Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Conspiracy Theories 2 Widespread confusion 3 Polls 4 Responsibility 5 Streamline the lead a bit 6 Permanently lock 7 NPOV: Page must be tagged "neutrality disputed" 8 Talk FAQ needed 9 September 11th Task Force 10 Wikipedia wake-up call (6): reliable sources need to be independent 10.1 query 10.2 independent RS 10.3 enhance the guidelines 11 NPOV / missing facts 11.1 list 11.2 References preview, starting at 13 11.3 meta discussion 12 NPOV / missing facts (2) 12.1 (subsection to make editing easier) ; defining consensus 12.2 (subsection to make editing easier) ; agree to disagree 12.3 (subsection to make editing easier) ; fact picking 12.4 (subsection to make editing easier) ; pledge / further discussion 12.5 back to the heart (section break to make editing easier) 12.6 back to the heart (2) 13 archive 38 14 Isn't it a bit? 15 Sneha Anne Philip 16 9/11 Conspiracy Theories name change 17 Work Cited (References) vs. Bibliography (and footnotes) 18 Heart of NPOV (3) 18.1 split: passport issue 18.2 split: NPOV issue 18.2.1 some quotes from the discussions above 19 POV 19.1 "there is no legitimate dispute here" ? 20 video link for inclusion 21 attempted summary / Heart of NPOV (4)

Conspiracy Theories

Rx StrangeLove, you have just responded to my good faith call for sources with this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html I am assuming good faith. Can you please point out the line in that article which backs up the existing edit? Bulbous (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. Been over this. RxS (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We could also source the statement that they are called "crackpot" theories, but... --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your dilligence. However, none of this supports the current edit. The challenged line says, "These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3]". The best support that you have offered is, arguably, that Bin Laden accepts credit for the attack. How does that prove that "political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers" believe that Al-Qaeda carried out the attack? If you are serious and interested in a balanced article, why not address this statement? Bulbous (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a summary of a subarticle. It is very difficult to precisely source that particular statement; you can source fragments of it from all over. For instance, this Time Magazine article can source the "media/journalists" part. However, it's un-necessary and onerous to source the whole shebang, since one can just read the sub-article. --Haemo (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you find proper sourcing to be "onerous". But it is absolutely necessary! I didn't even remove the unsourced line. I merely added a fact tag in hopes that someone would research and defend the edit. It doesn't look like anyone has any interest in doing so, so I will be removing it. In addition, the Time magazine article you mentioned DOES NOT support the edit. Nowhere in it does it say that mainstream journalists... have concluded that the responsibility rests with Al Qaeda. Can you point out where it does? Bulbous (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it refers to "the passion" that many conspiracy theorists hold; and that they refer to it as the 9/11 Truth Movement. --Haemo (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Look at the part where it talks about the theories being "largely ignored" by the mainstream media. The point is that it's onerous because summary style doesn't require it. --Haemo (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What the article says is that "the 9-11 Truth Movement... has been largely ignored by the mainstream media". That is a far cry from saying that they believe that alternate theories are not credible, and that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda. Nothing in WP:Summary gives you license to ignore other policies. Actually, from WP:SUMMARY - The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This contentious line is debatable and MUST BE SOURCED. Bulbous (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the "passion" of conspiracy theorists as being largely ignored. It seems relatively clear to me what they're referring to, and only mentioning the Truth movement as examples of those being ignored. --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we have no support for that statement whatsoever now? Bulbous (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I said... --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any belief that "These theories are generally not accepted as credible ..." is inaccurate? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An edit does not have to be proven false to be removed. It should never have been added in the first place without a proper source. Secondly, anything that is likely to be challenged is required to be sourced. And this line has been challenged. Bulbous (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I said belief, not proof. If there is no doubt it is accurate, it should remain until a reliable source is found. If there is doubt, that would be different. On the other hand, if this is removed, I would have no qualms about removing any statement which has an unsourced implication that there is a sane person who believes the conspiracy theories. (There's certainly no proof.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is not sourced needs to be removed, from *all* articles, not just this one. However, there is a sourced poll that says that 36% of Americans believe in some alternative theory. (Presumably, the other 2/3rd are more interested in what time American Idol is on TV). That poll is currently being suppressed. Bulbous (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The hallmark of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist - the unreasonable belief that the other 64% cannot possibly be right, they must be ignorant or stupid. At least you didn't accuse them of being on the government's payroll. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, that 64% includes all that doubt some aspect of the mainstream theory. Personally, I doubt many aspects, but not the conclusion that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the four planes, and that there was no "controlled demolition". But even if the poll question were as quoted, it would not mean that the named groups accept any "alternative" theory as credible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to out-of-date figures. According to the more recent Scripps-Howard poll, its now 62% believe either LIHOP or MIHOP. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if we have a more recent poll, what possible grounds are there for it's exclusion? Especially when this discussion centred around adding a completely unsourced line about the beliefs about politicians and journalists who aren't free to think for themselves? Bulbous (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the title "Conspiracy Theories" needs to be changed. It's desultory and diminuative, as if every critical thinker that questions the "official" record of events is some kind of nutjob that sees the CIA in every corner of the room. This section should be retitled "Alternative Theories". Bulbous (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming term for these kind of theories in the media and academia are "conspiracy theories"; calling them "alternative theories" is misleading, and at odds with the normal term for these theories. Because you believe in a conspiracy theory does not make you a "nutjob", nor does the article imply as much. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories" is still a very poor term, and justifying it by its use in the media only helps prove the point. It implies that any person who has questions about the official record of events (as any critical thinker would) also believes in some kind of "conspiracy" involving the US Government. In fact, the official record of events did involve a conspiracy... albeit one involving solely Al-Qaeda. The word "conspiracy" makes absolutely no sense in this context. It's stictly derogatory. Bulbous (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. It implies that they believe that there is some conspiracy at foot; by whom, and for what purpose, is entirely left up to the particular individual. For some, it is the US government shooting the Pentagon with a cruise missile. For others, it is the Israeli government planting demolition charges in the WTC. For still yet others, it is the Bush Administration covering up glaring incidents of negligence which could have prevented the attacks. Who is theorized to be responsible, and what they are responsible for varies greatly between individuals — however, the simple fact remains that the media and academia use the term "conspiracy theories" for these beliefs. It is far from "derogatory", and the endorsement of other terms for the theories, because some people do not like to be associated with the "Jews did 9/11" crowd is politically motivated. --Haemo (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Haemo. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is *exactly* the kind of misinterpretation that the term "conspiracy theories" generates, and the very reason why it needs to be changed. You've just automatically associated *any* alternative theory with some kind of complicity or malfeasance by some government. If a reasonable person looks at the facts and the official explanations of 9/11 and thinks, "Some of this doesn't add up", that doesn't mean that they should be automatically associate with the "Jews this, Bush that, Israeli the other". Any attempt to do so is a bad faith attack on reasonable cross-examination, of a kind typically generated by those who are ignorant of the facts. Bulbous (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I struggle to see how you read that interpretation into what I said. In fact, the "things just don't add up and are being ignored" viewpoint is explicitly mentioned — negligence, in investigation and accountability is still malfeasance. The "we're just asking questions" crowd is no less accusing a wide variety of government, academic, and media figures of pointedly ignoring "evidence" which they (as untrained laymen) believe is evidence that the "official story" is incorrect. This is no less a conspiracy than the belief that Giuliani ordered the towers demolished. --Haemo (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Haemo that "conspiracy theories" is the most used colloquial term. It is not, however, the best academic term one can devise. I am sure academics use it for marketing purposes, and not because of its inherent merits. I think "conspiracy" can better be replaced by "alternative" or "non-mainstream", and "theory" could better be described as: "hypothesis" or "viewpoint" or "opinion" or "interpretation". What is crucial about them, is not that they are conspiracies or theories, but that they differ from the mainstream account. Some of them are zero theory, just the opinion that the facts do not add up. That in itsself is not yet a theory. I therefor support what Bulbous is saying. However, at the moment this issue is more a symptom than a cause of what's wrong with the 9/11 page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this page, it's in a consensual version and a small group of editors can't change that or hold the page hostage. RxS (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This page is POV. It is being held hostage by a large group of editors, using wikipedia policy selectively to defend their edits (or more likely, their reverts). Some of them don't mind sinning against "don't bite the newcomers", or "be civil". You are dominant by the Law of the strongest, not because you are right or because you are truly upholding wikipedia policy. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The big problem about this is that, it is not the truth that counts, it is verifiability. Si lapu lapu (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Si Lapu Lapu

Verifiability ? Veritas means' truth ! 81.69.50.139 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please remove "IT WAS A CONSPIRACY SO WE COULD GO TO WAR" write facts such as: ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 the Word Trade Center in New York … & so on first. We save the conspiracies for the bottom pages. 71.255.72.22 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Widespread confusion

I note that the article states there was "widespread confusion" the morning of September 11th. I was tempted to add a sentence to this, until I discovered the article is protected. Perhaps the administrators would consider making some small additions, if they feel they're warranted?

I distinctly remember NBC news reporting, shortly after the second tower was hit, that as many as ten airliners had been hijacked (unconfirmed report). Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that the original plan was to take ten planes simultaneously ^[1]. Although this piece of the confusion has been little-reported in the post-9/11 analyses, it seems to be traceable to the military training exercises underway the morning of the 11th, where bogus radar images were "injected" into NORAD tracking stations during a simulated hijacking scenario ^[2]. Richard Clarke also touched on this in his book.

It seems important to me, because it helps explain the inexplicably-slow response of the military to hijackings over the Capitol. Under normal circumstances, unauthorized flight paths over our most sensitive military headquarters would garner a response within MINUTES, not the hour it actually took. The only logical explanation, to my mind, is that air traffic controllers had no way to know which reports were real and which were part of the ill-timed military exercise.

The events of 9/11 remain enigmatic and of public interest precisely because there remain unanswered questions and the suspicion that not everything has been admitted. Certainly, the quick removal of the Bin Laden family on the 19th^[3] and the hijacking simulation on the morning of the 11th are key pieces of the on-going puzzle. These CONTROVERSIES -- established facts that have not been explained -- are separate and distinct from the Wiki page on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories^[4].

The main 9/11 article, in my view, should at least link to these key discussion points. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, that's written partly in first-person, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Second, 2 of your sources are other Wikipedia articles, which we don't use as sources. Words like "bogus," "ill-timed," "enigmatic," and words in ALL CAPS are unnecessarily dramatic. The second paragraph is all your opinion and most of the third paragraph is an improper synthesis of other sources ("key pieces of the on-going puzzle"). Mr.Z-man 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm sorry if I misled you. The discussion above was meant as a "discussion," not as the actual proposed addition to the Wiki article on 9/11. I thought putting it on the Talk page would make that clear. I agree that first person narratives and all-caps are not appropriate for Wiki articles.

The links to other Wiki articles are exactly what I was suggesting be added to the main article. The backstories are out there, but nowhere on the main page is this mentioned. That seems like an oversight to me.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls

An edit has been made to the conspiracy theory section which I have two issues with:

The new text includes poll data information from a 2006 poll. I thought consensus has been that poll data becomes outdated and is therefore to be avoided.

It also tweaks the text to be in line with the reference and not the reference added to support the text. Isn't the conspiracy theory section supposed to be summary style of the supporting article?

Summary style does not exempt us from the need to reliably source the wording. If it is contentious, as this case most certainly is, then it must be sourced as instructed in WP:SUMMARY. I have no objections to references being added that support the edit, but I have not as yet seen even one. Bulbous (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted twice today and really don't want to get into an edit war so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Is this okay with everyone? --PTR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong, it's outdated. Some context would have to be provided and this isn't really the place for it. There's an article about the polls for example and the CT page of course. RxS (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see those polls in the Responsibility section. And they are not necessarily outdated, we could show that year by year the disbelief in the official theory is growing. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility

Don't know if the section is detailed enough, how much responsibility does rely on Saudi Arabia(where most the hijackers were from).I think its just as much a violant and terrorist region as iraq or afghanistan.Rodrigue (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert any nation is responsible for the attacks, so I don't know why we're talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation for that matter. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the only country charged in this article with any responsibility is the U.S. The article asserts that Osama bin Laden organized Arab mujahideen "with American government assistance." Of course this isn't true - the adventures of this little Arab Lord Fauntleroy and his small group of Arab foreigners were funded by Saudis. Sadly, people cannot resist equating U.S. assistance to the Pakistani ISI with U.S. assistance to Osama bin Laden. In the 1980s, Osama bin Laden did not contribute to the Afghan resistance in any meaningful way, was largely resented by native Afghans, and was far too small a figure to be on the radar of the CIA, let alone funded by the CIA. But people just love the irony of the U.S. funding its Public Enemy #1, so this myth will probably never die. 9591353082 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is its responsibility?, shouldn't it be mentioned as such. Rodrigue (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd think the host country would have some notable direct or indirect responsibilty for the atacks, considering how much focus there is on other co-conspiraters and they're state.Rodrigue (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Afghanistan, the then ruling clique the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden and his training camps. The fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals probably has more to do with Bin Laden, also a Saudi native, than it does with the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. They're smart enough to know better than to push it too hard with the U.S. as surely, had they been harboring Al Qaeda openly as the Afghans had been, a similar fate would have awaited them in the aftermath.--MONGO 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Streamline the lead a bit

In the lead, the passage that now reads:

On that morning nineteen terrorists^[1] affiliated with al-Qaeda^[2] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a member who had undergone some pilot training. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings.^[3] The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;^[4] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to WTC dust.^[5] Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998 — most of whom were civilians.

seems unnecessarily clunky due to trying to fit too much information into one sentence. I propose a slight rewrite:

On that morning nineteen terrorists^[6] affiliated with al-Qaeda^[2] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175. Each team of hijackers included one who had had some pilot training. They intentionally crashed one airplane into each tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, and a third into the Pentagon building near Washington. On the fourth aircraft, passengers and crew members attempted to retake control from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.^[7] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Both WTC towers collapsed soon after the impacts, causing extensive damage to nearby buildings,^[8] and the Pentagon was seriously damaged. Aside from the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and at least one person was determined to have died later from exposure to WTC dust.^[5] Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998.

This elides a number of bits of information in the interest of presenting the basic facts smoothly. All those other details belong in the article body, I say, and indeed most of them are there. (I have also made a few changes to what is and isn't a link.)

I can't make this edit myself since the article is protected from us evil anonymous users (and no, I have no intention of registering at the present time), so I hope someone else will do so. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this proposal. --Haemo (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say in the paragraph, which flight was crashed into the Pentagon, which at Shanksville, which into the WTC. If you can reword it to specify that, then I'm open to changing the lead section. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - shouldn't Flights and Flight be lowercase? Vrac (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a style issue and it makes sense both ways. I haven't checked the WP:MOS, but I think I see them capitalized elsewhere in Wikipedia in this sort of context. I still think that listing which flight was crashed where is a subject that belongs in the body, not the lead. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanently lock

The POV/conspiracy pushers for this article are just insane. I visit this talk page every now and then and it's the same old crap over and over. The wacked-out theories are worthless. To you POV pushers, please do something constructive for wikipedia (and society), and drop this topic and move on.

I suggest this article be permanently locked, along with its talk page. Nothing good can come from allowing either of these to be edited. All I see is a huge waste of everyone's time. Timneu22 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's pointless to discuss this. It's not going to happen. Ever, as it violates basically every principle of Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't permanently lock articles on Wikipedia, but I would like a rule that would limit the conspiracy pushers the ability to constantly harp about it on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see that too. Conspiracy pushers are basically (somewhat borderline) trolling when they bring up unreliable sources to push radical claims over and over (and continuously attack Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources), though some of these editors also make constructive edits so they can’t really be classified as "trolls". In extreme cases users who refuse to stop trolling could theoretically be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but if it isn't outright disruptive behavior over long periods it might not fly. Of course it goes without saying that any IP addresses or new users that troll and vandalize a lot can be reported. But to make a long story short, yes, I'm as annoyed by it as everyone else :). But lets not feed them too much. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree A quick read of this section serves to illustrate which camp deserves censure. I haven't seen much trolling, except as written in the above paragraph (allegations of trolling IS trolling). Asking for a page to be permanently locked is just saying, "No more discussion. Everyone already knows everything about these incidents. Stop asking questions". Hopefully, pending regime change in the US will bring more hidden facts to light. It's definitely premature until after the elections. Bulbous (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These folks aren't just "asking questions". They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit. People are more than welcome to ask questions - but that has not been what is going on. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, you can certainly keep asking questions. By all means, try to find out the truth if you don't think the view based on seemingly reliable facts is correct. Write a book. Call government officials. Get in contact with others who share your view. Watch Fahrenheit 911. But keep it out of Wikipedia. We don't give credence to original research, speculation, and unreliable sources. We report what the reliable sources say (the accepted view of things), and that is all. None of these conspiracy theories are supported by reliable sources and most are based on some form of original research where the editor claims to come to a certain conclusion based on a long list of "facts" cited with unreliable sources - or none at all. Therefore, we cannot integrate these theories into a prominent place in the article as though they are accepted as plausible alternative explanations of 9/11, which, at the moment, they are not. That being so, these editors who continuously push for these theories on the talk page are being fairly disruptive. However, they are not exactly trolling, as I assume most of these editors at least don't intend to disrupt. Though if they push again and again as we have seen, it begins to look a little more like trolling. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're getting several different discussions mixed up here. This section concerns permanently locking the article. Even if the motivation is thwarting "conspiracy theorists", the end result is that you will be locking out any future WP:Verifiable information as well. And so the proposal is only self-serving for those looking to close the book with the current "official" record of events. And that makes no sense from any perspective. Bulbous (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehem. Sorry, but im just an ordinary web-browser from Lithuania. Why don't you want to at least include a section about that conspiracy theory, which is, let's say a sorta likely theory, like "criticism" or so? I understand that you would do anything to keep everything the way it "should be". Thanks god i don't live in USA. Who knows, maybe i would have end up brainwashed like you are. Don't dare deleting my message, i'm looking forward to an answer. I hope that people who created wikipedia won't let wikipedia be controlled by people who should be in jails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP has an entire article about the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory section in this article links to it:

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

--PTR (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Golbez, I hear your frustration when you write: They're accusing us of being reptilian government agents, and when we point out the flaws in their pet theories, they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. They are assuming bad faith before we even hit Edit — and I can well imagine your dismay. To be honest: I might also have made the mistake of accusing you of bad faith, were it not that I have seen members of my own family turn violently against "conspiracy theories" — who's good faith I do not question. My conclusion is that it is possible to be an intelligent individual, study 9/11 and conclude that there is nothing to worry about, no inside job. I've seen it happen so often. But, it remains for me hard to grasp. So I can well imagine that others would suspect you of foul play. Just as it is hard for you to imagine anyone genuinely believing it being an inside job and being intelligent and reasonable at the same time, so it may be hard to believe you are not a reptilian. This brainwashing is cleverly done, and its succes is at the same time the explanation for 9/11: they wouldn't have tried it if they didn't think they would get away with it. And they seem to be getting away, at least, for six years pretty much already. However, the struggle between the two camps is pretty much symmetric in arguing. The pro-mainstream wikipedians seem a majority, but this may be the result of that it's easier to "defend" one shared, false, story than dozens of potential alternative explanations. To be continued, I'm afraid... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you misinterpret the point of this talk page and Wikipedia. We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Notice this kind of off-topic discussion is exactly why I locked this section earlier. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Haemo and Okie, if you observe more accurately, I am doing the opposite: I am not pushing my belief, I am trying to stop you from pushing yours, so that this article may become a source of neutral information, and not cherry-picked facts which support the lies of the major perpetrators. I am not aiming for this page to say: "Bush did it." I want the page to have the bare facts -- all the facts -- and let the reader decide. It is my experience that the same facts will lead different people to different conclusions. I deplore that, but respect it. Let the facts speak. Stop interpreting. Stop censoring. Do wikipedia a favour. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Page must be tagged "neutrality disputed"

For formal reasons, this article (in the present VERY excentric) form, must be tagged to warn information seeking readers!
Compare to: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States!

Or do you even want to dispute the fact, that many of its details are controversial?
GH --125.24.208.245 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is not he same as neutrality. The fact that there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial is not sufficient for a demonstration that the article is non-neutral. Compare to evolution, where a much larger minority believe the factuality of the processes related on the page is also controversial, yet there is a featured article on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Haemo, your comparison does not work 100%. The dispute is not at the existence of the process of evolution, it is of the origin of life: Evolution#Origin_of_life which is in section 5.1 and is only four sentences long. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Even better, in Abiogenesis wikipedia uses the wording: the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. This is how I would like to see things frased. Can you point me to a place in wikipedia where it is said that life emerged from non-life, period? I would love to see the RS for that one! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You say:

...there is a small minority who believe that the factuality of events related on this page is controversial..

• You missed the point. The fact remains that, in America, there is a significant percentage of people who do not believe the process of evolution occurs. At all; period — to them, the claim that evolution occurs is controversial. Nonetheless, our article on evolution does not present it as anything other than fact, and that controversy does not make it non-neutral. Tenuous metaphorical appeals to a simile which I did not make does not change this fact. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware of the fact that even Fox and CNN have confirmed, a majority is convinced, that the official story is wrong. (Poll "Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence")
--81.169.155.23 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

agree we should tag it. Better would be to start attributing claims. A simple disclaimer in the lead, that this a majority view would also be helpful. For instance: this article describes the events from the point of view of government and mainstream sources. For alternate views, see...etc.etc. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "majority view" — is a view supported by reliable sources. There's a difference, which you fail to understand. --Haemo (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

definately should be tagged... It's a load of rubbish that terrorists did it.. Your friggin government did it to your own country to give themselves a reason to attack the world... Just think about it, an enemy without borders, What better way to give yourself reason to take on whatever country you wish.. I just hope us aussies get out of it before it blows up in our face as well... I feel sorry for americans.. their own government kills them, lies to them, and there are fools out there that still vote for them and back them up.. If the attacks happened 1: show me footage of a plane flying into the pentagon.. i might change my mind then.. I think its pretty clear that there is a large group of people Worldwide, not just in the US that dispute the attacks and thus it is unjust to try and brainwash school kids and society by feeding them articles like this as shear truth.. If this is what wikipedia has become, its a joke.. God Bless America, i hope your next president is a hell of alot better...Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• agree: NPOV tag — Dear Haemo (above), I agree the article is built on RS's but that does not make it neutral, since a lot of sources which oppose this article, which I call also reliable, are excluded. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to thank your grandfathers for risking or sacrificing their lives in WW-2 freeing the Netherlands from Hitler. Now that America does no longer exist, and has become part of the American Union, and the Netherlands has been conquered by the European Union via corrupting its politicians, defying the people's referendum to stop assimilating ... maybe we can again come to eachothers aid. What we need, is freedom of information. That is what wikipedia is about. Free information. This page is trying to keep half of the information hidden. Stop hiding, or tag it. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk FAQ needed

Talk:Muhammad has a FAQ subpage covering common suggestions that conflict with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps this article needs something similar: It could cover such arguments as "This article should be less biased towards the mainstream account and talk more about the cover-ups and conspiracy theories". We could then insert the usual consensus response to these arguments based on Wikipedia policy: original research, reliable sources, and so on. This way, hopefully, we can avoid such off-topic discussions in the future.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here.

The above is the banner on the Muhammad page, some form of which we could add here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you moved that out of your userspace yet? That FAQ is outstanding. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there was much bemoaning and gnashing of teeth when I proposed it last time; plus it's not really finished. I frankly just use it as a Coles' Notes version of a reply for virtually any question. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's set a date to move it out. It still needs a little work, but it looks good. I just did a test edit, you can see what you think. How about Mid feb? Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with this FAQ. It makes the mistaken suggestion that "minority" or "majority" points of view are determined by the number of reliable sources supporting that viewpoint. This is not accurate. Minority of majority viewpoints are determined by the number of adherents, not the number of sources espousing that particular view. In this particular case, some 38% of people believe in some kind of alternate theory. If even one reliable source can be found for an alternative theory, then that viewpoint needs to be given a weight according to the number of people that believe it (which in this case would be significant), not a minimal weight as given due to a single source. Bulbous (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad no reliable source can be found. That people believe in a theory without a reliable source is not reason enough to include it. --Golbez (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this particular matter is the overwhelming suppression of information related to the incidents. Hopefully, with regime change pending, more facts and information will come to light. This is what we need to be prepared for. Bulbous (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"There's no reliable sources because people are suppressing them" is not a valid reason to forego our requirement for reliable sources. Sorry. --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested anything of the sort. Reliable sources rule the day; I know that. My point was related to undue weight. Right now, there is a definite lack of reliable sources for a lot of the alternative theories. So they should not be included. But reliable sources will appear as time wears on and the information becomes more readily available. Bulbous (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your faith is strong; what would have to occur to convince you that perhaps your view of a massive conspiracy being covered up by the U.S. government is wrong? --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of mindlessness that is paralyzing this article. But thanks, you have just solidly proven my point about the "Conspiracy Theories" section. The wording needs to be changed to "Alternative Theories", so that yokels like you can understand what that entails. Just because someone questions *some* aspect of 9/11, be it something as small as a question of timeline, does not automatically imply they believe in a conspiracy of any kind. Your attempt to paint me, without any basis in fact, as someone that believes in a "massive conspiracy being covered up by the U.S. government" is an insult, and an obvious attempt to obscure the truth. You're not helping. Bulbous (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on hold on, I wasn't trying to do that. I saw your line about ... "Hopefully, with regime change pending, more facts and information will come to light." I figured the only facts the current 'regime' would want to hide would be ones negative for it, and I was responding to that. Let's calm down here. Clearly I was mistaken and I apologize. --Golbez (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The point I am trying to make is that skepticism over any part of the "official" story does not automatically equate to "conspiracy". And my suggestion about regime change bringing more facts to light is merely one of politics. If one party is glossing over facts that might cast them in a negative light, it's just a matter of politics that another party might use that to their advantage. Isn't that a reasonable possibility? Bulbous (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, does it? Bulbous is being fairly reasonable in that he aknowledges there aren't reliable sources for these "alternate theories" so they can't be given creedence here. It doesn't affect this article whether Bulbous believes there will one day be reliable sources for a US government coverup or not. So let's move on. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, this FAQ page would only seek to remind people of Wikipedia policy. For instance, one of the question I recently added was:

• "What about alternate accounts of events? Most concerns include disputes over the roles played by Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, the United States Government, various ethnicities, and other organizations or individuals.
• Answer: Wikipedia presents information only based on reputable sources that are widely accepted by scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified organizations or individuals. The article's account of the attacks is the only one supported by reliable, widely accepted information. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources."

