Talk:The CIA and September 11

message: Why does this book have a separate entry rather than being part of the article on Andreas von Bülow?  It's not note-worthy enough to warrant its own page.  Of course, if it is merged with the von Bülow article, the man may sound like a paranoid nut-case rather than a responsible person supporting a noble cause.  Ande B. 20:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book really needs to be translated and published in English, before it merits an article here.  Also, the English-language version should have wide circulation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. --Striver 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The article states the book was "number three in the country" but what best seller list was that on? Esquizombi 15:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed: it was the Spiegel's. TheGrappler 03:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which best seller list?

message: Great work. Balanced and cited coverage of a controversial subject. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: I've pulled this page from being under WikiProject Iraq - I can't see how this counts as an Iraq-related article, but people are welcome to add it back if a coherent reason can be given. More suitable projects have been added instead, largely based on those allocated to the primary 9/11 attacks article, USGOV to represent the fact that the CIA is involved, and WikiProject Germany since this is a German book that caused more controversy in Germany than elsewhere. It's possible that this has resulted in project allocation overkill but I've set the importance to "low" to compensate, where possible. TheGrappler 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProjects

message: I will pull one of the "citation required" tags in the lead section (regarding allegations that the book fostered anti-Semitism and/or anti-Americanism), since lead sections are generally not expected to be choked up with references. They should, however, only summarise the following sections of the article. Since the existence of anti-Semitism allegations is backed up by references for later statements in the article, I'm happy that the need for a citation is fulfilled.
There is another statement apparently added by an anti-conspiracy theory editor that has also been flagged as requiring a citation - namely, that the book has no scientific evidence i.e. that it is nonsense. It is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to debunk the entire web of 9/11 conspiracy theories that Bulow was drawing from, so I'll pull the statement entirely. TheGrappler 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Citation required" tags

message: The first paragraph now contains more information about the main points addressed in the book. There are others, and possibly other readers will add to this section.
I also took out the sentence 
"However, Deutsche Welle found other industry observers who credited an increasingly competitive German publishing market with persuading companies to take on books they previously might not have accepted."
because it is not sourced and it is essentially the same statement as the following, sourced statement, namely questioning the wisdom of the publisher in releasing the book. "Other industry observers" which were "found" and suggested that the publishing market was "increasingly competitive" is too vague and not entirely factual at this point.  
Furthermore the "Boersenblatt" is not a bookstore, but an industry (trade) publication, so I deleted the reference bookstore.
I've deleted the separate section on anti-semitism (which was introduced by another editor in 2007) and put it under the header of response.  The motives of the author have been questioned as either  anti-American or anti-semitic. The author maintains a negative view of the Bush/Cheney administration, as well as of the geopolitical strategy outlined in Brzesinski's work on the new world order. It seems important to reflect this adequately, and not follow demagoguery in this description.
I have also looked up the reference to Wistrich. This is the extent to which the book is cited
"Several bestsellers
appeared in Germany and France during 2003, blaming the
CIA for 9/11, depicting George Bush as a “true reincarnation of
Hitler,” or insinuating a hidden connection between the Israeli
Mossad and the perpetrators of the Twin Towers massacre.49"
"Footnote 49
See “Panoptikum des Absurden,” Der Spiegel 37/2003. This
reportage demolishes the conspiracy theories of best-selling German authors
like Gerhard Wisnewski (“Operation 9/11—An Attack on the Globe”),
Mathias Bröckers, and former German cabinet minister Andreas von Bülow
(“The CIA and September 11th”), who believe George W. Bush capable of
any dastardly deed and insinuate an Israeli/Jewish connection."
There is no reference to "perpetuating myths and stereotyping Jews as criminal and conspiratorial"
neither in the book, nor in the article by Wistrich.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.7.51 (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits