Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 35

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
--Englishazadipedia 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat what Tarage said before his edit was reverted, YouTube is not a citeable source. I won't go so far as to remove the link, but it should be known that this shouldn't be used a source based on current Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --clpo13(talk) 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful source, report on fox news about israelian intelligent agency and their knowledge 

message: There are currently 181 cited sources on this page. This takes up lots of space, so I think that we should change the references section to a scrollable divider, an example is on the Michael Jackson article. All you do is add the following text.
What do you think? Noahcs 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen that repeatedly undone because the scrollbar doesn't work universally, I think. --Golbez 03:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References change 

message: It says nothing in the article about the hijackers being muslim. I think that this is an important fact that should be include.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.161.6 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official story is that they used box cutters.  This should be in the article or a related article somewhere.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijackers 

message: I am sure the term wasn't espontaneously used by everyone all of a sudden. So, who coined the term? Shouldn't that be add to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.243.77 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm... not sure how important 'who coined the term' would be. If anything, it would go in a trivia section, and Wikipedia has been frowning upon such sections lately. --Tarage 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 9/11 is just the date it happened on, and not a totally new word, it would probably be next to impossible to determine who first used it to describe the attacks. If I had to guess, I'd say it evolved as shorthand from the phrases "the attacks on 9/11" and "the 9/11 attacks." But that's just my speculation, I doubt there is a reliable source for that. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably a news station that first used it to refer to the attacks during the period when these were the only things on the news. It was probably used intentionally as a meme. --Xer0 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who coined the term 9/11? 

message: Why am I unable to edit this article?  And why are so many facts overlooked?  Sfkismet 08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What facts are those?--MONGO 08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many facts, and other statements of varying degrees of reliability, considered in the talk page archives.  If something has actually been overlooked, please identify it. Peter Grey 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Anonymous editing has lead to vandalism. If you wish your edits to be seen, simply talk about them here(which is what you should ALWAYS do before editing such a high priority article), or register an account(Which isn't a lot to ask). --Tarage 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the decision to not allow to edit this very biased article preposterous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the article not open to all to edit? 

message: What occured on 9/11 had nothing to do with the suicide attack tactics of the Japanese kamikaze pilots in the Pacific Theatre of World War II. The kamikaze were uniformed members of the Japanese military. The kamikaze attacks rarely (if ever) targetted civilians delibrately. Despite their politics and choice of alligiences, they should not be put in the same category as the perpatrators of 9/11.
For the record, I am not Japanese.
Roswell Crash Survivor 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to "Kamikaze" article removed 

message: It should be made more clear that the version of events mentioned in this article is that of the United States government and that no particular explanation is 100% accurate. This article needs to clearly highlight that there exists other popular versions in regards to the attack, or should I say more accurately, demolitions, and also reinstate the many inconsistencies that have occured piecing together the final story. It is not a conspiracy theory, but part of the real event therefore needing voice in this article. The eyewitness testimonies explaining seeing other aircrafts, and the Mossad Arabs celebrating, are not pieces of a conspiracy, but pieces of reality. Hope someone has the time, and will to shed some truth to this article, I know its hard arguing with anti-troll loving zionist wikipedians, but persistence pays off. The mere fact of the people here trying to shed some truth, considering the mass amounts of discussions in the archives and present, is enough to grant their voice. Remember people, history is being written, if written wrong, you are stuck with lies. Thanks. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a repeat of your rant, and it's not obviously related to improving the article.  But, if you want to take credit for it, and don't mind being banned from the article, go ahead.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it as you wish, but It's an outside opinion and we really lack those here. What was the last constructive thing you did? You could answer that question which is hanging in the air whole day and no one is willing to chew on it. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose adding your name to the 9/11 ArbComm warning list is constructive.  I've done other things since then, but I certainly can take credit for that constructive comment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo! We don't have a decent argument so we'll simply ban the editor. It proves the point I've been making all along, eh? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since you were the one complaining about NPOV, it's your job to come up with an argument backed by reliable sources.  I've asked you repeatedly to provide such an argument and you've repeatedly failed to do so.  It should be fairly obvious that these repeated disruptions serve more to hurt Wikipedia than to help it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the references and points provided so far are not sufficient, I'll provide more when I'm finished dealing with Morton's friends. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You have not provided an argument as to why uninformed opinions of non-experts, no matter how well documented, can contributed to this article. Peter Grey (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I can add to that, events mentioned in this article are not the US governments "version", the content is drawn from reliable sources and experts working in their field. And, among those sources there is not any controversy at all about what happned that day. That, I'm afraid, is that. Fringe theories are mentioned and have their own articles. Other than that, much of the logic behind putting the NPOV tag on this page is faulty enough to spin the Earth right out of it's orbit. RxS (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other versions 

message: I didn't notice it myself until a few days ago, but this talk page has a FAQ towards the top.  Should we update it to include a summary of why the opinions of lay people in a poll don't override what reliable sources say about a subject? Obviously, this won't deter someone editing in bad faith, but it might help in some cases.  I don't know.  Just thought I would throw this out there and see what you guys think.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an excellent request.  If someone wants to obtain a good gauge of general public opinion on a matter (perhaps to determine whether it is fringe or mainstream), are they better off looking to CNN News or to Zogby polls?  An explanation would be useful. The Original Wildbear (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we update the FAQ? 

message: This article is out of date. Under Section 5.2 Investigations:Collapse of the World Trade Center, the article lists August 2008 as the conclusion of the investigation. That date corresponds to the draft WTC7 Final Report. The actual WTC7 Final Report came out in November 2008.
A major difference between those two reports concerns the downward acceleration of WTC7. In the draft report, the downward acceleration was stated as 40% of freefall. In the FINAL REPORT, the NIST authors defined three stages of collapse. The middle stage, lasting 2.25 seconds, the NIST authors said exhibited a freefall drop extending approximately 8 stories. Lookunderneath (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date