this is the official story is a non disputed fact, while the story itself as being 100% true is very much disputed. So i don't know why it was deleted back? If someone can explain to me what was wrong with my addition in making this an objective article? Or are there people here who do not stand anything less than undobtably accept official Bush administration story as undisputed fact even in supposedly 100% objective wikipedia?
*We tend not to pay much attention to fringe conspiracy theories. Saying "Under the official story", besides being ungrammatical, implies there is any serious doubt about the story -- which there isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the official story 

message: There is a move afoot to tidy up and rewrite and rename some of the pages regarding these types of claims.  Please be patient as we work this out. The debate is at Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks, PLEASE join in!--Cberlet 20:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims, allegations, conspiracies

message: Casualties refers to both dead AND INJURED.
I have changed the word to FATALITIES where appropriate.  Themindset 23:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of the word '''"casualty"''' 

message: Since the generally accepted view is that a plane did indeed crash into the Pentagon, "alleged" should be applied to claims that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, not the other way around.  Also take a look at this page for Popular Mechanic's take on the "not a plane" claims.  Mr. Billion
OK, I have found another site   Everton 11:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Everton's insertion of "allegedly" into the plane crashing into the Pentagon

message: About a year ago, I came across a website that had downloadable videos of various newscasts around the world as they were broadcasting live on the morning of September 11th as the events were unfolding. I've tried searching for that website on Google, but I have not been able to find it. Does anyone have a link?
:televisionarchive.org was the site, but it's gone. Mirror Vax 13:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  News video archive 

message: I have removed the following sentence, which immediately followed a comment regarding 9/11 being the largest terrorist incident carried out in the United States:
:The death toll of 2,986 exceeded the toll of 2,403 dead after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Whilst definitions of the word "terrorism" vary greatly, most do not encompase the assault on Pearl Harbour. It was carried out by a government, was aimed at a military target, and its primary purpose was to kneecap the U.S. fleet's power in the Pacific. Apart from this merely comparing the number of dead is somewhat vulgar, especially considering the sheer numbers involved. Enlightener 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence removed

message: I've just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. This user has been blocked for 3RR violations several times. Please read it and contribute with your comments. --Pablo D. Flores 13:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment