Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 34

message: I'm not happy with this sentence: "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders,..."."Virtually all" is an exceptional claim when refering to scientists. It is undeniable that hundreds of scientists, including some of the most prominant scientists in the US and indeed the world, do not support the mainstream account. The sentence should read: "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists and political leaders and most scientists,..." or else replace the words "virtually all" with "most". Wayne 02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.  If you want that changed, you should talk to the fellows on that page.  --Haemo 03:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh thanks. I just checked it out and that statement has been changed to read:"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accepted the conclusion that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the attacks and the resulting destruction, and civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account that the impacts of jumbo jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."This page needs to be updated to reflect that change. Wayne 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, it's too long for this page.  I'm honestly not in love with the current wording, but we have to be careful of undue weight in writing this.  --Haemo 03:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Apparently the "virtually all" claim was from a single source so the above sentence was the result of considerable discusion and consensus. My proposed version for this article is true to the 9/11 conspiracy theories version and is exactly the same number of words as the sentence it should be replacing:"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accept that responsibility for the attacks rests with al Qaeda and civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account for the cause of the destruction.”Anyone have objections to this replacing the second sentence of the summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Wayne 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, it's speculative.--MONGO 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You dispute that U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accept the official theory? The section is a summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page (I have been told) so should do just that which it does not atm. This suggestion does, so how can it be speculative here? Argue the point on the 9/11 page, although that sentence was reached after consensus so you should have done so then. Wayne 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My objections would be that it's misleading.  Why "U.S."?  Do Canadian officials believe something else happened?  Do Canadian structural engineers disagree?  Why not just "agree"?  Why are talking about civil engineers at all?  There's no context for talking about them.  Why "generally"? Why not just "agree" or "virtually all agree"? Is there a substantial doubt about who says what?  Which ones "generally" agree?  What's the difference between "generally" and "virtually all"?  Are we ignoring the distinction between "scientist/expert in the subject area" and "physical chemist who believes the Pentagon was hit my a missile"?   What's the rubric here for who constitutes an expert or "researcher" in the area?  --Haemo 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's misleading because our article doesn't give any context for it.  You can't cherry pick a fraction of a summary of a much larger article, and then pretend it's all okay.  The lead of that article summarizes their article.  Our summary here should summarize the lead of the other article, and not just select out-of-context parts from it.  I mean, why "civil engineer"?  Furthermore, citing "consensus" on another page is a poor argument -- if something is poorly written there, it does not compell us to include poorly written material here.  --Haemo 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very poorly worded sentence. As was said above, it is US specific when it should not be so. Also, why "independent researchers" - do the majority of others researchers disagree? "civil engineers generally accept" - why just civil, why not structural engineers, construction engineers, aerospace engineers, architects, etc.? Also, define "generally;" how is that any better than "virtually"? If anything, this is taking something that is fine as is and replacing it with something that is worse. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: These theories are generally not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, and political leaders...
This would make the wording consistent with that of the other article. Ok now? 
(Do anyone have a reliable source to support the statement about mainstream jourmnalist personal opinion?)
--Pokipsy76 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional Claim 

message: Should we have no mention of these words, or should they be in the attributed form ("terrorism according to X") or presented as fact ("this was terrorism").
*Please write your opinion in as few words as possible. A concise argument is an elegant argument.
*Instead of commenting on other editors' opinions, put your best case in your own section. We already have plenty of rambling arguments on this page. 
Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a poll above that makes asking for individual comments simply redundant. The poll indicates zero consensus for not calling the terrorists, terrorists.--MONGO 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That "attribution" section in the MOS is for quotes. If this article were a bunch of quotes, then it would suck. In the main body of the text, we are supposed to state facts and provide references in an NPOV manner. That means we should be conservative in our use of words that imply anything. Just state the facts and let the reader decide if other labels (such as terrorism) apply. Our language should be clinical and objective: that is a good way to get NPOV text that is of maximum utility to the reader. Whether this or that violent act in an extended conflict is terrorism is a judgment call that we do not need to make.--Simongar 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Japs did a "surprise" attack on the Pearl. Just like Washington did on Trenton (except that he was already in a war). The standard word is "surprise attack". Just like the Jews did on Osirak. "Sneak" has negative connotations that are unnecessary if our goal is to provide the reader with the facts. We only need to use words like "sneak" if we want to impress upon the reader our value judgments. Is that what we are here for? NPOV is supposed to be clinical and objective.--Simongar 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "terrorism" or "terrorist" in the lead 

message: Presented as fact.  There is no WP:RS which says it was not terrorism / a terrorist act.  Even the conspiracy theorists agree.  Calling it anything else qualifies as WP:WEASEL.  Alternatively, we could say "generally considered to be terrorism"[1][2][3]…[100]…[1000]…, where we must add all governments and quasi-governmental organizations which call it terrorism, a selection of news media (including al Jazeera), a number of conspiracists, and probably a few other appropriate sources. Although the latter would make editing unwieldy, there's no other way to indicate the level of support for that statement. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Arthur Rubin]] 

message: There is wide consensus among reliable sources that 9/11 is terrorism, from Al Jazeera, the Government of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, Governments of Brazil, India, New Zealand, to Japan, and news media around the world from Ghana, South Korea, Germany, France, and we could go on for a long while with more sources.  The view that 9/11 is terrorism is not only an American view or "official U.S. government" view.  9/11 is broadly considered terrorism by governments and reliable sources around the world.  Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we simply need to say terrorist.  The single U.N. reference that's there now more than suffices as a compromise for those who want some form of attribution.  We are violating Wikipedia policy if we do anything less than that.  No need to change anything now.  It's time to close the discussion. --Aude (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Aude]]

message: It's all been said before; the style guidelines encourage us to attribute in the "X says Y" format.  However, doing so in this particular article is near-impossible due to the universality of who "X" is.  As a reasonable compromise, either an intensifier like "universally" could be used, that that would certainly be rejected by later editors.  As such, the current inline note is by far the best solution available.  --Haemo 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "attribution" section in the MOS is for quotes. If this article were a bunch of quotes, then it would suck. In the main body of the text, we are supposed to state facts and provide references in an NPOV manner. That means we should be conservative in our use of words that imply anything. Just state the facts and let the reader decide if other labels (such as terrorism) apply. Our language should be clinical and objective: that is a good way to get NPOV text that is of maximum utility to the reader. Whether this or that violent act in an extended conflict is terrorism is a judgment call that we do not need to make.--Simongar 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Haemo]]

message: This is a temporary posting, since I am currently suffering a kidney stone attack, so I'll be brief. All I have to do is look at my two poll questions to see that an overwhelming majority reject the idea of removing any of the terrorist mentions. Lets face facts people, we have consensus. We've had way too many circular discussions, and all of the voting has proven that we agree. Lets move on already. --Tarage 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Tarage]]

message: Terrorism or terrorist should not be removed anywhere from this article. Mainstream media and pretty much every government call it a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are done by - terrorists. Attributed form is not necessary here. The reference to this as a terrorist attack is widely known and accepted. Having an X said Y here would be like if the Microsoft article began with: "Microsoft Corporation, according to ... is an American multinational[1][2][3]...[120] ..." - its just not necessary. Either call it as fact, which is the majority view or list all the major exceptions which would be unwieldy and probably WP:UNDUE to include in the lead. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Mr.Z-man]]

message: It was terrorism. There is no debate. This article is a sham if "terrorism" doesn't appear. Timneu22 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Timneu22]] 

