Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 25

message: I created the below and hopefully this can be filled and dicussed by everyone, if noone brings forth sections then I guess its obvious that there are no POV concerns. --NuclearZer0 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NuclearUmpf, you're free to join in the discussion, but this ridiclousness about facilitating has got to stop. You can't come in here defending blatant violations of Wikipedia rules and then pretend to be a facilitaror in this. Se my reiteration of claims below. If you want to play this role, you can start by adding a POV template to the article. --Cplot 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry what did I defend? You make an accusation back it up please. Your claims arent specific and as usual they will be ignored because of that, you want to make a case, then make a good one, not general blanket statements. I was attempting to help you, however you want to continue to make blanket statements that will get ignored cause they are not addressing anything, fine with me, complain to your hearts content. --NuclearZer0 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV CLaims 

message: There have been many substantive discussion of the article. Here's a few examples from above.
I have brought up specifics before. See:
* Reworking the article so that it follows Wikipedia policies
*  Examples of NPOV problems
Typically we get the usual suspects (I call them the US for short), claimming nothing has been said. Then we request an POV tag and the US say why don't you just request a POV tag. This is a silly game. NuclearUmpf, if you really came to provide some reasoned independent analysis, you would have made sure the POV template was added rather than altering your remarks when you realized not even that minimal step has been taken.
:Summaries are not quite enough.  A task list is an easy thing to write but then you need to address each bullet point.  If you pull one item out to focus on it becomes much easier to discuss it with others. --PTR 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more convinced than ever that you are right...surely the illuminati/"feds"/Reptilian master race are in control of what goes on in this article...I wish I had noticed this sooner.--MONGO 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Cplot: In your reworkings part, you rejected all efforts of discussion of what to do without explanation. In your examples part, all the points you took up has been answered one by one. That discussion is finished. You did not succeed in pointing out either any poart of the article that was POV or discuss any improvement of the article. --Regebro 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substatntive discussion of the article 

message: There seems to be a movement away from discussion of NPOV to borderline personal attacks.  The focus should be on actual disputes.  I think what the dissenters are trying to say is:
#. (Sources used) That the 9/11 Commission report is an inherently non-NPOV source, and that reliance on it compromises the article.  The counter-argument would be that, while that particular source is open to criticism, only those findings which have been independently corroborated have been used. The article does not rely on any one source, and therefore the suitability of that source cannot compromise the entire article.
:: * Comment It's not the 9/11 commission report per se, it's that no independent (independent of the Bush Whitehouse) sources have been allowed. --Cplot 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Independent sources are both allowed and used. --Regebro 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Comment I do not support conspiracy theories. I have called for the removal of the section on conspiracy theories because they are not notable enough to include. What I have called for is the inclusion of analysesindependent of the Bush Whitehouse be included in the article, even if it makes George sad. --Cplot 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you have any independant verifiable factual analysis made by reliable sources, then go ahead. You sure haven't mentioned any so far. --Regebro 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See the specific issues just raised. Oh, yeah your just pretending you don't see them. --Cplot 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What specific issues are you talking about? Where shall we reference these issues that are different than the "Whitehouse" version that may make Bush sad? What are these specific pieces of information and where are we to read about them?--MONGO 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't imagine a worse NPOV violation than putting everything into George Bush's frame of reference (even ignoring his disconnect from reality). Peter Grey 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldnt either though I dont see that happening in the article, what non white house sources are not being permitted that pass WP:RS and WP:V? I am not really sure what the complaint is about as it doesnt reference section just blanket ideas without showing where that situation is occuring. --NuclearZer0 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This, in other words? Peter Grey 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifiable issues 

message: Someone has suggested that the article is run by what Wikipedia I think calls clowns (if I'm using the right term). It might be better for others to just avoid the discussion here for a while and look to draft a rewrite of the entire article elsewhere. It does no on eany good to engage here where they seek to bait people into 3rr violations or personal attacks. Obviously they're just playing games here. We can return later and fix the article. --Cplot 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA, trying be civil please. --NuclearZer0 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has got to be the nth time someone has suggested I'm being uncivil of violating NPA for using the term clowns. Am I using the term wrong? Who am I attacking? --Cplot 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should take the advice. --NuclearZer0 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm trying to take the advice. I do not understand who I'm attacking. Just tell me who this could possibly be attacking personally and I"ll apologize profussely. I thought I was just using a common wiki word. --Cplot 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That part of the wiki lingo. I've heard it used before. It's not a personal attack. I think it might be an acronym, but I'm not sure. --70.8.56.126 00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny that nobody else ever heard about that then, wince Cplot admits he gets accused of attacks when he uses it. ;) Cplot: It's quite clear that when you claim the article is "run" by "clowns" that are "playing games", you are talking about persons and you are not exactly praising them. So it IS ad hominem. I think you understand this too. You can't return later and fix it, because the article ain't broken. --Regebro 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clowns 

message: Just to make sure we're clear on that. Some of you are trying to argue that it's ok. It's not. --70.8.151.103 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear, it surely is. Since Federal Authorities were not responcible for the attacks like some believe but never prove, its perfectly fine for someone who works for a federal position to edit the article as long as they do it according to guidelines and policies. --NuclearZer0 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You are way off base here. The accusations that are being made here about federal authorities working in official capacity to alter wikipedia iw inappropriate on so many levels. And besides that the spreading perception is that they're not even playing fair with the rules besides that.
Again, anyone can contribute as long as they follow the rules. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon, if some of those here are actually Feds serving in an official capacity this could be construed as a NPA violating. Watch what you say. --Cplot 07:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that calling me a fed would be NPA in itself. But I don't exactly give much weight to what an IP number is saying. Besides he has already been blocked for these comments once, on one IP-adress, if he continues from several IP-adresses he may put his relationship to his IP-provider in jeopardy. --Regebro 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You had a good will of reliable resources from me already… and you know it. US administration repeatedly linked 911 to Iraq, link proved to be as false as claims about WMD's. There is no article more appropriate to describe this outrageous lie. Should I start one? That claim was a turning point for that brilliant, I like to call it, "blood for oil" initiative. That is a fact, why would anyone neglect it? Apart from that, I've just pointed above what Rumsfeld said on that very day… why should anyone close an eye on such things? And apart from that, construction of WOT section remains illogical. How can you state second big-operation without addressing the first one? Adding one sentence certainly isn’t: "diatribe about the Iraq War" in this article. I'm interested to hear your reply's, and it would be interesting to see your agreement/disagreement on that RFM too… Lovelight 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovelight, this has been mentioned to you repeatedly...Iraq came more than a year after 9/11. This article is about the events of that one day, a little of the the rationale for what the motivation was and a little of what the effect was. We are not going to go into a long diatribe about the Iraq War in this article. We have the 2003 invasion of Iraq which is the article you need to discuss that kind of alteration to.--MONGO 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What's up? Lovelight 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal authorities should definitely not contribute to this article 