In another example, calling the attacks terrorism, it is explained that the current credible sources (major world governments and the United Nations) consider it terrorism, so Wikipedia does as well. There would be nothing on this FAQ page that is not fundamentally based in Wikipedia's policy. It will simply seek to bring to light that some of the common arguments brought up on the talk page are in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. That way, we don't have to explain it over and over here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I was just pointing out what I feel is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy in the draft FAQ. Namely, that weight is given according to the number of sources that support a viewpoint, rather than the number of people that hold that viewpoint. The rest of it is rather good. Bulbous (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I approve of this. Sadly, people who constantly argue for changes don't seem to be the type to 'give up' in the face of common sense and logic. I can see it now... "I don't read FAQs created by government shills!" --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually neither of the two; it refers to adherence within its particular field of study. Given that this is a historical or journalistic event, the relevent experts are historical researchers on the subject and journalists — not "number of people". Otherwise, we'd see 50+% of the evolution article devoted to creationist criticisms of it. --02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest. I'm not sure what is being proposed by the last few comments. If someone wants to make helpful edits to the draft, feel free. I'm sure Haemo doesn't mind. I've been working on it some. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tarage, I would like you to consider that the debate between "loyalists" and "truthers" is completely symmetric, except that one of them is wrong: -both sides accuse the other of not thinking straight; -both sides accuse the other of selective fact picking and ignoring other facts. We should not write what a majority believes, but we should write that which is substantiated by trustworthy independent sources. On controversial topics, though, a little modesty might suit you well. If you wish not to spend so much time arguing about this and other articles, maybe it's time to self-reflect a little. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Xiutwel, have you ever tried to explain someonething to someone who simply doesn't understand? For example, lets use math. You try to explain how to solve a simple math problem to your friend, but every step along the way, they repeat the same questions over and over again. "What is this X for?" "How can you move that to the other side of the = sign?" "I don't believe you can add a negative number!". Eventually, you get tired of being nice and civil, and just simply wish to move on with your life. That is where we are right now. We've had so many pages, so many weeks and months spent arguing the same points over and over again because one or two people continue to come along and refuse to accept that we have already talked all of this to death. You may not like the answer you got, but Wikipedia has specific rules that must be followed. We have followed these rules to the 'T', and yet someone will always come in and start the same argument again. This FAQ is a nifty idea, as it might perswade some of these people, but you have to admit yourself that you know of those who will come in and just argue to argue. THAT is who I believe will ignore all of this. THAT is who I see completly skipping the archives and using the same tired defeated argument again and again. Yes, this is a controversial topic, but you have to admit that the vast VAST majority of the issues people have with this article have been debated and debated and debated to the point of resolution or stalemate. And it is the ones who don't understand this, who post the same diatribe, who soapbox, that I am refering to. And I have yet to see any from 'my' side who act this way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply don't see it. All I see is the same thing over and over again, and I'm sick of it. Sometimes, you just have to give up a lost cause. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very grateful for the effort you make to illuminate your point. Yes, I know how it feels to unsuccesfully explain something, and I can well imagine your frustration! About ignoring the archives: it does not seem reasonable to me to ask a newcomer to read 37 talk pages before editing. Instead of a FAQ, which we will not reach consensus on just as on most other things, I would like to suggest you write an index of topics, referring to the correct archives. A "frequently made edits" (FME) . Then, when someone reopens a debate which YOU have seen many times, you can simply respond with: Please see e.g. 9/11 FME#FBI wanted poster which would list e.g. 5 occurrences in several archives. But don't presume the debates in the past have reached consensus. They haven't; they just died, killed by the Law of the strongest, as fire dies when the energy is spent. And they will keep rekindling forever, for you A-folk are sadly mistaken, I think. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ that Haemo has compiled already includes an archive such as what you described, directing the reader's attention to prior discussions on the topics. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion is to have no more than an index, so exclude the summary, which may be (seen as) unfair by some. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The summary simply directs the reader to policies relevant to the archived discussions. Our goal with the faq is not to circumvent policy. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why is not used more often? I am not very happy with the current version, see e.g. User_talk:Haemo#draft_911_faq. I can respect the ones using the faq being biased, but the faq ahould be neutral. The major problem will remain that discussions seldom end in consensus, ergo, they were not finished, ergo we will keep busy on this page. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you should not have brought that up on Haemo's main talk page. A better place to cite your concerns would have been at User Talk:Haemo/Draft FAQ. And that would be a good place for anyone who wants to discuss changes to the FAQ. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

September 11th Task Force

For those who are interested, there is currently an ongoing proposal for a September 11th task force with-in WP:TERRORISM. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia wake-up call (6): reliable sources need to be independent

query

• Where in wikipedia policy does it say you can delete whole sections of a talk page without any argument why you did so? (diff)

I strongly object to it.

When it was previously deleted for WP:BLP-reasons: no problem, point taken. But this seems to me to be undermining the good spirit of wikipedia.— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

independent RS

There exist, in the minds of the people on this planet, basically two paradigms concerning 9/11:

• A) Some moslims, hating our freedoms, conspiring in Afghanistan, decided to liberate Saoudi Arabia from America by attacking the Pentagon using box-cutters. Luckely for the free world, they hit the part which was nearly empty. They had to be sentenced for this criminal act, but being suicide terrorists, they were dead. Therefore we tracked their leader into Afghanistan, "not distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida when it comes to terrorism".
• B) A complex grid of corrupt (factions of) intelligence organisations, secret networks producing opposing Presidency candidates, and business interests who also dominate all the major editorial decisions of all major new media, desired a "new Pearl Harbor", a "War that will not end in our lifetimes", because anno 1990, with the Cold War gone, their absolute control might crumble.

What the wikipedia community has done, in my view, is: assume view A is correct, unless proven otherwise, and design a brilliant narrative based mostly on RS's, which happen mostly to be controlled by the very same people who are the prime suspects in paradigm B. What should have been done, is treating both paradigms with respect, giving fair (not equal) treatment to both, and stick to the bare facts, not the interpretations thereof.

Despite our media being centrally controlled to a large extent, view B has arisen and spread and grown over the years based almost exclusively on snippets of information found in those same controlled mass media, expanded by witness testimony like William Rodriguez, Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer etc.

Now, I had assumed our guidelines and policies would require that any RS used to claim Verifiability of a fact (an event or its interpretation) would have to independent of interests involved in the matter. Our rules say not so. Not that I can see.

• Thus: I stand corrected: this 9/11 page is (in my opinion) a distortion of the truth, but fully compliant with wikipedia policy, which does not require independent sourcing.

Watch for example this interview given by Aaron Russo to Alex Jones:

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=Aaron+Russo+Nick+Rockefeller (15 minutes)

...in which Russo describes how a member of a rich and well known family tells him in 2000 (!) about "an event that's gonna happen" leading to a war "in Afghanistan and Irak", and a man-hunt in caves, never finding the terrorists.

I STRONGLY object to the wording in view A. That is highly insulting, sarcastic, and scewed. If you wish to have an even sided debate, do not start with such rubbish. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel insulted. I did not intend that. It can be taken as sarcastic, but most of the frases which make it look weird are direct quotes from famous politicians. It is hard for me to write neutrally on this. Please, however, formulate your version. I've stricken mine. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Xiutwel, if you want your opinions here to be respected, please return the favor. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

enhance the guidelines

proposal: "if a RS has interests in the topic at hand, all claims made by that source must be attributed to it, and not taken for granted in writing wikipedia." — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to discuss this change to a fundamental policy on the policy's talk page — not here. We simply don't have authority to make that kind of change. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See below what those same RS are also reporting, but which is carefully omitted from the article by wikipedians who are afraid of... what? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV / missing facts

<<<comment here was deleted by Haemo (diff)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)>>>

NPOV / missing facts (2)

archive 38

Archive 38 has a few pieces which are still relevant for the active discussion. I am listing them here.

1. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#NFSM
2. Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Archive_38#list

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit?