message: Keep - I find this argument silly. It's like saying The Japanese attack on Dec 7, 1941 wasn't really a sneak attack just because there's a conspiracy theory out there that suggests Roosevelt knew and let it happen. 
There is a wide consensus around the world that September 11 was an act of terrorism. It has always been PRESENTED as an act of terrorism by governments around the world, experts and the group that allegedly did it. Not to mention that the great preponderance of actual facts strongly supports that version of events over that of the conspiracy theorists (who's evidence is circumstantial at best). To call it anything else would be silly. Besides, just because there are groups out there who believe the US government was behind it does not make it any less terrorism. Blowing up huge landmark buildings to make people fear something and motivate them into acts they would not generally support through that fear is an act of terrorism, regardless of who did it. Even the conspiracy theorists would agree with that. I say keep it in the lead. It would be ridiculous to remove it. --Lendorien 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japs did a "surprise" attack on the Pearl. Just like Washington did on Trenton (except that he was already in a war). The standard word is "surprise attack". Just like the Jews did on Osirak. "Sneak" has negative connotations that are unnecessary if our goal is to provide the reader with the facts. We only need to use words like "sneak" if we want to impress upon the reader our value judgments. Is that what we are here for? NPOV is supposed to be clinical and objective.--Simongar 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Lendorien]] 

message: Presented as fact. For all the reasons everyone else has said. Stanselmdoc 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Stanselmdoc]] 

message: Attributed form of course - the rules on this matter are quite clear. The fact there is a false consensus here (actually a vocal minority, many who have been induced to come here for the very purpose) has no bearing. Objectivity has suffered because of this mob. Damburger 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Damburger]] 

message: Presented as (referenced) fact.  Enough already.  The allegation that there's no consensus on this is baseless.  Even if there is a "silent majority" who disagrees with 9/11 being labelled "terrorism", it doesn't matter: silent people don't count and are in fact uncountable, by definition.  Based on every quantifiable measure, including the straw poll above and this rfc, the consensus is that the current attributed assertion that it was terrorism is the best way to go.  --Hiddekel 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Hiddekel]] 

message: I have no problem with calling the attacks "terrorist attacks" but prefer using the word hijackers instead of terrorists. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise. This subject came up on another page where consensus was to NOT use the word terrorist despite the subject being found guilty in a court of law of committing terrorists acts and the subjects own admission that he was a terrorist. The only difference is that the subject in question is currently protected by the US government despite the US Justice department saying he is "an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks" who should be jailed. I myself supported calling terrorists just that but now I see it is more important to be consistent and NPOV. Calling someone a terrorist is very POV if you only use the term for those you do not like. It saddens me that I see some of the same editors supporting use of the word here who opposed using it in the other article. Wayne 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:WLRoss]] 

message: Presented as fact. As others have said, there is a boatload of evidence from reliable sources showing that this was indeed a terrorist attack, planned and executed by a known terrorist organization, which also took credit for the attack. Of course, we could always have a compromise, saying "The attacks of September 11, 2001 were acts of terrorism according to every government in the world." If it's semantics we're arguing, a terrorist is someone who commits an act which causes death and destruction with the intent to cause terror (the intent bit is rather important). By that definition, the people who caused 9/11 are indeed terrorists. People will always disagree but it's a plain fact that an act caused by a known terrorist organization recognized as such by an overwhelming number of nations is terrorism. --clpo13(talk) 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Clpo13]] 

message: Attributed form. 9/11 is closely associated with the the idea of terrorism in the public mind and in government policy, and this should definitely be mentioned with attributions. Terrorism is irregular warfare carried out by bad people. Despite being non-state actors, the French Resistance were not terrorists because the Nazis were the bad guys in WW2. Despite tagetting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, the atomic bombing  of Japan in WW2 was not a terrorist act because either the Japanese were the bad guys or because the action was carried out by the US government who by definition cannot be terrorists. In most large scale violent acts, there is a group of people who feel the action was unfair and criminal, meanwhile there is a group of people who support the action as a legitimate response. Calling an event or a group 'terrorist' is just a way of saying you don't feel their actions were justified. On 9/11, some buildings in New York were attacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by suicide hijackers attempting to advance their cause. Millions of Islamists around the world considered this a legitimate response to US actions and policy in the Gulf. If the article states as fact that this was a 'terrorist' attack committed by 'terrorists', the POV of the authors is clearly revealed: that attacking New York on 9/11 was wrong. Wikipedia readers don't need the article to tell them if the action was wrong or right, it just has to present the facts and we can make up our own minds. Mascus 10:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mascus]] 