message: isnt calling 9/11 a "terrorist" attact POV? one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Keltik31 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aim of the terrorism does not change its status as terrorism. --Regebro 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to bring it up on Israel. --NuclearZer0 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition of terrorist is an interesting topic that has no business here. Take it up in Terrorism if you like. I would also recommend you to take greater care in your choice of tenses. "was" and "is" is not the same word. Sorry for this interruption, now back to our regular programme. --Regebro 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should put a  tag on your talk page and get a more experienced users advice, or ask an admin for assistances in dealing with that, either way this is not the right place if your issue is with Israel. --NuclearZer0 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I reject this, I believe everyone considers this a terrorist attack from every news publication that meets WP:RS that I have seen to every other encyclopedia and government official. I have yet to see anyone actually deny it was a terrorist attack, they may have said "they deserved it", but they all said the it part, was a terrorist attack. --NuclearZer0 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but they're called such in the narrative voice which, under WP:WTA, should not be done without qualification. It should say something like: 19 men associated with Al Qaeda, a group on America's homeland security terrorist watchlist, hijacked four planes. The rest of the mentions of terrorism could be removed or changed to hijackers as appropriate. Here is what WP:WTA has to say about using terrorist:
1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.) 
2. It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are.--I need a vacation 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The last one is also just a good writing technique, it's called show, don't tell--I need a vacation 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And while we're on the subjec of implying a view, I found this in WP:WTA:
Article structure
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
From Wikipedia:Words To Avoid:
Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
frpm WP:NPOV:We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.
In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism.
And one can, and many do, see this as happening in this article, and as such I see no reason to not expand the conspiracy theory section.--I need a vacation 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They are working on that above I believe, someone is rewriting the article if I am correct. As for the terrorist stuff it would be quite silly to list who when its the free world. Do we write, Germany, US, UK, Canada, India, Japan, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and list over 30+ nations then list international organizations such as Red Cross, UN, NATO, EU, etc ... Then we can go into new agencies to make it clear they do as well, stating BBC, FOX, Turner Broadcasting, CNN, then into newspapers ... I mean its probably the only universally accepted terrorist attack in the world. If you want to weigh against all that then provide evidence someone doesnt consider it a terrorist attack and we will list the excluded ones since the included ones is far too many, adding all of them would seem like a WP:POINt violation. --NuclearZer0 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrorist? 

message: Expanded conspiracy theory section and provided reliable sources
:Comments:
*The following should be rewritten more encyclopedic "and that the beams got rubbery with the burning jet fuel everywhere." --NuclearZer0 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed.--I need a vacation 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 2

message: Probably in the original as well but the WOT section needs sources, the view of most US citizens? that kind of comment definatly needs sources and the rest of that paragraph as well. 
Final paragraph in "Fatalities" before "Damage" needs sources.
"The hijackers" this section needs sources. Is "Arab men" appropriate? Doesn't Arab refer to Saudi Arabian only?
"9/11 Commission Report" Should be expanded.
--NuclearZer0 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately from the main article. I'll see what I can do in the space of an hour. After that I'm signing off--I need a vacation 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do not take these as remarks against your rewrite, just notes that I will move to the other talk page as well. --NuclearZer0 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd focus on npov stuff before hitting existin citation problems. npov problems are huge. --SoLittleTime 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue

message: how timely? just visited talk page to say that this article misses bad on NPOV policy. Then i see your post at bottom. this is much better than what's there. i couldn believe how pov the current one is. one other suggestion. "conspiracy theories" seems a bit off too. even more than 'terrorist'. after all isn't that just used to dismiss dissenting viewpoints? how bout something like 'further evidence or 'dissenting viewpoints'. Seems much more encyclopedic to me. --SoLittleTime 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not accept that, the truth is most are conspiracy theorys, stating the US government took down the buildings and covered up the fact is a theory on a conspiracy ... --NuclearZer0 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  so is stating a worldwise cabal of moslem extremists conspired to attack the financial and military symbols of the united states. its all a bunch a theories bout conspiracy. but the phrase 'conspiracy theory' means somethin else. also it sounds like you're not up to date on your familiarity with the literature on this topic. you can't just read popular mechanics to understand this stuff. sorry. don't mean to insult you but its true. --SoLittleTime 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't take advice from sockpuppets, goodbye cplot. --NuclearZer0 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what evidence do you have that he's a sockpuppet? the fact that he doesn't agree with you and is willing to debate? There is no conclusive proof that he is a sockpuppet so wait until the admins come to a conclusion--I need a vacation 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you can post your apology on my talk page. --NuclearZer0 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much improved 

message: should add citation of a specific prominent theorist who thinks the jews coordinated the attacks. otherwise the quote from the adl looks way too defensive. the way it is now it just comes out of nowhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SoLittleTime (talk • contribs) 
:Care to provide a name so I can get a source? You're right, prominent theorists should be named but I cant find him/her in my google search--I need a vacation 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish consopiracy nuts 

