Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 33

message: # Support FT2 (Talk | email) 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist/terrorism has multiple definitions. But ''judging by all (or substantively all) mainstream definitions'', 9/11 would be considered a "terrorist" incident, and the perpetrators would be considered "terrorists".

message: # Support Haemo 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist/ism is a term that carries an <u>emotive meaning</u> as well as being (ideally) a factual term as well.

message: # Support Haemo 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist/ism is a term often used factually, but is also used by one side to <u>gain perceived advantage</u> by casting their opponents as such.

message: # Support Timneu22 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV contemplates that terms used by reliable source consensus should be adopted by Wikipedia - if everyone calls it a duck, so should we.

message: # Support Timneu22 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV contemplates that <u>terms should not be sidestepped or pussyfooted if accurate</u> - a murderer should be described as a murderer if they murdered.

message: # Support This is consistent with letting the facts speak for themselves (WP:NPOV) Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV contemplates that <u>terms should be used neutrally when there is doubt</u> - a murderer could ideally simply have their victims and manner of death listed to document their acts, and the fact they killed.

message: # Support Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best NPOV practice would be to avoid possible pejorative terms or avoid applying our labels to them whatever the case might be, even if there is only a question that they ''might'' be seen that way, because <u>avoidance of pejoratives in Wikipedia's voice</u> is what counts more.

message: # Confused Support if technical means "expert attest to technical use" then yes Haemo 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best NPOV practice would be to call a spade a spade, if the incidents were terrorist incidents, call them terrorist incidents, because the <u>technical (dictionary, governmental, documentational, etc) meaning</u> is what counts more.

message: # Support Stanselmdoc 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best NPOV practice would be to call a spade a spade, if the incidents were terrorist incidents, call them terrorist incidents, because the <u>popular usage</u> is what counts more.

message: # Support You won't likely hear from such people on wikipedia though, as most lack internet connections Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is a case that Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks and their perpetrators are not universally described throughout the world as "terrorists", and that a notable minority in the world reject this label.

message: # Weak support "Notable minority" of reliable sources, yes. The unwashed masses, not so much. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If a notable minority did disagree, then we should <u>abide by government descriptions</u> and call them that anyhow.

message: # Support Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If a notable minority did disagree, then we should abide by that and avoid using a disputed pejorative <u>even if almost all governments do</u>.

message: In the intrest of finding out where we stand, without similar questions with slightly different wording, I offer these two questions.
==== Should the words Terrorism and Terrorist be totally removed from this article? ====
# Support Mr.grantevans2 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra questions added in a similar vein

message: # Support Mr.grantevans2 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the words <u>Terrorism</u> and <u>Terrorist</u> be totally removed from this article? 

message: # Yes  Geir 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the words <u>Terrorism</u> and <u>Terrorist</u> be partially removed from this article? 

message: Please remember Polls are Evil"In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. ..In some cases, editors use straw polls during discussions of what material to include in various Wikipedia articles. Although such polls are occasionally used and sometimes helpful, their use is controversial. Where used, article straw polls should be developed in a way to assist in reaching true consensus, rather than in an attempt to silence an opposing opinion." Mr.grantevans2 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw polls

message: Regarding the edit protected request. Is there a continuing need for protection of this page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct place is WP:RFPP, rather than here or an  request.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that; the template explicitly says that; but nevertheless the person who placed the template was asking for unprotection. I'll disable the template, and a request can be made at RFPP if unprotection is desired. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry... I must admit I'm not very wiki savvy when it comes to the code more experenced users throw around to make everything look fancy. I just saw "request unprotected, put this here", so I did. My appologies. --Tarage 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just requsted unprotection. (hopefully it's agreeable). Mr.grantevans2 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Iranians React To 9/11 With Vigil, Prayers
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biontenagent2008 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Recation ? 