message: Keep "terrorist attacks", remove "Islamic extremists" - for all we know, it could've been the US government behind the attacks, which were later used as an excuse to invade the Middle East.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.116.54 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:M3n747]]

message: No mention of the word. We don't know what are the motives behind the attack. Why must it be terrorism? How do we not know that the attacks aren't carried out just to destroy infrastructure? Nr9 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Nr9]]

message: This article doesn't answer nor pose the most important questions, while it should at least pose them.
1. The towers were constructed to withstand airplane attacks and large extra safety margins were taken into account against these threads. What miscalculations did the engineers make according to proffessionals who should know?  
2. How can it be that building 7 World Trade Center collapsed because of a little debree and a little fire? While the structural design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand ernormous damages before it would ever collapse, if ever. 
And why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire, like it should?
:This article doesn't need to answer those questions as they are contained in subarticles 7 World Trade Center and World Trade Center. KyuuA4 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we don't — that's what the article Collapse of the World Trade Center is for.  --Haemo 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it is not Wikipedia's job to prove how something could happen with suppositions (which is the only thing they can be) as to why they occurred, our job is merely to report the events. The towers collapsed. That is the fact. If you are looking for theories that are not accepted by reliable sources, please see 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. If you would like to suggest a real edit to this article, feel free to begin a discussion on it. Stanselmdoc 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about the attacks.  The article Collapse of the World Trade Center is about the collapse of the world trade center.  Discuss it there, not here. --Haemo 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Asked and answered.  This article is about what happened not why.  It's not about buildings 6 and 7 - they have their own articles.  If there is something specific you would like to discuss about this article, open a section.  This is not a blog or chat room to discuss various theories. --PTR 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where are the sources to back up what you claim are "facts?" Mr.Z-man 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, that's enough of this.  If you want to discuss this, do it on Collapse of the World Trade Center or Controlled demolition hypothesis.  Not here.  This is not a forum for general discussion, nor is this the correct topic area to begin with.  --Haemo 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lack of sources is not a reason to put "facts" into an article and call it a conspiracy. Mr.Z-man 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no known engineering or construction faults. In fact NIST could not make the buildings collapse in their simulations (NIST Report: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th,"). They eventually did by excluding the Hat Trusses from the simulations and so assume these trusses failed in some way but, as they didn't (nor anyone else for that matter) investigate to find the possible cause, could not comment on it which is why the articles don't have much detail. Because the buildings actually did collapse, NIST based their conclusions on that and not the result of their simulations. The official theory is supported mainly because the alternatives are less likely (Ocams Razor). Wayne 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The towers were not designed to withstand aircraft attacks, they were designed to withstand aircraft impacts. According to Collapse of the World Trade Center, they were designed in the 1960s to withstand an impact of a Boeing 707 at 180 mph, in the event one was lost in fog. The Boeing 767s that hit the towers were longer, wider, taller, could carry more fuel than the 707, and were traveling 440-540 mph. Also, "design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand enormous damages" - that's not necessarily true. After the first couple floors, buildings more than 5 or 6 floors generally have all their floors and structure built the same way up to the roof. The building could have been 20 floors, 47, or 60 floors, the way modern skyscrapers are designed it would have been just as stable in any configuration. "why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire" - Sprinklers are not designed to put out fires just to slow them down, if they were to put out fires, NYC and other large cities would not need so many firefighters. Sprinklers cannot repair structural damage and if the pumps were damaged or the water pressure was low, they would be not be as effective According to the article for 7 World Trade Center, firefighters pulled out around 3:30 due to low water pressure and structural concerns, the building collapsed at 5:20 after being damaged and burning for almost 7 hours.  Mr.Z-man 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article doesn't answer the most important questions 