message: As the article is locked, could someone please add interwiki to the icelandic article: is:Hryðjuverkin 11. september 2001. --Jóna Þórunn 20:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Aude (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add icelandic interwiki 

message: In the second paragraph of the article, right before the table of contents, there's the sentence:
:In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.
If you come to the main article via a redirect, clicking that link reloads the page before jumping to the anchor link.  It should just link to #Fatalities.  dcandeto 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Doug Bell talk 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems so easy when you say it like that ;p Lovelight 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor editprotected request 

message: I'm certain that many of you consider a four year long protection of main article absolutely normal occurrence, but this protection of the talk page? Lovelight 09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only semi-protected. Is that a problem that somehow keeps you from posting with your username Lovelight.--MONGO 10:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you are..;), nope, no problem here mongo, I'm not sure where are you pointing (would guess though), my record is clean as it ever was… I'm just pointing to the fact that there are these walls around this article… but I understand the need, it is because all that outrageous vandalism… Lovelight 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit summary last time arond...if your record is so clean, then how come you're calling Regebro a"disruptive and repulsive liar."--MONGO 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he is mongo, because he is… you see, I tried to listen, then I tried to avoid him, ignore him, point that he shouldn’t disrupt, that we would end up with incident… but he just wouldn’t listen, the kinder I was the more consistent and persistent he was… now I demand apology, my actions and intentions were made clear, his comment were defamatory, harmful and unnecessary. If Regbro believes that my response on his continues provocation is unfounded he should report a personal attack… Lovelight 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see...he claims that the stuff on your usertalk posted by a vandal account are "Lies, bloody lies and conspiracy theories" and asks you to remove it from there. I don't see what he has to apologize for...he certainly didn't call you a liar, he was referring to the information above his comments. What I see are your comments here on this page where you call him directly: "User Regebro is disruptive and repulsive liar" and now also affirm that you feel that way. You're entitled to your opinion, but calling someone a liar, and adding "repulsive" is a bit over the top, I would have to say. Can you show me a diff that suggests he has been this incivil to you?--MONGO 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should start at the top of this page, and come to the point where Regbro called me conspiracy pusher. You'll see that he accused me for not stating my case, while I'm stating it clearly for months now ((I could call you to testify on that fact MONGO, would you?), he accused me that I'm not providing verifiable and valid sources, while its absolutely clear that I provided WP:RS and WP:V references. Not to mention those accusations about me introducing POV to the article and so on… All this allegations are bogus, and enough is enough… You know, it's all right here, on this talk page, study it if you have to… if Regbro thinks I've overreacted he can report personal attack, otherwise he can simply apologies… right here, in front of everyone… as for what's going on at my talk page, I'd say things are clear there… Lovelight 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovelight, "repulsive liar" is harsh. He also has asked repeatedly that you remove that info from your talkpage as it was added by a now blocked account. Musical Linguist removed it and you replaced it. I can't regulate what you have on your talkpage, but it is actually an attack on a number of editors, so continuing to keep it up is not a very good show of support for our no personal attacks policy. I do see that Regebro has called you a POV pusher. I want to mention as well to you again what I stated at least twice already to you. There is no reason to go into an examination of the Iraq War in this article. Whether you think that 9/11 was some federal conspiracy to give rationale to the Iraq War is besides the point...this article summarizes the events of one day, a discussion of the planning and the motivation. The Iraq War started a long time after the event of 9/11. There are other articles that might be better to expand on that theme you keep proposing. In addition, videos from youtube, and links from blogs and websites that are controled by one webmaster are simply not reliable sources in most cases.--MONGO 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had a good will of reliable resources from me already… and you know it. US administration repeatedly linked 911 to Iraq, link proved to be as false as claims about WMD's. There is no article more appropriate to describe this outrageous lie. Should I start one? That claim was a turning point for that brilliant, I like to call it, "blood for oil" initiative. That is a fact, why would anyone neglect it? Apart from that, I've just pointed above what Rumsfeld said on that very day… why should anyone close an eye on such things? And apart from that, construction of WOT section remains illogical. How can you state second big-operation without addressing the first one? Adding one sentence certainly isn’t: "diatribe about the Iraq War" in this article. I'm interested to hear your reply's, and it would be interesting to see your agreement/disagreement on that RFM too… Lovelight 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," George Bush via Lovelight 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, United States Senate via Lovelight 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting insight indeed, but let me remind you… we deal with the facts… who's wrong and who's right is not an issue here, at least not in my opinion… but perhaps I've misunderstood what's this project is all about? Have I? Lovelight 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is an entire article that discusses the "link" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda...and for the last time, there is no reason to go into any discussion on this article here about it. Bush's belief that their was a coorperative relationship between the two has nothing to do with 9/11, the scope of this article. If I write an article I don't make it discuss things that are unrelated to that article. Do you have anything to add about 9/11?--MONGO 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about particular section in the article, the section is appropriately named as "War on Terrorism".., we could also pursue such train of thought you suggested, in other words we could easily remove that paragraph altogether, of course with brief explanation why is it missing… Lovelight 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thought I stated this was not directed at you? Its a general observation. --NuclearZer0 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what's on your mind? I've just added observation of my own… As far as I can see what you wrote have nothing to do with the dispute, and there are very few voices to be heard… that's all. Say, remember how confused you were when you've noticed that section about Iraq is missing? lol, I'm cool tempered you know (wouldn’t last that long here if it would be otherwise…), and I'm certainly not pushing anything, except logic perhaps… Anyway, I'm really not for those smiles floating around, but I'd bet that some folks would have a dream come true if I would just pack my things and leave… is there a need to clarify that this was (hopefully) humorous observation, no second thoughts & all that:)… Lovelight 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojan 