message: That means both the terror terror story and that what actually happened. This also means there is no need to continue the debate about terror, as it is much more important to get the whole secondary explanation on the page.
(Gaby de wilde 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is frivilous soap-boxing.  Please desist in making general comments about the topic of the article and instead talk about the article itself.  The only actionable part of your suggestion is an aggregious violation of neutral point of view.  --Haemo 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: None of your facts are correct.  However, even if they were, we could only use them if they were reported by a reliable source.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  If you persist in soapboxing, you will be blocked for disruption.  --Haemo 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but soap boxing is appropriate... Wrong. Peter Grey 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am wondering whether we can salvage this 1 source from de wilde as a possible reliable source specifying something other than terrorism? Mr.grantevans2 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an entire article which talks about this at 9/11 conspiracies. "Something other than terrorism" is not the same as "these attacks were a government conspiracy"; these people don't believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with them, and therefore have no strong opinion what they call something that didn't happen.  They're not disagreeing with the terrorism label, they're disagreeing that they occurred at all as described in the article. --Haemo 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I just read it carefully and I see what you mean and I agree. Mr.grantevans2 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You all don't understand... Osama WAS INVOLVED.
Pankuro  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.252.192 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]] demands both stories side by side 

message: In the History, Renaissance to present section, I think it'd fit.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's on the expanded vital articles list...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page a [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital article?]] 

message: I've reconsidered the position I took above where I said it was "not worth fighting over" the fact that this article is incorrectly punctuated. (It is missing a comma after the year; it should read, "September 11, 2001, attacks.") Consensus was recently reached on that point in the talk pages of the WP Manual of Style.  . 
There I cited dozens of authoritative sources for the general proposition that the year in the American month-day-year style is parenthetical and should be set off by commas (unless the year is followed by some other punctuation). I also provided dozens of authoritative sources for the specific usage, "September 11, 2001, attacks." 
This point has been discussed before in the archives, and, although many editors are uncomfortable with the correct usage---in my opinion, merely because they have become so used to the incorrect usage---no one has ever cited an authoritative source (or even any rationale) to support the way the article is currently punctuated.
Although we cannot fix every instance of this error on Wikipedia due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia's autoformatting discussed on the Manual of Style talk page , we should fix it wherever we can, including the title of this article. In it's current form, this article is reinforcing a common, but clearly wrong, punctuation error for a whole new generation of writers. It's kind of embarrasing. Let's fix it. Thanks! Lowell33 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly have no objections.  Even the 9/11 Commission Report uses the proposed punctuation.  --Haemo 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections here. I think it is kinda trivial, but whatever. Atleast it isn't as bad as the debate we've had for the past few months... --Tarage 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, I do not understand the distinction between (1) a scenario in which the attacks "are identified entirely by date" (in which case "September 11, 2001, attacks" is correct) and (2) a scenario in which "the date is taken as a proper name in its own right" (in which case, for some reason, "September 11, 2001 attacks" is correct). What's the difference between "identif[ying]" something "entirely by date" and using a date "as a proper name in its own right"? Assuming there is a meaningful distinction there, do you have any authority for "September 11, 2001 attacks"? I've never seen any, and believe me I've looked. Thanks Lowell33 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So, is there a way to edit the title in a "global" manner so that links to this article elsewhere on Wikipedia are automatically changed? I don't know enough about it, and I don't want to mess it up. Thanks Lowell33 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you'd have to either manually or use a bot to change them. --Golbez 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you'd have to file a request with one of the redirect-fixing bots, or something.  Which would be a pain.  --Haemo 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title is Mispunctuated 