message: It seems to me (just stumbled across this page) that the arguments seem to be about facts. somebody's facts are different from someone else's facts. These are always difficult arguments to solve. Sometimes I like to say that in a way we are all colourblind, and the world is like two colourblind people arging about weather a green stick is blue or yellow. Both are wrong, and yet both are right. Facts are never known, because the entire world can not witness every single event. I could tell you that I did not hit the backspace button once while typing this. Or I could say I did it 100 times. How is anyone to know? At the moment I'm at work (security) and on camrea. Someone could watch the video and say 50 times. Someone else could edit the video and say 75 times. someone else could claim to have the real video and say 25 times. The end result is that nobody will ever know the true facts.
So, what do we do about it?
Wikipedia should follow it's own precedent. Where there is a factual argument, however wrong it might seem, "the majority" wins. Look at the deep throat article. I bet there were people who were sure felt was the guy, but if they had posted that when "the majority" had no clue who he was, that post would have been deleted. Even if he had presented "facts". In the end it turns out he would have been right, but wikipedia is not about being right, because we will never know who is right. Wikipedia is about being as right as you can be at the time and at this time, the majority of news soruces have a single view on what happened, and so that's the view we should follow. Nickjbor 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really difficult to find news sources that disagree about the facts: the difference is instead in the focus given to the specific facts. This happen because news sources are generally politically and culturally biased. Wikipedia instead must have a Neutral Point of View  and not the Point of view of the "majority" of the sources.--Pokipsy76 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misreading WP:WEIGHT.  In the abstract, if almost all reliable sources have one opinion (about facts), and a few sources have a different opinion, we may give a few lines to the other opinion.  In the case of 9/11 we give entire articles to the other opinions, but this article should primarily have the mainstream view.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions? Weren't we talking about facts? To have a neutral point of view facts must be presented in a neutral way, and it is not necessarily the way of the majority of news sources (which can be politically and culturally biased).--Pokipsy76 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what we're discussing here.  Was there something in the article you wanted to edit?  --PTR 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) The "facts" are disputed by the 911TM people.  We should include the facts as reported by the majority, with due weight given to minority interpretations.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is about zero. This article is based on the proven record of course, not fantasies.--MONGO 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Pokipsy76, we merely need to properly follow our own policies and everything will be all right. --John 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  I agree with MONGO and John, but not Pokipsy76.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not rehash this argument again.  Ths is basically the same as above, and I don't see it going anywhere productive.  We've got a couple of places already where you can express opinions of this nature, and I'd prefer not to drag out the discussion across this page indefinitely — though said hope is probably quite vain.  --Haemo 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: To have a more balanced account on Osama bin Laden,
the events during the cold war should be mentioned.
I have added the following sentence; I hope it does not get deleted immeadiately by some patriot.
Please let us discuss this issue
It is irony of fate, that Osama bin Laden received backup of both CIA and ISI as well as US-$ 3 billion when
setting up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1980's to fight back the Soviet occupation of the country.


--Benjamin.friedrich 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR (irony of fate), and the second source is a Wikipedia article, which cannot be used as a source for anything.  Only its sources can be used.  I'm not sure about greenleft.org.au as a source, either, but that would require some research — probably more than the previous editor did in generating it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A preliminary search of http://www.greenleft.org.au at  doesn't say it's a "news"paper.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "I hope it does not get deleted immeadiately by some patriot."...that is all very nice. There isn't a lot of reason to go into a long in-depth analysis of why Osama felt compelled to order the attacks of 9/11. In fact, I think this article is entirely too long and much of the stuff about motivation, etc. should be branched to other articles so we can stick primarily to the events that happened on 9/11 more specifically.--MONGO 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is too "original research-y" for this article. As a straight fact it is totally irrelevant; its connection to 9/11 is made by implied synthesis. Can it be proven that money from the CIA went to fund the attacks? It belongs in the Al-Quaeda, Osama bin Laden, or articles about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where there is a direct connection to the subject. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure we have an entire article about Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Osama Bin Laden.  Surely those are more appropriate locations for this material, given it's extremely tangential relationship to the attacks.  --Haemo 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Osama bin Laden | backup by CIA in the 80's 

message: I recall going to an outdoor gathering a day or two after the attacks on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. (of about 100,000 people!) I believe that similar events occurred in other cities. Where would be the most appropriate place to add that information? Or is it present elsewhere? Alaney2k 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in this section: September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Memorials Also, in the linked subarticle. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you typed that in, I noticed, and tried to retract my comment. Too late! I entered my initial comment because I thought it was missing from 'International Response', but it is in 'Memorials.' Alaney2k 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my day. That should be 'International reaction'. Alaney2k 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rallies and Support 

