Talk:9/11: Press for Truth

message: What possible grounds could there be for deleting this article? It provides good information about a film that has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. It's not a great article, or a complete article, but it is an article, and one with more relevance than many hundreds of other WP articles. --Nemonoman 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?? NO!

message: This article contains no information that points to why this documentary is in any way important or relevent.  Please add references or additional external links that demonstrate external press coverage this film has received (the current AfD conveniently has a few links that should get you started).--Isotope23 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This film came out in 2006. What do you expect?67.72.98.45 16:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important as it features important people, namely the Jersey Girls. That in itself gives it importance, as there are plenty of people interested in these women, who will therefore find the article valuable. I'm sure there will be disagreement on this point. Tyrenius 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Tag

message: *Since it traces the efforts of the 9/11 family members whose pressure finally helped to convince the administration [government] to create the 9/11 Commission, importance is sufficiently established.
*There's a real need to have someone that's seen the film tell us precisely what it's about.  Checking the references, it seems to be a legitimate documentary, but there isn't an entirely clear sense of whether the film is pursuing conspiracy theory fantasy, or is posing legitimate questions regarding government negligence. Peter Grey 14:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch it on Google video. Tyrenius 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific contents of the film

message: Well, I've seen it. It's a documentary that presents reasons for concern that 9/11 investigations have to date been inadequate. This tack appears to represent primarily the concerns of the 9/11 widows' and relatives' lobbying group.
The film traces numerous items of concern using historical news stories published in 'legitimate' press or broadcast outlets.
* Articles suggesting that defense, security and intelligence agencies had enough advance notice about 9/11 to have taken action
* Articles suggesting that other countries, notably Pakistan, supported, protected and financed Al-Queda operations, possibly including 9/11
* Articles suggesting that numerous opportunities to capture Bin Laden and other Al-Queda may have been stymied by political considerations
* Articles describing Bush Administration attempts to stop, stonewall, and control investigations into 9/11
Further the film traces the efforts, successful and unsuccessful, of 9/11 relatives to increase visibility and public demand for investigations and accountability.
The film presents no new theories, no questionable science, no interpretations of videos, etc...in other words, this is NOT Loose Change. Its focuses on the politics of the investigations. To this end it utilizes evidence from legitmate, publicly available news sources that are reasonably verifiable (in fact most of the evidence appears to be thoroughly documented in the "Timeline of 9/11" book, and the film cribs from that book constantly). 
It does NOT suggest evidence of "conspiracy"...other than to suggest that the investigations into 9/11 are woefully incomplete, and that by inaction certain public officials are trying real, real hard to keep their jobs. 
It also presents the widows and family of 9/11 victims as noble, concerned, full of righteous indignation, etc., in a very favorable and uncritical light.
The film clearly has a Non-Neutral POV, but it presents its POV with good sourcing and cogent arguments, coupled with lots of emotional appeal. In other words, it's a good example of cinematic rhetoric.
I don't agree that the film's conclusions are necessarily right, by the way: I'm speaking only to describe the film in response to this request for information. I do believe that the film is reasonably notable, however, at least notable enough to be included in the WP.
--Nemonoman 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch it on Google video. Tyrenius 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From someone who actually saw it

message: I believe that the article contains enough information of importance to remove the 'importance' tag.
I include this passage from Wikipedia:Non-notability
:Edit the article so that it establishes the importance of the subject. Let's say you come across this stub:
::Eric Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea.
:Verifiable, factual, neutral, but fails to make any assertion of importance. But we know there is more to it than that! How about expanding it to read:
::Eric "The Eel" Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who achieved worldwide fame after finishing in the slowest time ever recorded in the Men's 100m Freestyle finals at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Moussambani had never seen a 50m pool before the competition.
:The subject now asserts importance! The problem is gone. 
Please note in the above Wiki Example that no "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are included. Importance is simply asserted. 
The "importance" tag references an article Wikipedia:Notability, which is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process..." Editors, says the article "...should not describe it as "policy"".
Please also note that this non-policy guideline refers to Notability Criteria for a number of different subjects. Film, documentaries, even 9/11 cruft have NO notability guidelines.
So let's refer to the tag itself for help
==="please expand the article"===
Since this tag was originally applied 
see  
a number of relevant edits have been made. Edits expanding the article and adding information regarding its importance include:
*Link to Article from The Indianapolis Star
*Fuller description and reference point related the content of its assertions (stonewalling/coverup)
*Appearance in Polish Magazine
*Relationship to other areas of so called Truth Movement (by template addition)
==="or discuss its significance on the talk page"===
The signficance of the article has been documented on the talk page.
Edits include:
*Content description
*Reference to unsuccessful AFD where notability was the primary matter of debate (or at least a major matter of debate).
*Decision to "keep" the article, which suggests that lack of notability has not been the consensus view.
Please note that "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are in no way requirements in affirming the importance of a subject. The elements listed above clearly meet example standards.
As Wikipedia:Notability says
:Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on WP:AFD
It appears that the importance tag has been added based on a subjective view of 'unimportance'. I would note that Peephole has from all appearance ONLY edited articles on 9/11, and particularly with with a POV that alternate theories of 9/11 are to be removed or discredited, through a variety of clever means. He or she apparently has the subjective view that this article's notablity is also lacking -- just as he/she feels about many other '9/11cruft' articles.
But the Wikipedia:Notability statement quoted above describes notablity as items that might be argued validly in on  WP:AFD. That certainly suggests that the OUTCOME of the AFD argument effectively settles the issue of notablity. If the article were not notable, it would have been deleted. 
It is redundant and distracting, therefore, to keep the 'importance' tag in place. It suggest that the matter is not settled.
I will go further and suggest that in this case it is clear that the 'importance' tag is being used not as a request for better editing, but as means to assert that the article is somehow unworthy of being read. It is, in effect, an effort to deny the outcome of the AFD decision, or to suggest that the decision was reached in error. 
There's probably room for an 'expand this article' tag or for a NPOV tag or some other tag.
Perhaps, as happened in the past, the tag being looked for is yet another AFD tag? 
But not the 'importance' tag, IMO.
Therefore I am removing the importance tag. 
--Nemonoman 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the IMPORTANCE tag

message: The signficance of the article has been documented on the talk page.
Edits include:
*Content description
*Reference to unsuccessful AFD where notability was the primary matter of debate (or at least a major matter of debate).
*Decision to "keep" the article, which suggests that lack of notability has not been the consensus view.
Please note that "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are in no way requirements in affirming the importance of a subject. The elements listed above clearly meet example standards.
As Wikipedia:Notability says
:Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on WP:AFD
It appears that the importance tag has been added based on a subjective view of 'unimportance'. I would note that Peephole has from all appearance ONLY edited articles on 9/11, and particularly with with a POV that alternate theories of 9/11 are to be removed or discredited, through a variety of clever means. He or she apparently has the subjective view that this article's notablity is also lacking -- just as he/she feels about many other '9/11cruft' articles.
But the Wikipedia:Notability statement quoted above describes notablity as items that might be argued validly in on  WP:AFD. That certainly suggests that the OUTCOME of the AFD argument effectively settles the issue of notablity. If the article were not notable, it would have been deleted. 
It is redundant and distracting, therefore, to keep the 'importance' tag in place. It suggest that the matter is not settled.
I will go further and suggest that in this case it is clear that the 'importance' tag is being used not as a request for better editing, but as means to assert that the article is somehow unworthy of being read. It is, in effect, an effort to deny the outcome of the AFD decision, or to suggest that the decision was reached in error. 
There's probably room for an 'expand this article' tag or for a NPOV tag or some other tag.
Perhaps, as happened in the past, the tag being looked for is yet another AFD tag? 
But not the 'importance' tag, IMO.
Therefore I am removing the importance tag. 
--Nemonoman 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "or discuss its significance on the talk page"

message: Does this really fall under the :Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks? I'm removing it pending verification.  The film documents unanswered (and sometimes dubious) questions about the attacks, but it does not offer any speculative theories. Peter Grey 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the film. All questions, no theories. Therefore I agree with your reasoning. --Nemonoman 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Theories

message: Neither importance, nor the question of whether the film is really a documentary, is adequately sourced.  (The Indianapolis Star page has expired, so we can't tell if it was commentary, a movie review, or an actual article.  Only the latter would be adequate.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered.  There are no sources for the accuracy of the statements made, and calling it a documentary may be biased.  We need a third-party reliable source for that statement.  And the importance tag should not have been removed, as there was no consensus in the previous AfD.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It may not be a quality, professional, or wholly unbiased documentary, but that is the format the film uses. Peter Grey 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

message: I have re-written this article providing more detail on what is in the documentary.  I am a new editor so please let me know what you think. Corleonebrother 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much of the original article was deleted. Can you please re-add those parts? Thanks, Badagnani 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence about the Frankfurt Group marketing the film as I could find no reference for this.  If you can find one, please feel free to add it back in.  I also removed the final paragraph saying that the film was given away with a Polish magazine as I think that information is too specific and irrelevant to most people.  All the rest of the original article is still in there I think - most of it expanded upon. Corleonebrother 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Is this true?  "Google has banned the video from its video section because of U.S. Goverment pressure." Badagnani 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would certainly need a source to include potentially libelous material should as that.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Can't be true. That would be almost equal to the U.S. Government confirming the conspiracy theories... --Erfa 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Google Video

message: *It also looks briefly at the Soviet-Afghan War and how the Afghan Muhajadeen, a precursor to al-Qaeda, were funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets.
The linked article does not describe the Muhajadeen as a precursor to al-Qaeda, or at least I can't find where it does so. Can an editor quote the relevant text?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mujahadeen

message: Please, User:Badagnani, share your concerns here. So that you can stop the constant reverts.--Sloane (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The White House was removed, and many other things. If removing text, please suggest such removals at Discussion prior to removing it, rather than using repeated reversion as a means of trying to make "possession 90% of the law." Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits looked okay. The only question I had was whether the titles were helpful in breaking up the sections (whether or not they were in the movie...). I'm not sure which part Badagnani is referring to so maybe he can put it back in? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The White House was removed. Badagnani (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one mention of The White House and it's still in there.--Sloane (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Changes

message: Please, help me to add this data about budget http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm2209801/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.19.99 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I have problems with adding budget data