message: This article was once a featured article. Can't we just revert to that version to eliminate all these discussions? Timneu22 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely. When it became a FA it wasn't even called a FA so I think it should be obvious our requirements have changed significantly since then. If you don't believe me, take a look at the version when it was kept in January 19th for refreshing brillant prose . It isn't even properly referenced! (Indeed I'm not sure why it was kept given that only 1 person appears to have supported keeping it but that's a different matter). Other then that, given that it was a FA in 2004 and it's been 3 years since then and given the nature of the subject matter there have been enough changes that even if our requirements were the same it still wouldn't be a FA since it would be rather outdated. Nil Einne 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  FA standards are much higher than they used to be, and the old version of the article would miss a lot of material which we really need to include.  --Haemo 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: How about the introduction of this article starting with the following:
: This article discusses the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 events. For other theories, see Alternate theories for the 9/11 events
It's just ridiculous that the CT's are dominating this article. They have their own article. This is the mainstream account and it should be noted as such. Timneu22 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't give them first say. They have their own article, linked where it belongs, in the conspiracy theory section. This is the mainstream account and it is noted by the fact that it is presented as the fact it is. --Golbez 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I agree with you 100%, I'm just trying to throw them a bone. :-) LET'S MOVE ON, PEOPLE! Timneu22 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding.  The concept that there is no "true" account of what happened on 9/11 is ridiculous.  The one which experts on the subject and reliable sources have accepted as accurate is presented here.  Alternative conspiracy theories are presented elsewhere.  If consensus in these experts and reliable sources changes, then so will this argument.  We don't need to compromise it by pretending there are two competing versions of reality, and we are somehow unable to tell which one is judged as accurate by experts.  It's the same as putting a disclaimer on evolution saying "This is the mainstream view of evolution; for alternative views, see creationism." No disclaimers is a guideline. --Haemo 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess it does say:  on the evolution page. Sorta similar... Timneu22 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; that's a redirect clarification to point to a similarly named article.  You don't see "Alternative 9/11 theories" redirecting here.  --Haemo 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I support a disclaimer saying something to the effect of "Before making an edit, please understand that due to the importance of this article, most if not all of the contentions with it have been discussed in detail on the talk page." And then on the talk page, something like "Before starting a new point of contention, please review the archives to make sure your point hasn't already been argued." That way there would be no excuse for people like WikiStenson and Gaby de wilde to soapbox. And in the unfortionate event that someone did soapbox, there would be consensus of trolling, and the instigator could be delt with post haste. That is my solution anyway. --Tarage 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we move on yet? Not quite, I think. Ignoring the trolls for a moment (which feels good, and is recommended), the issue which led to this page being protected was edit-warring over the use of "terrorism/ist" in the lead. I might be able to drum up a compromise solution that would work for everyone. First, let's see what people think... Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this article move on yet? 

message: Is this article really protected or did someone just decide to put a protection template on the page. It didn't look protected to me.... Illinois2011 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  Stupid mistake, glancing over stuff. Illinois2011 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this article IS protected (and has been for some time) constructive collaboration is still encouraged here on the talk page.  — xaosflux Talk 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've just about come to consensus(though I think we reached it a long time ago), so it should be removed soon. --Tarage 04:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I lifted it, in any case. If someone decides to start edit-warring before the aforementioned consensus is reached, I'd rather impose restrictions or direct censure on that person, than reprotect. Keep me posted. El_C 06:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Template 

message: What is the reason for not having a "See Also" link to 9/11 truth movement in the conspiracy theories section?  Corleonebrother 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are many 9/11 conspiracy theories and we don't talk about the 9/11 truth movement here at all?  They are mentioned on the linked subpage extensively.  --Haemo 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 9/11 conspiracy theories page discusses the theories themselves.  The 9/11 truth movement page discusses the people and organizations involved.  People may want to read about one topic without reading about the other.  Corleonebrother 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the case.  The 9/11 truth movement is one specific movement; there are other groups which question the account, but do not identify as part of this movement.  --Haemo 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does 'questioning the account' mean the same as a conspiracy theory?  Corleonebrother 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even the "official account" is a conspiracy theory, so I would suppose yes.  --Haemo 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even that seems to be a matter of opinion - see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Useful clarification removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories. Corleonebrother 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about the attacks.  The 9/11 truth movement is about people who support the conspiracies.  The link should go on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. --PTR 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the section is titled 'Reaction'.  Reading it now, it could be that a few 'nutters' came up with a conspiracy theory, then it was debunked, and that was that.  It gives no impression as to the number of people involved or the fact that it is still debated now, six years on, maybe more than ever.  A whole industry has developed out of the 'Reaction' - we should at least have a wikilink to the page on it.  Corleonebrother 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we give this one "industry" privilege over all the other groups which don't identify with them?  They're supporters of a set of 9/11 conspiracy theories; they're not all supporters, and it's inappropriate to depict them as representing everyone.  We can't give them context here, hence they are not linked -- that's what the currently linked article does.  --Haemo 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any articles about groups that support neither the mainstream account nor the 9/11 truth movement?  And if we need context even for a 'See Also' then we should alter the sentence slightly and put in an inline link.  Corleonebrother 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge; but my point was that the context is inappropriate.  We mention conspiracy theories every generally.  It's inappropriate to choose one particular conspiracy umbrella movement and then include it — why not just link the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which discusses the theories and their supporters in general.  --Haemo 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" link?