message: There was something in the news shortly after the 911 attack that some of the highjackers had gotten drivers licences from a state license branch. A woman employee of that state license branch was murdered in the branch parking lot shortly after 911. Nothing is mentioned in this article about that dead end link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.163.55 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the hijackers got their licences legally and the others after presenting legal documents obtained using false information, so it had nothing to do with the DMV who acted properly in issuing them. It's possible the woman was murdered by idiots blaming her for issuing them or it was for non 9/11 reasons. Either way there is no need for a mention in the article. Wayne 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  drivers license of highjackers 

message: After reading the section above on drivers' licenses I realized there is little info in this article on the events and preparations preceding the attack. The first item is 
#1 The attacks
I see that in the attack on Pearl Harbor article we have quite a bit of background: 
# 1 Background to conflict
* 1.1 War
# 2 Prelude to battle
* 2.1 Intelligence
* 2.2 Planning
# 3 The strike force
# 4 United States' preparedness
# 5 Breaking off negotiations
# 6 Attack
Perhaps we should consider doing more in that area regarding the 9/11 attack? Mr.grantevans2 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. With Pearl Harbor, there are plenty of historical books written about the planning, probably because the Japanese had plenty of records and there were plenty of people after the war who may have talked to historians. With Al-Qaeda though, I doubt there is as much primary source material available to historians and therefore less secondary source material available to us. Perhaps we could have a summary section in "Responsibility"? Mr.Z-man 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh,ok, thank you. Mr.grantevans2 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Background? 

message: Isn't this getting a bit long? Timneu22 10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived everything prior to Sept 12.  --Haemo 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest users to mark their section with  when they think they've been addressed, or a consensus reached, so they can be archived.  --Haemo 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive this page? 

message: The following has been removed from the article.  This didn't really fit in the section, and lacked references.
Now, I'm not sure which subarticle to put this in, if any.  I don't think it fits anywhere.  Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like the most likely place for it.  However, I'm not really sure it fits there, either, as that section focuses on the psychological effects on children.  Until someone finds sources I'm not sure that that section should go anywhere.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too specific anyways, as all schools across the country closed down for at least the day. KyuuA4 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in high school at the time, and we didn't close.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright.  Many schools across the country did close.  I was at Western Illinois that day, and all classes were canceled. Point is, school closing on that day wasn't limited to the New York metro area. KyuuA4 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose I was nitpicking a little bit.  I think, at this point, it's agreed upon that the section should just be inserted anywhere in any article.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: Hi. I'd like to ask a question about the article lead. Compared with other articles of a similar nature, I'm struck by how little of the article's subject matter is mentioned in the lead. Article leads are intended, as I understand it, to provide a concise summary of the main points of the article. Looking through the material which follows, there are significant subjects which are not mentioned at all in the lead. Do others agree, and if so, would you be happy if I amended the lead in an attempt to address this? SP-KP 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to suggest a re-write of the lead here, but be aware it's entrenched soil, so you'll need lots of discussion before moving forward.  Also note that the body of the article is currently in something of a state of flux, so it might be more productive to focus on sub-sections first.  --Haemo 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that advice. Perhaps if I start by stating which subjects I feel are missing and then if we can get a consensus around those, we can take things from there? SP-KP 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lead 