message: There were some Vigilant war games on that day, why are these not presented? They were more then crucial for cascading failures of 911… Lovelight 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: War games (a) occur frequently and (b) are generally isolated from civilian activities. If they truly were "more th[a]n crucial", please provide a reliable source. Peter Grey 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, Lovelight.  Per chapter 1, footnote 116 of the 9/11 Report, the transition from exercise to real-life response took "about 30 seconds," and the 9/11 Commission found that, if anything, exercise involvement actually accelerated response because all relevant units were already in motion. JDoorjam     Talk 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll address this properly and show the relevance a bit later… shouldn’t have started that heading without resolving other issue… there are other concerns at the moment, and I might be out of this discussion for few days… if you would like to weigh assertion in mentioned footnote listen to the excerpts from NORAD tapes provided in main article… Lovelight 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll address this properly and show the relevance a bit later, well, no, there really can't be a discussion until then, although, assuming good faith, this is reasonable question to raise. Peter Grey 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War games 

message: What's the conspiracy theory?--Kingforaday1620 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy 

message: The paragraph on hate crimes resulting from the attacks says "At least nine people were murdered within the United States as a result". This is a strong assertion, and one which I can't find the backing for in the source cited by the paragraph, though it does verify the rest of it.  Have I overlooked something in the source or does this need its own citation? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. The only murder directly mentioned in the source is a Mesa, Arizona slaying. However, perhaps the firebombing (mentioned in the source) was responsible for the eight remaining deaths? It is a mystery - a mystery that certainly requires its own citation --Action Jackson IV 14:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the other eight people had died all at once, we should be able to find a story about it - lots of stories - without difficulty. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate crimes 

