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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Hi there, I will be reviewing this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and for such a long and potentially contentious article I will be doing it as part of a multi stage review. I have read through the article once, and I think its very good but still has one or two minor issues to be addressed. I will list below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I will also append a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.
Should the contributors disagree with any of my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. If something I raise has been discussed and agreed upon on this talk page in the past then please mention it as I do not have time to read though all 41 archives. Once the review is finished (and it may take a couple of days to complete), the contributors will have seven days to effect changes to the article, although further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems. As long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.
I am aware that my standards at GA Review are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally or maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here.
(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)
Additional point: Please add something on the international range of the victims to the main body of the article because at the moment it only appears in the lead.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
I will continue the review from where I left off soon, meanwhile you can be getting on with the above. Good work so far.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm dissapointed that the discussion on the FBI has been archived before resolution. The reason given was POV and the only reply to the editors questions was Synth and OR.
Quote: "Not sure what "Team Liberty" is or where they get their info, but the FBI itself states evidence linking bin Laden and 9/11 is clear and irrefutable. And you can't dismiss mutiple video confessions as "false" without some serious citations. I consider this matter closed."
1. The statement is accurate and is an official response by the FBI to the question of Bin Ladens involvement, there are reliable sources that repeat it (it's unfortunate he used a questionable one). 2. The source you provided to refute it does say that, but that is all it says...it provides no proof to back the claim and is a political response. 3. You cannot assume the video confessions are authentic as they are disputed so are not reliable as evidence. 4. YOU consider the matter closed? By what authority?
Regardless of whether the editor is a proponent of conspiracies or not he asked a relevant question in good faith and deserves an intelligent answer as to why it should not be mentioned which I can give him now: the statement is already in another 9/11 article (unless some POV warrior has deleted it there) and as the FBI opinion is only one of many it is not really relevant here as responsibility is only a minor part of this topic because it has it's own article. Please be careful when dismissing people who support conspiracies as you only feed them by over the top censorship and especially when false reasons for rejection are given.
Wayne (
talk)
17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This issue and other issues have already been covered again and again and again and again. Including discussions in which you participated in. Stop pretending to be some mediator in the middle, because your few contributions add little meaningful content to improving this article. Per this discussion, I have taken it upon myself to quickly archive any discussions that are merely repeats after I give a sufficient answer. If you think this is POV pushing or the arbcom decision and enforcement goes "too far", you're free to get a second opinion. -- VegitaU ( talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's add this image.
-- Ilhanli ( talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The article states "The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman declaring that it was the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere.""
In fact the attacks were not entirely consistent with the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere." The attacks were in fact more consistent with the overall mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, as set out in a 2000 fatwa issued by Jeb Bush and cronies (under whose watch the hijackers trained) declaring that "a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring "the process of transformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingingSenator ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states "The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman declaring that it was the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere.""
In fact the attacks were not entirely consistent with the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere." The attacks were in fact more consistent with the overall mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, as set out in a 2000 fatwa issued by Jeb Bush and cronies (under whose watch the hijackers trained) declaring that "a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring "the process of transformation". SingingSenator ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work, I've looked at all the relevant points above and will now read through the article again just to make sure. Anything I come up with I will list below this, but it is unlikely that any of the comments raised will hold up the GA nomination, they're just for future reference.