message: Media (BBC) reported long ago that several of the alleged hijackers are alive so I'm wondering why this entry still claim that there were 19 hijackers? The mention of the 19 hijackers should at least be removed from the top of the entry since it isn't verified information. The mention of the 19 hijackers should be mentioned further down along with the different sources. I think it is better to just use the word hijackers since it's not verfiable that there were 19 of them --Ingeborgsjon 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just went over this not a few weeks ago. Consensus was reached, and the status of the 19 terrorists will probably not be able to be questioned for quite some time. Please read the archives before repeating claims that have already been dealt with. --Tarage 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I'm new to wikipedia as a contributor although I've been using it as a source of information for several years. But without having read all the rules I have to say that either the rules are poor or you have made a poor decision on this matter. I've a long experience in argumentation and philosophy and I find it astonishing that you keep the number 19 as an absolute truth although there are credible sources that claim this number to be false. I don't really care what the rules are at this point because it is very unscientific and biased to keep the entry in the form it is in today. I will of course read all the rules as soon as I've got some time over. But right now I'm in a bit of a hurry. --Ingeborgsjon 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oudated information such as the BBC link above you provided have long since been readjusted wiht new information. The fact that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes is no longer disputed by any credible source.--MONGO 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you in a hurry to edit this article to fit your views? If anything, you should realize that trying to get consensus from people is not a quick and easy task. Even if you came here with... 10 sources to back up what you claim, they would have to go under peer review from the people here, and most likely 10 sources pointing out contrary beliefs to yours would be found, and the process would continue. Do not edit on Wikipedia if you want fast change; it doesn't happen that way. --Tarage 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your argument is that since 1 BBC article (from 6 years ago) and probably a few conspiracy websites say that some of the hijackers are still alive, every other source that says different is wrong? Mr.Z-man 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way for conspiracy theories to remain conspiracy theorists is not merely to think their story happened; they have to willingly ignore the volumes of contrary evidence. --Golbez 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget, they also have to believe that everyone who argues contriary to their views are either 'in on it', or so blinded to the truth, they are nothing more than sheep. --Tarage 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 19 Hijackers 

message: The official story has many flaws and believe that the current entry is trying to avoid to mention that by moving all of that to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. The fact that even the official story is a conspiracy theory doesn't seem to bother anyone. The word conspiracy has a bad reputation because it has been miss used by many. The entry is very biased as it is today. --Ingeborgsjon 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the archives of the talk page before questioning this article further. Dispite your persional POV, consensus for the majority of this article has been reached, so it will most likely stay in this form. Please concider this before you post again. --Tarage 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well as I said above I've not had the time to adjust to the rules. Although I actually read alot in the archives before posting both these issues. Still I believe wikipedia has a major problem when it puts the US government as a more credible source than the laws of physics. I know there isn't up to the wikipedia to draw conclusions but as it is right now you are lifting the official theory above all other theories. This is very against free, open and critical thinking. --Ingeborgsjon 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a place for origional research. Wikipedia is a consensus of the majority without trampling on the minority. As things stand now, this article complies with both of the above. Reguardless of how you persionally feel about the issue, the majority of Wikipedians, as well as the majority of people total, support the notion that on 9/11, four planes were hijacked by terrorists and three were flown into buildings. Unless you can provide well sourced information to the contrary(not that 9/11 didn't happen the way we have it now, but that the majority do not support the current wording), then it will stay this way. Try to understand. --Tarage 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official story criticism 

message: User: Tom harrison is reverting edits (often without explanation) that are (or have) being discussed here without ever taking part to any discussion in this page. I strongly invite this user to discuss his arguments here before edit warring.--Pokipsy76 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I see is him resisting attempts to put in unverified and/or POV content into the article. We should applaud him for that. There are some things that don't need discussion in order to revert, the implication that explosions caused some of the collapses for example. Anti-consensual POV pushing can always be reverted. RxS 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--MONGO 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever he is doing he is not doing it in a fair way. It would be fair to discuss changes here and not edit warring, this is the way wikipedia should work I think. For istance: before doing my edit I have opened a discussion, explained my arguments and waited days to let people do objections about it, I also explicitely asked to raise objections if anyone did have, so if there are people that disagreed it would have been fair if they explained their argument here instead of just edit warring. Am I wrong about how wikipedia should work?--Pokipsy76 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, I didn't consider it necessary to object because your agruments had been discussed and rejected by consensus previously.   — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To his defence... he did try to talk about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Wrong_references but only I and a few other authors even noticed it and responded. His edits were in good faith, but I don't have the justification either way to call them right or wrong. I sugested finding replacements before just deleting them, but there was no consensus either way. You guys might want to check that section. --Tarage 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify. User: Tom harrison did indeed remove POV polling data, but he also inserted back in what User:Pokipsy76 had deleted because he thought no one objected to the removal of what he claims to be incorrect refrences. Just wanted to point that out, that Tom did more than just undo Porkopsy's edits, and Pokipsy, as far as I can see, did not insert that 9/11 polling data in his last edit before Tom's. --Tarage 02:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please User:Arthur Rubin could you show me when my arguments were rejected and by whom.--Pokipsy76 17:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies.  You've made many arguments, most of which have been rejected.  But I'm not sure which argument supports the edit in question; or, for that matter, which edit is in question.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair behavior of an editor 