message: This article is a terribly sad testimonial to the decline of American civilisation. Although the evidence (constituted by still and video photography as well as eyewitness accounts) is plain to see for anyone who cares to look, those who are being paid to dupe the American people from knowing the truth seem to be winning the battle. Is it credible that in this age of mass communication and higher education an utterly fallacious account such as that presented on this page continues to be peddled as the truth without serious challenges from the community of Wikipedians. The terrifying reality is that the evidence against what is presented in this article is so overwhelming that it beggars belief that the American people are not rising up to demand a full independent inquiry. Can anyone explain why, in the face of such clear and incontrovertible evidence that the 9/11 commission report is fraudulent, journalists are remaining so pliant? Have none of you guys got any balls (or integrity)? User:Langdell .08/12/06
:I agree, on all accounts… it's because conservative nature of wikipedia, at least that's what I've been told… Lovelight 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not a structural engineer, I really do not know how can you say anything is "overwhelming". I guess we can ignore studies and go with the computer engineers theory over the structural engineer and senate panel etc. --NuclearZer0 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The 9/11 Commission report has its own article.  The total absence of "serious challenges" would suggest the existing narrative is correct, rather than "fallacious". Peter Grey 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll agree. The mere fact that people can find anything to question in the face of overwhelming consensus amongst the mathematical and scientific communities (thusly putting their faith in Hollywood depictions of similar events at best, putting their faith in naive superstition at worst), and can attribute to the Bush administration a level of finesse, secrecy, and efficiency never seen before or since, truly speaks wonders for the self-gullibility of a portion of the American people. To put it another way: Can you tell us a story about the Grassy Knoll, the Moon Landing, and/or Jimmy Hoffa? Bonus points for including Freemasonry. Extra bonus points for referring to me a "plant" or a "spook". --Action Jackson IV 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's Glory Fades 

message: This has probably already been brought up, but in the offchance that it hasn't - this is in response to the info bar, which contains the text "Target(s)	World Trade Center and The Pentagon (fourth hijacking is unknown)". I recall hearing/reading that the "original" targets were the World Trade Center, the White House, and the Capitol. The latter two were aborted towards the last minute when the terrorists realized that Bush was out of town - one of them went into the Pentagon, and the fourth was thought to be heading towards Camp David.
Perhaps, at the very least, the text could be changed to "Target(s): World Trade Center, Pentagon (fourth hijacking is unknown, but thought to be Camp David)"? I must admit zoning out over most 9/11 news, so I don't know if the theory I mentioned was ever disproven. --Action Jackson IV 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sources? Weregerbil 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Targets 

message: I changed the timeline link to the timeline CNN produced. At the very least the cooperative research link doesn't have any consensus for it's addition. The CNN produced one might be a little more agreeable to everyone. Please just don't blindly revert, discuss why CNN's timeline should not be the one used. Rx StrangeLove 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it hasn't, not by numbers or by logic. We don't need 2, and CNN is a good compromise. Rx StrangeLove 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as detailed and since no arguement has gone forward for the change according to WP:EL, I am putting CR back. A timeline compromised of multiple sources stands up to more scrutiny then one compromised of one source.  --NuclearZer0 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Compromise is a good thing when there are differing viewpoints. Please discuss why you won't compromise on this. Rx StrangeLove 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct but we should not sarcrafice a good link for a bad/singular view point one because you simply do not like CR. You have argued every point in WP:EL and been refuted. --NuclearZer0 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is also already 3 CNN links in the EL section. --NuclearZer0 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced the CNN link, it's a good compromise as there is clearly no consensus for the CR link. Please stop edit warring in an absence of any agreement. If this compromise won't work for you then we'll remove both until it gets worked out. But please don't treat this article as yours WP:OWN. Rx StrangeLove 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We have an article on the timeline. I'm not sure we need a link here at all. Tom Harrison Talk 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but we have an article on Geneva Convention of Conventional Weapons are you stating that no External link should ever be included to the GCCW? Do yo uplan to argue on the basis on WP:EL or just what you "feel"? We have guidelines for a reason Tom, and I would assume this arguement was somethnig you really felt but you put CNN back in your earlier edit, so its obvious you do not feel timelines are pointless. --NuclearZer0 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure we do either, I made that point above...I'd be happy to leave it out but I thought in the spirit of compromise we'd try this. But you're right, we have this already and if there are people that do not think it's adequate then they should be working on that article. Rx StrangeLove 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What arguement have you not tried? Please argue on the basis of WP:EL please. --NuclearZer0 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, a timeline is essential, the one at issue here is a contentious one and lacks consensus for it's addition. If you feel that our timeline is not adequate work on that one. As you can see above there are valid reasons for not including the CR timeline. The compromise is the middle ground CNN timeline, if you must have an external link at all. Otherwise improve the one we have and the problem is solved. Rx StrangeLove 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contentious on what basis? I do not see it lacking concensus simply because you do not like it, if you cannot make a WP:EL arguement then you are just arguing your feelings, which doesnt stack against concensus based on policies and guidelines. --NuclearZer0 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job not covering the point, your bouncing from WP:EL statement to statement and failing is documented above, if you have new objections please present them. Perhaps less crying over edit summaries and actually addressing guidelines would help. --NuclearZer0 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please replace the Cooperative Research link.-Slipgrid 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was reading the CR debate above, and I believe that's where you should have commented to have this link removed.  In that discussion you make absurd claims about the site being a wiki, and then a blog.  You clearly don't seem to know what a wiki or a blog is.  Please replace the link.--Slipgrid 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN timeline 