None of these problems are significant enough to warrant any further delay of GA status. Congratulations, this is a well-written and properly sourced article on a hugely controversial and contentious issue that must have been a real challenge to maintain partly due to the sheer volume of information that could be added. Good luck working on the sub-articles and if you need any more input just drop me a line. Regards -- Jackyd101 ( talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Congrats | ||
Moldy sandwiches for all! Thanks to everyone's help in achieving Good Article status! VegitaU ( talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
The section on the cause of this building's collapse references a preliminary report. The findings in this report are presented in a way that is much more definite than the report says we can be. -- RadioElectric ( talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of good work is being done to format the references, add page numbers, etc. But, I am concerned about book references being replaced. If page numbers are needed, I can help with that. In general, books written by experts such as Yosri Fouda, Peter Bergen, Lawrence Wright, Terry McDermott, etc. are higher quality than news articles, provide more depth, more fact-checking, with more expertise going into them. Yosri Fouda's book, for example, is the best reference for citing about the interview Fouda did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. This part of the interview is also included in his documentary on the attacks - طريق إلى 11 سبتمبر (Road to September 11th). I think that something is being lost by taking these out. -- Aude ( talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I took out the following, which was in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed section. Although Lawrence Wright's book is an excellent source (and I have the page number), I think this sentence is overly detailed.
Simply saying "Mohamed Atta shared this same motivation." with one sentence to back that up is sufficient. I also swapped the sources for that, back to what was there before. What I put back is more specific (mentioning Israel) and goes with what the paragraph says about KSM. I realize the MSNBC TV documentary is not as widely available, but I still think it's best for now. -- Aude ( talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What appears missing from many sources is a possible 'drug connection' to 9-11, even as part of a conspiracy theory ?
As Canadian troops, have found that Afghanistan is providing over 80% of the world's opium supply. [1]
Could it be that the attack on 'America' was in part due to America's war on drugs, and or elements intercepting drug shipments to America ?
Seems that the logic of the situation merits some reference to this.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats the problem. No source. It was not ever mentioned that Afghanistan was the world's greatest Opium producer, all the talk was about oil.
Even though much of the conjecture was about oil, never was a drug connection mentioned.
Just last week the Canadian Foreign Minister was showcased on the CBC dating the former wife of a Drug Dealer.
So is there a connection ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I look at the current "motives" for the attack and I don't see any logical motives ?
It is only conjecture, but if some part of the US establishment is interfering in your illegal activity, who are you going to report this to ?
There was a movie to this effect some years ago.
Seems like the other 'suggestions' in the thread are pure conjecture as well....
Just asking for a logical explanation to why "they' did what 'they' did...so far very little there that makes logical sense ?
Just asking for a logical explanation.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Taliban Drug Connection Terroist link
Somehow a previous link has not shown up, but here is another.
Some truths no one wants printed ?
I will respond to your question on my talk page, as I see an ambush approaching...( it is hoped that this will serve as a model for future cases)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this article mention the PBS special Frontline, that came to the conclusion that the Bush whitehouse needed something to invade Iraq, and built "Al-Quida", when in fact this was suppose to be about Bin Ladin...and whatever ?
(Just a quick note about a movie, anyone know the name that outlines how a 'special agent force' used Air forces to attack a drug cartel in Columbia, with the intent of making it appear like a drug war ?)
VegitaU what are your qualification about this issue ?
Anyway, I will leave this issue for now.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion should be in the template talk page, I know, but since few, if any, editors check it compared to this article (and since it affects all 9/11-related matter), I'll post it here. Is anyone else really put-off by that sidebar? It just clogs up one end of the article, moves everything out of its way, and prevents any right-sided images. So, if you want your article to be full of pictures, you have to jam them all in on the left side.
This isn't just a rant, however. A problem like this can be easily fixed, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in template syntax to do it. Editors should be able to choose what kind of format they want, vertical or horizontal. Something like {{{{ifeq:}}|horizontal=yes}} (this is just a guesstimate example) added to the template code would allow the template to be displayed horizontally along the bottom, much like the 9/11 hijackers template. And the damn thing should be able to hide in horizontal (not vertical) mode. Then, we could add a variety of images on both sides of the article.