message: It says: "The towers of the World Trade Center burn shortly after United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower on the right."
The crash into the South Tower was much closer to the middle of the tower and there is no indication of any smoke coming from that midsection area which happened immediately after the crash and continued until the building collapse.  The first crash into the North Tower hit quite close to the top and the smoke came from quite close to the top.
This pict must have been taken after the first crash but before the second crash (about a 12 minute period).  I looked into the history of the graphic and no where does it say it was taken shortly after the second crash.  Did the person originally writing the caption really know the factuality of what they typed?  207.190.198.130 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The caption of the picture in the infobox is mistaken... 

message: Upon its review on October 16, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
::has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars or is the subject of a future event
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria.  Obviously, per both the edit history and the talk page, this article is not very stable at the moment. Also, NPOV issues have been raised on the talk page as well, another quick fail criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, there will always be someone raising an NPOV issue, even if one does not exist. The article is quite stable, dispite attempts to compromise it. The only ones who seem to be fighting are the ones who don't understand the consensus that was reached. While I understand you only gave this a quick review, it might be worth looking into who is actually raising the NPOV issues, rather than solely their existance. --Tarage 02:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I was surprised at how well the article was done, given the subject. Stability, sadly, seems to be a problem whether or not the concerns are legitimate. If stability can be demonstrated over the period of one week, I suggest that this article be renominated. Cheers, CP 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have two different definitions for stability. In my mind, we have stability, but I do see where random people editing in a way that doesn't fit consensus could be concidered as unstable. Unfortionatly, with an article on such a hot issue with many people, there are bound to be those who will continue to edit war even if it means pushing their own POV reguardless of the consensus. This may not allow us to have a 'good article', but I appreciate that you think we are doing a good job at maintaining it. --Tarage 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

message: Why not add this link? It is a Houston Press article about 9/11: http://www.houstonpress.com/2001-09-13/news/no-safe-place/ ? WhisperToMe 05:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your wishing to add to this article, and your asking here rather than simply editing it in, I don't see how that article would add anything. Don't get me wrong, it was a great read, but it doesn't add anything that hasn't been already said, nor is it needed as a cite for anything we've said. And because it is so localized, it wouldn't cover the broader range that this article probably needs. Sorry. --Tarage 07:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for a link to add 

message: Please share your opinion about neutrality of this article; a brief description would be welcomed. 
;Yes, this article is presented from neutral point of view
# It reflects the view of all reliable sources, which, does not include the editor voting against, below. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your opinion. We have seen issues in this discussion for which I also believe that deserve inclusion. Advanced knowledge and 9/11 in popular culture among others. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you think that this article follows [[WP:NPOV]]

message: Because there are more than two editors involved in this dispute, I recommend filing a request for comment or requesting mediation. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that the article is marginally NPOV but it suffers from the exclusion of anything that "may" be used by conspiracy theorists to support their own cause. As I've stated many times, just because something may be used by conspiracy theorists does not make a conspiracy true or even any more likely. The article also contains verbiage that carries uneccesary implications supporting the official theory. Ie:Is it appropriate to say "19 Islamist terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda" in the lead? There is evidence that some were not islamist in the strict sense of the word so it's use is possibly POV and it would be more correct to just say "19 terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda". Wayne (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with word usage. Often when writing articles like these, such things will creep in. Perhaps review is necessary. Annihilatron (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: From third opinion