Isn't it a little late to protect September 11, 2001 attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.101.81 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 February 2008

Cute; but, no — the article is protected due to persistent vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What idiot would vandalize this article? 84.13.101.81 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The list is (at least has been) endless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists ROUTINELY vandalize this article and, at times, the talk pages, disrupting the presentation of factual scientific information that has reliable sources. (And they call themselves the "truth" movement. heh.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.49.76 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sneha Anne Philip

Bringing to everyone's attention this news, which has a small effect on the death totals for the day. I am reticent to change the numbers myself, because I cannot seem to make all the numbers fit. The September11victims.com site has apparently removed one victim from Flight 11 since it was last consulted for reference in Sept. 2007, bringing the total number of victims out of line with what is provided here even before the news of the court's decision regarding Ms. Philip. It strikes as odd that the site should do this. Someone with a longer history of involvement and knowledge in the minutiae of this topic should be careful to recheck the numbers. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories name change

Since it's a subarticle of this article, I thought it would be sensible to note that there is (yet another) move proposal at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories to change the title of the article to 9/11 alternative theories or 9/11 non-mainstream theories. Since this affects how we name the sections in this article, editors here should take note. --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious... why wouldn't citing "WP:NAME:Use common names of persons and things" take care of this immediately? These concepts are obviously most commonly known as conspiracy theories.71.204.49.76 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, and the only answer I have is that nothing takes care of debates immediately on Wikipedia. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the section should be named "Alternate 9/11 theories" or "Alternate Perspectives" since the word "conspiracy" implies they can be proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Work Cited (References) vs. Bibliography (and footnotes)

I think the reference section is great, however this article should have a bibliography. According to www.aresearchguideforstudents.com, who based there MLA style on the authoritative publication from the Modern Language Association of America, (Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook. 6th ed. New York: MLA, 2003.), there are differences between a bibliography and a works cited. It is stated that "In Works Cited you only list items you have actually cited. In a Bibliography you list all of the material you have consulted in preparing your essay whether or not you have actually cited the work." I would like to see all the works that where used for writting this article. This means any information that was removed, along with there said "reference". should be placed in the bibliography.

Secondely, according to this same article our References are not properly formated. They should be placed in alphabetical order. It is stated that "All references are placed in ONE ALPHABETICAL LIST by first words of citations, regardless of where citations come from." Currently I believe what we have are footnotes. Hence the reason I have or will change the name from reference to footnotes.[4]. (Also refer to The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 6th edition by Joseph Gibaldi, Appendix B.1, pp. 298-313 for additional detailed instructions on footnotes.)(Or this paper here). --CyclePat (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MLA standards are not applicable to Wikipedia. We have our own set of standards here: WP:MOS. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello MisterHand, thank you for the link. You are right... Wikipedia does have its "own set of standards." However, the above statement: "MLA standards are not applicable to Wikipedia", is wrong. It is contradicted by WP:CITE#HOW which states "...Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent..." Also, wikipedia has what I believe is called "concensus" rule. I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, appear to concur with my aforementioned statement regarding proper formatting. You may also infer from my previous statement that the status quo does not represent MLA standards or, for the matter of fact, "our own [Wikipedia’s] set of standards here: WP:MOS" --CyclePat (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual references may be coded using MLA standards, but the reference list is written using our standards, which are different from the MLA standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please work on adding a proper reference (work cited) section and bibliography. Having a bibliography would not only be an important element to know what resources where read (but not used), but may help maintain an NPOV article via allowing independant research on various points and presenting what most of our editors have read. --CyclePat (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a strange idea as to what a bibliography is. It's not in keeping with our WP:MOS, nor the MLA standards, to have a list of books generally relevant to the topic with page numbers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arthur, that's correct, as you stated, "It's not in keeping with our MOS...". That's because MOS does not specifically address this issue. As I have stated, you must look into WP:Citing sources and WP:Footnotes. Specifically, MOS makes reference to these important guidelines. Once you find these sub-guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide page numbers, you may find the statements that recommend we provide page numbers. In short: By example: If you've read the entire book then put all the page numbers... if you didn't, then add the page numbers or chapters. ex. : "The Green Apple. pp.504-512, 565-680, etc..." My thoughts on a bibliography are reflected by the authoritative facts Modern Language Association of America as referenced by www.aresearcheguide.com, hence I believe it is wrong to state that this is "not in keeping with... the MLA standards, to have a list of books... with page numbers." As per common teaching practice in schools for writing essays... In short: If you read a certain book, and you contribute to this article, even if it's a fact that is not listed, is later removed, or whatever, that book should be listed somehow. (Whether it be on a separate page called September 11, 2001 attacks (section)/Bibliography (because of the possibility of extreme length or incorporated within the article) An added benefit to this bibliography is that if someone read more pages from a book or resource then the bibliography could be updated to reflect the information that was already read. This in turn will help editors determine if the information they want to include may not have already been included, removed or discussed for removal. Hence this method could help reduce possible conflicts. --CyclePat (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a substantial change from what our guidelines request, or suggest is necessary. You might want to bring it up there, instead. --Haemo (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haemo, We may be correct regarding the original request (ie.: alphabetical order, bibliography, references, vs work cited, etc...) On the secondary issues (ie.: the page number in the references) this issue is fairly well documented in our wikipedia policies or guidelines. Thank you for the advice on bringing some of these issues (perhaps one of them) to the "guidleines request". --CyclePat (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers in the references seem necessary (although the tag would not be near where the work would need to be done.) Page numbers in lists of reference works (you've redefined "bibliography" since I wrote my comment about it) are clearly inappropriate. And your definition of "bibliography" is impossible for a Wikipedia article, as most editors don't keep track of their sources for background information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, your definition of "bibliography" is impossible in the academic context, as well. NO ONE lists all the books they use for background information on an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you read a certain book, and you contribute to this article, ... that book should be listed somehow." is not sensible in any context that I can think of. If that's a quote from the MLA, we may need to consider rejecting more of their recommendations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arthur, it appears as though we are both on the defensive. This is understandable given the fact that our recent statements are contradictory. Now that I think about it, I must agree with you in part. Take a look at the various definitions of bibliography. None of them are quite consistent asides from the fact that a bibliography is a list of sources. However, it is important to find an authorative source. Yes! Some may argue that a bibliography is "The list of works cited by an author..." (at type of work cited) and others may say the opposite. The opposite is supported by the fact that it can be defined as "a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production." (bibliography)