BTW, this complaint arises from the Flight 11 page and its crowded right side. Can anyone help me with this? -- VegitaU ( talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please add reliable sources. Many of the sources have sided arguments. The sources should be from "neutral" organizations according to Wikipedia Policies. Don't you question the sources?-- Ilhanli ( talk) 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope I'm putting this discussion in the appropriate place on the page. If not, feel free to move it. Anyway, VegitaU and I disagree on a point and I wanted to see what others think. In the memorial section, there is a quotation. I like the version of the quotation that includes the name of the person that said it:
VegitaU prefers the version with no attribution:
The reason I like the first one better is that (1) I don't like it when people quote me without using my name. (I've had this happen.) I'm sure Mark Sigmund wouldn't like it either (2) If I were writing an essay or report, I would prefer to have the name of the person who said the quote and I would prefer to have the full quotation so that I could change it to suit my essay.
I just dislike anonymous quotes, because Wikipedia has an anonymous quote and then someone else quotes Wikipedia and someone else quotes that and pretty soon no one knows how to find out who originally said the quote. When I look up a quote on a Web site and it says, "anonymous" that bugs me.
But if most people agree with VegitaU, I will go along with that, because I believe in consensus. What do you guys think? Maurajbo ( talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There's been a rename suggestion made on
Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Requested_move_2.
Cordially,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was my edit taken out ( diff)? Also, what does CT mean? Please use clear, well-recognized acronyms if you're going to use acronyms in an edit summary. Please respond or I will revert. ImpIn | ( t - c) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Then we can note those papers as well. However, the paper I put in was done by an academic (Poteshman) in the field of business. It says that there was unusual activity. This is not the FBI's field; it is this academic's field. This stuff deserves to be mentioned in the article under motivations. It seems that both of you are entirely set in your opinion. Do you want me to open a RfC? Further, it seems that the NR paper outlining the 9/11 Commission's findings provides a very good balance to Poteshman's paper, showing that there was no insider trading. ImpIn | ( t - c) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's still a theorized motivation published in a RS by an author who has published at least 39 papers in finance. It doesn't matter if it has been contradicted; both will balance each other. Plus, it's not a "conspiracy" claim, unless by conspiracy you mean the general conspiracy by the terrorists to commit the action (which, technically, was a conspiracy, but is discussed in "responsibility", a strange name). ImpIn | ( t - c) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That was no discussion. That was a statement by one person -- I clearly see relevance to this article. If something has been claimed by a RS, and there is a subsequent debunking, it makes more sense to include both. Encyclopedias are here to record information. What surprises me is that you don't realize that by immediately settling the question of insider trading in the main article, you would actually decrease interest in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't take issue with the "conspiracy theory" label, which is well-accepted, but I don't like the "responsibility" title much (vague), and I don't think that insider trading can be categorized as "conspiracy theory" rather than "responsibility". The author of this paper clearly targets the terrorists as the ones trading. Do you dispute that? I do wonder why Poteshman didn't mention the work done by the government, however. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No. The claims of unusual options activity have been confirmed by researchers in finance. The connection of this activity to the terrorists (or other parties) has been dismissed. Two separate things. However, it's not worth battling over; I see it is covered at the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
RxS, you don't seem to understand that one RS does not immediately silence another RS, especially when each is equally (or uniquely) qualified to make claims. ImpIn | ( t - c) 09:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone's heard of a lot of false information about 9/11. This is the place for factual information. No insider trading. -- VegitaU ( talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the wake of the attacks there was widespread speculation about everything. Now, seven years later, we have definitive answers to almost all that speculation and we've written those answers here and cited them. Speculation may be encyclopedic, but it doesn't go here where only factual cited information is written. Like I said above, you can put this in another subarticle about the attacks to your liking, but not here where we state cited facts. -- VegitaU ( talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The insider trading issue has NEVER been disproved, only the connection of the trading to al Qaeda has. The conclusion from the 911 commission:"Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that he is initiating an investigation of the insider trading that took place leading up to 9/11, particularly in regards to put options placed on American Airlines and United Airlines stock."
February 22, 2008.
I personally believe that the article states that the only possible explanation for the atttacks is that Al-Qeuda and Usama Bin Laden carried it out. However, there has been sufficient evidence that they were not involved.
I'm not saying it should be completely changed, all I ask is that the beginning of the article state that it is "Believed to have been commited by Usama Bin Laden and Al-Queda".
- User:Magicman710 —Preceding comment was added at 04:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I'm planning to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon. Being a huge article on such a major event, it'll probably take over a month to get through and will undoubtedly run into opposition. If you have any concerns, please address them now. Also, when an opposing point comes up on the FA-review board, please address it immediately if I'm not around. Thanks.
In other news, American Airlines Flight 11 was recently nominated for FA and American Airlines Flight 77 is up right now for review. -- VegitaU ( talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the article needs to state how many living people were pulled from the rubble after the buildings' collapse. The article Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11, 2001 attacks makes the curious statement that 11 people were rescued from the rubble on September 12, but the cited source is a televised Larry King show, and it isn't stated how many were rescued from the rubble on September 11. (I presume it was 0 people on September 13 and afterwards.)
If anyone could find this data with a citable source, then I'd appreciate it being added to the "Rescue and recovery" section, which currently doesn't actually discuss the level of success of the rescue and recovery. Tempshill ( talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that we are moving forward with improving 9/11 topic articles, I have setup a new WikiProject to allow us to coordinate things and help each other. I think that might help. -- Aude ( talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There is content in "Collapse of the World Trade Center" that appears to merit either substantial modification or complete removal from this article. For example, the article section states in relevant part:
These and other items included in this section of the article appear to be inconsistent with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. None of the references cited provide details either "confirming" or "concluding" facts or evidence in question in this article subsection. None of the references demonstrate that any prospective reports will include observations based on direct examination. There is mention of "working hypotheses" and "computer models":
"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires [...] that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
Additionally, the references cited assert the validity of these hypotheses as being responsive to unofficial conspiracy theorists, but this article is not about those non-official conspiracy theorist accounts. There's already a separate article for that.
Consequently, because this section: 1) asserts items not directly supported by the references; 2) contains assertions that are forward-looking and prospective; and 3) casts forward-looking interpretations in a light not consistent with the references used for support; it would seem appropriate that this content be removed from the article unless and until someone can address these deficiencies. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The official government report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is a notable event almost certain to take place
---
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Everything has been cited. Doesn't matter what you think is a valid source or not, these are cited facts. -- VegitaU ( talk) 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Edkollin, you were sorta close to what I was "getting at", but there's one very important qualification. As you know, personal opinions of "suckiness" really don't mean squat and don't belong in WP articles. What does belong, however, is a balanced, NPOV, and reliable representation of what appears in cited references to the extent relevant to the article.
Nowhere in the article is there any mention of the "uniqueness" of the study methodologies here, even though such mention is included in the cited reference.
We see referenced here a purportedly forensic analysis that doesn't even include the inspection of physical evidence. ... Regardless of whether you or I think that "sucks" ... the fact that such approach is not only unique, but cited in the reference as "perhaps historic" ... it seems amazing that a balanced and neutral reading of the cited source would permit such a detail to be entirely omitted from this article. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 15:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Alvin Hellerstein, on July 7, 2008 ruling is the biggest thing ever since 9/11. It is so notable and controversial, since it put to the trash the memories of those who lived and suffered. nysun.com, Judge Rules for City on Search for September 11 Victim Remains bbc.co.uk, Judge rejects 9/11 burial claimsThese links or reference show the grief untold.-- Florentino floro ( talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This article currently begins with a phrase reading in part: "..suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." I would like to change this to read "suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon targets inside the United States." The former phrasing assumes and foregrounds America as a cohesive entity which can be "attacked" rather than a complex and shifting arrangement of discourses, alliances, values, and people characterized by diversity and contestation. Also, the former phrasing doesn't differentiate between America as a nation-state (polity) and America as a socio-cultural entity. I think this is a mistake because it claims coevality between the state (system of government) and its citizens, and it also serves to mystify the attacks by removing them from their political context rooted in specific conditions. I believe the suggested revision offers a more accurate and balanced description of the attacks. What do you think?
Lllbllll ( talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)lllbllll, 07-11-2008 Lllbllll ( talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree I think the notion of "The United States" needs to be problematized by making that statement more specific and balanced. Bin Laden certainly attacked an "idea" of America, not merely structures, but saying an "attack upon the United States" suggests it actually exists as a stable, consensual whole. "Attack upon targets" foregrounds the acts as political and directed at the government / institutions of power (global capital industries) rather than an ill-defined and ostensibly unified populace. Lllbllll ( talk) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarification I think I need to restate my argument a bit. What I'm trying to say is that if there were an attack upon the Toledo, OH courthouse, it wouldn't be considered an "attack upon Ohio." Saying that it does suggests that everyone in Ohio considers themselves an "Ohioian" and smudges over diversity and disagreement and the divisions within a culture. It incorportates them into an ideology without their consent. If Bin Laden had attacked just the Pentagon, would it have been an "attack on America?" What if a plane crashed into a local library? I'm just suggesting that the idea of WTC = America is a mystification that conceals the natural fissures within America and serves the status quo. Lllbllll ( talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me theological question of justification is one we don't need to answer here and now. The stated motivation for the attacks was the actions of the US government; the means was to strike against military, economic, and government institutions within the US; and the immediate effect of the attack was damage to buildings and loss of citizens and military personnel (all US except for a minority of the civilians). The question is how best to represent that information briefly and concisely in the lead. Perhaps "against the US" does over-simplify, but at least it does encompass all of the above, and more specific information is provided later in the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
A country is more than it's government, particularly a country that, at least formally, is a democracy. The World Trade Center was not attacked because of an accident of geography. Seven years later the hysteria over the World Trade Center has yet to die down - no-one anywhere on the planet thinks of it as just another office building. It was highly symbolic of the US and US corporations, which run the US government and determine US foreign policy. Peter Grey ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The most airtight phrase to avoid any hint of OR and POV would say that it was an attack in the United States or East Coast of the U.S. This is merely descriptive. "Upon" is a judgement that the intented effect of the attack was against the U.S. Such statement would be better later in the article if there is discussion about the motives of bin Laden (which would need references / we know bin Laden did it and he hates the U.S. but any mention needs references) Presumptive ( talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, the United States has been in a Cold War with the USSR empire since 1945. The Russians have SS-20 rockets, which can fly over US territory and carry atomic warheads. It is well known that the USA has a semi-automated defence against this. Now, the Russians do not equipe their rockets with transponders. It follows that objects without transponder can still be detected by the military. I feel the article should address the issue how Civilian airliners would have been able to evade detection and interception for 50 minutes after the first building was ever hit. It should also take into account the testimony of your Minister of Transport to the 9/11 Commission, who overheard your Vice President being updated on the progress of an airliner prior to the destruction of the Pentagon.
Greetings from Holland, and thanks for this great project, I like it! Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The preceding post was actually made by Da monster under your bed ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone explain why the use of the word terrorist, is acceptable in this article? I only ask this as I have been editing a few Northern Ireland/Ireland/IRA related articles, and it seemed to be the case that the use of the word terrorist was frowned upon. Are there some boxes that need to be ticked before using the word? Sennen goroshi ( talk) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is the FAQ? I see no FAQ.. also if there has been some form of consensus regarding the word in question, can you link me to it, I can't be bothered with 10 plus pages of archives Sennen goroshi ( talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan."
Cool it, guys I think someone's about to violate a 3RR -- VegitaU ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
there does not seem to be consensus either way, I hope we get a little more input on this talk page, so I can stop caring about this article. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the most famous terrorist attack in history. Why are we debating this (again)? Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The term "terrorist" has a defined meaning. Anyone who meets that definition is a terrorist. If an editor can cite a reliable source for each fact necessary to support the contention that a particular person fits that definition, then the editor is entitled to identify that person as a terrorist. Nobody has any business changing that identification without first showing that one or more of the necessary facts is not supported by a reliable source. The fact that people aren't comfortable with the use of a certain term in a certain context is not relevant. Thefactis ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict:
That is absurd, I am not putting forward any original research, I am not making any claims that require verification or reliable sources and as for civility, if you are offended by the words I have used, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#CENSOR
All I am suggesting is that non-leading terms are used, in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fightereditors on other articles have no problem with refraining from using the term terrorist, is this article so sacred that you choose to ignore NPOV? Sennen goroshi ( talk) 06:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me just remind everyone that consensus can change. Also, I've looked through the archives and the following discussions have come up (bolded the last as it came to a lengthy discussion and vote):
Discussions | Conclusion | Consensus? |
---|---|---|
First | Continue using terrorist | No |
Second | Continue using terrorist | No |
Third | Continue using terrorist | Poor |
Fourth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Fifth | Continue using terrorist | No |
Sixth | Ongoing... | No |
Seventh | Ongoing... | No |
Eight | Ongoing... | No |
Ninth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Tenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Eleventh | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Twelfth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Thirteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Fourteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Fifteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Sixteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
I'm done researching. There are plenty more discussions on this topic and I'm willing to bet they all arrived at the conclusion that, although "terrorist" is a word to be avoided, it cannot be totally abolished in circumstances like these. -- VegitaU ( talk) 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi wrote: "I agree with you that... those in the article fit that definition - however they also fit the definition of "freedom fighter" and "martyr" ..."
They can't be martyrs, because martyrs don't commit suicide. And how do you figure they fit the definition of freedom fighters? Whose freedom were they fighting for?
Sennen goroshi wrote: "...we should not be using terms that imply anything, we should be using purely factual terms..."
Quite a task, as most words carry some connotations.
Sennen goroshi wrote: "...depending on your location/beliefs Nelson Mandela and George Washington could easily fit the definition of terrorist..."
Can you identify a terrorist act by Washington? Also, if everything is relative then why strive to be factual?
Sennen goroshi wrote: "...sheer numbers do not make consensus ..."
Maybe so, but what does? Thefactis ( talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
My arguments are weak? are you joking? I have quoted wikipedia guidelines that are specifically against the use of the word terrorism, I have made it clear that other 9/11 related articles do not use the term, and I have pointed out the obvious - ie. the word terrorist is POV and leading. My arguments have been flawless. I see no reason why I should not revert the article - if someone does not agree with me, then they are welcome to take it to the village pump, or wherever they wish. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 05:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the word terrorist could be used, but in the proper context. That is, person X or government X calls person Y or group Y terrorist. Anything less seems unencyclopedic. Slipgrid ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand here can we pull it back a little, can editors please not start pulling diffs out about you said this and you said that and accusing editors of having a POV. IMO no editor is trying to say that these men weren't terrorists using the dictionary definition of the word. But still the fact remains that terrorist is used when hijacker could easily replace it and loose nothing from the article. BigDunc Talk 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No VegitaU, it does not matter if mainstream, reliable sources call these guys "terrorists," what matters is if they verify that these guys fit the definition of the word. If reliable sources verify each element of the definition, the word is appropriate whether not the sources use that word. To illustrate, think of the word "servant." If reliable sources verify that a certain actor pays someone to live in his house, pick up after him, drive him around, and generally do his bidding, could anyone reasonably object to the use of the word "servant" in a Wiki article on the grounds that the sources hadn't used it? Of course not. The facts shown in the reliable sources verify that this employee is a servant, whether or not those sources use the term. It's the same way with the word "terrorist." Thefactis ( talk) 11:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Who has the final authority when it comes to this article? Surely, the entire thing cannot go without any mention of alternative theories. Have alternative theories made NO progress as far as consideration in the wording goes? For it to be considered neutral, as just a passerby, I would expect there to be a little less certainty and definitiveness in the wording, especially in the first few sentences. Phrases like "thought to have been" and "believed to be" could really go a long way. The way it is now is far from neutral and far from encyclopedic. Jiminezwaldorf ( talk) 06:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like a decision made on what to do about some possible information added. I cloaked it because it was improperly formatted and read too much like an essay, but I didn't want to delete it outright. What does everyone think? We can't leave it cloaked—too unprofessional. Suggestions? -- VegitaU ( talk) 03:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
from the wiki article on him: Küntzel was a senior advisor of the Federal Parliamentary Fraction of Germany’s Green Party. In 1991, he received his doctorate, summa cum laude, in Political Science at the University of Hamburg. His thesis Bonn & the Bomb. German Politics and the Nuclear Option, London: Pluto Press was in English in 1995. In 2004, he has been named a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since 2001, his main field of research and writing have been anti-Semitism in current Islamic thinking, Islamism, Islamism and National Socialism, Iran, German and European policies towards the Middle East and Iran. Among others, he wrote for The New Republic, the Wall Street Journal and Internationale Politik. In 2006 he became a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
In 2003, he delivered the Keynote Address at the Conference on "Genocide and Terrorism – Probing the Mind of the Perpetrator" at Yale University. In 2004, he was a panelist at the "Lessons & Legacies VIII International Conference on the Holocaust: From Generation to Generation" at Brown University. In 2005, he discovered antisemitic tracts at the Iranian stands at the Frankfurt Book Fair: an incident he wrote about in the Wall Street Journal. He was a panelist at the 2006 Paris conference "Les démocraties face au défi islamiste" (The democracies in the face of the Islamist challenge) organised by the Center for Security Policy and L’institut pour la Défense de la Démocratie. He organized the 1999 conference "Die Goldhagen-Debatte: Bilanz und Perspektiven" (The Goldhagen-Debate: results and perspectives) of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany, with Daniel Goldhagen, Andrei Markovits, Wolfgang Wippermann, Jürgen Elsässer, et al. at Potsdam/Germany. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rosedora (
talk •
contribs)
02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added the POV tag as I feel the use of 'terrorist' is far from neutral and can be changed. BigDunc Talk 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Was there ever consensus on this article? Judging by the amount of people who have removed the term terrorists from the article over the years, who backed up their edits with clear wikipedia guidelines, I would say there has never been true consensus supporting the use of the term terrorists - just a group of editors/admins who are willing to act as meat puppets and use the 3RR to prevent the term terrorists from being removed. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Could Aude please explain why he undid my additions to the motives section. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and not sure of norms. Aren't you supposed to put something on talk page if you undo someone's work? What I put in was footnoted and from reputable source. Are there special rules for this page? -- waldenpond ( talk) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora
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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived per WP:TALK - talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not soapboxing about other editors or the article subject. Euryalus ( talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Who is User_talk:Tom_harrison? Why does he have the power to censor and block access to this important subject matter. Let the reader take note of this concern. User:peterbadgely Peterbadgely ( talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Hi there, I will be reviewing this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and for such a long and potentially contentious article I will be doing it as part of a multi stage review. I have read through the article once, and I think its very good but still has one or two minor issues to be addressed. I will list below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I will also append a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.
Should the contributors disagree with any of my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. If something I raise has been discussed and agreed upon on this talk page in the past then please mention it as I do not have time to read though all 41 archives. Once the review is finished (and it may take a couple of days to complete), the contributors will have seven days to effect changes to the article, although further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems. As long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.
I am aware that my standards at GA Review are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally or maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here.
(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)
Additional point: Please add something on the international range of the victims to the main body of the article because at the moment it only appears in the lead.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
I will continue the review from where I left off soon, meanwhile you can be getting on with the above. Good work so far.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm dissapointed that the discussion on the FBI has been archived before resolution. The reason given was POV and the only reply to the editors questions was Synth and OR.