message: I wrote it recently, 11t September Attacks. It doesn't show up.
:I added a link; you have to add the links manually. It's nice work. A bit slanted, but its commendable brevity more than makes up for that. Tom Harrison Talk 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots version 

message: This article neglects to mention how the hijackers managed to get the box cutters on board; I think the 9/11 Commission Report discusses art supplies, or something to that degree. --MosheA 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Cutters 

message: According to the 9/11 Commission Report the controversial Saudi flight did not depart until September 20, 2001. However, according to the Saint Petersburg Times, these individuals departed on September 13, 2001. Although the Report came out later (July, 2004) than the article (June, 2004), it seems unlikely that the authors of the Report would have had time to take this article in consideration. It is therefore likely that the conclusion drawn in the Report is a conclusion irrespective of the findings in the article. Does anyone know if anything credible besides the Report has been written on this topic that also evaluates the findings in the article at hand? PJ 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp  --PTR 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I neither understand why that would be relevant for this article, or why Saudis flying to Saudia Arabia is controversial. ;) --Regebro 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honorable Colin Powell said: "the flights were well-known, and it was coordinated within the government." Here, if you wish to read further… Lovelight 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that makes them relevant for this article and/or controversial? --Regebro 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the fact that controversial 911 commission report is based on incorrect, inaccurate and/or false facts/statements should be completely ignored. Further more, fact that those Saudi's fled to Saudi Arabia via private flight while all private flights were grounded is to be considered as normal as collapse of building 7. "Why would Saudis flying to Saudi Arabia be controversial?" You really got me with that one… Lovelight 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Full commercial airspace was reopened on or around 11am Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 13 September". "According The New York Times, US airspace was reopened to private aircraft on 13 September 2001 at 5:50pm EST". (http://words.grubbykid.com/2005/03/). So, no, I still don't understand what is controversial with this. And even if they were on a private flight, and they got a special permission for that private flight, nobody can still tell me why that would be controversial. So stop the sillyness. This flight has NO relevance for this article, and there is nothing fishy about it. --Regebro 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: US airspace wasn't opened to general aviation (part of aviation consisting of privately owned and operated aircraft) until 14 September. Lovelight 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Airspace was gradually opened starting the morning of the 13th and that opening was finishe dthe 14th. There is nothing that says that this flight somehow broke these opening rules. Nothing. And even if it did, so what? So they got a special permission? Yeah, and? Nobody still have come with one single itsy bitsy argument for why this has any relevance for anything in this article.  And that's the end of that from my side. --Regebro 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant because it's evidence of a crime or cover-up.  People related to the person who would be blamed for this attack were moved out of the country without being properly interrogated.--Slipgrid 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox Enigma059 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Saudi flight 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}]]