Obviously, I believe in the later, since my school of thought has been that a bibliography is "related in some way" with all the information that has been consulted or is the "list of sources used in the preparation of academic work." Hence adding the page numbers of the pages consulted would not be out of line. Furthermore, I would like to point out, that this is not my "Strange idea of a bibliography" but one which, if I clearly remember, was advocated and thought through school. (i.e: Telling us to place the various chapters or page numbers which we have read in alphabetical order... and also having a work cited with specific passage cited.)

The template I placed in the article earlier Template:Pagenumbers, was placed above the book section. This template in of itself substantiates this idea requiring page numbers but do take a look at the bold text above. This point, I believe we agree upon. Correct? In short: For the books section we should place the pages that where consulted. For the work cited (or references as we now have), I believe, where applicable we must place the specific page number of the citation. (Where applicable (This appears to be supported by [MLA].)(I'm going to buy the book! And I'll get back to you with an official authorative answer on that though) Finally, again, for the Bibliography we place the pages consulted, because that's the way it's always been done for essays and my recommendations may be inferred through the previously mentioned sources as well as the information on what a "bibliography is" found through MLA.org with their example of the MLA International bibliography.) --CyclePat (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe the books section should contain those chapters or sections believed to be relevant, rather than those actually consulted. (Page numbers may depend on the format (hardcover, paperback, "trade paperback", etc.), which most editors will forget to record.) After all, one may have to read through a book to find the relevant sections. I still say that those sections of a work read or even read while researching the article are not appropriate for inclusion. I would note also that our < ref> templates do not seem to allow placing the references in alphabetical, or even in "first reference" order if you consider the ref name= options. A "bibliography", in the sense of sections read, is not appropriate in the case of multiple editors who may be loons less rational than ourselves. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a sad commentary on our recent debates that I find this section more intresting to read than the entirity of the previous few months? --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it's about improving the article, which is a surprising and welcome change. --Golbez (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It's the wrong venue, though, although I'm not entirely sure where the right venue is.... WT:CITE? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:CITE is the most relevant guideline, I believe. This is a MOS change which goes way further than what we, as editors of a single page, have the authority to implement. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart of NPOV (3)

POV

I have added a POV tag. There has been an ongoing dispute since it's start, and it's an obvious rule violation that it has been removed wihout having that incredibly long, continuing, multiple independent user and heated dispute settled in a fashion that would end the constant feeding the archive. --Striver - talk 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"there is no legitimate dispute here" ?

05:13, 17 February 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (185,122 bytes) (revert. there is no legitimate dispute here)

That's a very "interesting" viewpoint, ICBeer: now, after 3 weeks of discussing, it appears there is not even consensus on whether there is a dispute here. The article is (admittedly so) representing a single view, and not neutral. We are discussing on how to resolve this. Please note that I only placed the POV category on the talk page, not in the article, where it belongs, in order to avoid an unfruitful edit war over that. I would appreciate it when the tag stays on the talk page. I feel very sad that it was removed, because I would like to see wikipedia as a collaborative effort. Were you feeling frustrated by this ongoing discussion?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

When I say legitimate dispute, I mean that arguments from both sides of the dispute are made using policy. In this case, the folks who would like conspiracy language added to the article are ignoring the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that including facts which reliable sources reported on in 2001, but are not reporting anymore, would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT? I disagree, it is not that simple. Equitable treatment of a minority point of view, albeit just mentioning some facts, can hardly amount to 0%. How many facts would you deem equitable? The current article seems to have 196 references in accordance with narrative A. Does that leave room for inclusion of a view facts which neutralize the A-bias in the article?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Narrative A = Factual. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ice, Okie: That is your opinion. It may well be correct. And you are entitled to it. But pushing your opinion as factual is the definition of POV, when there exists a significant minority view. So, even when you are correct about it, you are violating NEUTRAL. See?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. "Narrative A" is the only one supported by reliable sources. I don't care if 80% of people believe something — it's useless here without documentation. You are misunderstanding notability, and most Wikipedia policy, for that matter. The fact alone that many people believe something does not mean we give it the same level of respect as sourced material. We cover it as a social phenomenon, not plausible fact, which is what the conspiracy section and article are about. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

video link for inclusion

I noticed the following link was added and removed, I put it here for discussion:

• Comprehensive coverage of the 9/11 attacks

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That description is hardly representative. The video, titled "Rise and Shine" (notably not "Comprehensive coverage of the 9/11 attacks") is accompanied by the following note left by the poster of the video:

"An ever growing number of people around the world are starting to see the blindingly obvious - Big Brother is riding into town on the back of 'Terrorism'."

Very NPOV. And then there are the first words which come out of the narrator's mouth:

"The notion of a U.S. war on terrorism is simply a fraud. There is no war on terrorism. The anglo-americans are backing terrorists exactly when and where it suits them..."

A conspiracy theorist rant which is not even primarily related to the 9/11 attacks is unpresentable. A rant misleadingly labeled as something else is completely unacceptable. This video has no place on this page. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also external linking guidelines; how is a link to someone's YouTube channel an encyclopedic purpose which contains "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail"? It's a channel; it contains a dynamic list of the videos they think are interesting. Why is this channel special, important, or encyclopedic? --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

attempted summary / Heart of NPOV (4)

Note

: Please add further comments outside the archived bit, if necessary.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)