Quote: "Not sure what "Team Liberty" is or where they get their info, but the FBI itself states evidence linking bin Laden and 9/11 is clear and irrefutable. And you can't dismiss mutiple video confessions as "false" without some serious citations. I consider this matter closed."
1. The statement is accurate and is an official response by the FBI to the question of Bin Ladens involvement, there are reliable sources that repeat it (it's unfortunate he used a questionable one). 2. The source you provided to refute it does say that, but that is all it says...it provides no proof to back the claim and is a political response. 3. You cannot assume the video confessions are authentic as they are disputed so are not reliable as evidence. 4. YOU consider the matter closed? By what authority?
Regardless of whether the editor is a proponent of conspiracies or not he asked a relevant question in good faith and deserves an intelligent answer as to why it should not be mentioned which I can give him now: the statement is already in another 9/11 article (unless some POV warrior has deleted it there) and as the FBI opinion is only one of many it is not really relevant here as responsibility is only a minor part of this topic because it has it's own article. Please be careful when dismissing people who support conspiracies as you only feed them by over the top censorship and especially when false reasons for rejection are given.
Wayne (
talk)
17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This issue and other issues have already been covered again and again and again and again. Including discussions in which you participated in. Stop pretending to be some mediator in the middle, because your few contributions add little meaningful content to improving this article. Per this discussion, I have taken it upon myself to quickly archive any discussions that are merely repeats after I give a sufficient answer. If you think this is POV pushing or the arbcom decision and enforcement goes "too far", you're free to get a second opinion. -- VegitaU ( talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's add this image.
-- Ilhanli ( talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The article states "The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman declaring that it was the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere.""
In fact the attacks were not entirely consistent with the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere." The attacks were in fact more consistent with the overall mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, as set out in a 2000 fatwa issued by Jeb Bush and cronies (under whose watch the hijackers trained) declaring that "a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring "the process of transformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingingSenator ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states "The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman declaring that it was the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere.""
In fact the attacks were not entirely consistent with the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere." The attacks were in fact more consistent with the overall mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, as set out in a 2000 fatwa issued by Jeb Bush and cronies (under whose watch the hijackers trained) declaring that "a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring "the process of transformation". SingingSenator ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work, I've looked at all the relevant points above and will now read through the article again just to make sure. Anything I come up with I will list below this, but it is unlikely that any of the comments raised will hold up the GA nomination, they're just for future reference.
None of these problems are significant enough to warrant any further delay of GA status. Congratulations, this is a well-written and properly sourced article on a hugely controversial and contentious issue that must have been a real challenge to maintain partly due to the sheer volume of information that could be added. Good luck working on the sub-articles and if you need any more input just drop me a line. Regards -- Jackyd101 ( talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Congrats | ||
Moldy sandwiches for all! Thanks to everyone's help in achieving Good Article status! VegitaU ( talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
The section on the cause of this building's collapse references a preliminary report. The findings in this report are presented in a way that is much more definite than the report says we can be. -- RadioElectric ( talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of good work is being done to format the references, add page numbers, etc. But, I am concerned about book references being replaced. If page numbers are needed, I can help with that. In general, books written by experts such as Yosri Fouda, Peter Bergen, Lawrence Wright, Terry McDermott, etc. are higher quality than news articles, provide more depth, more fact-checking, with more expertise going into them. Yosri Fouda's book, for example, is the best reference for citing about the interview Fouda did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. This part of the interview is also included in his documentary on the attacks - طريق إلى 11 سبتمبر (Road to September 11th). I think that something is being lost by taking these out. -- Aude ( talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I took out the following, which was in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed section. Although Lawrence Wright's book is an excellent source (and I have the page number), I think this sentence is overly detailed.
Simply saying "Mohamed Atta shared this same motivation." with one sentence to back that up is sufficient. I also swapped the sources for that, back to what was there before. What I put back is more specific (mentioning Israel) and goes with what the paragraph says about KSM. I realize the MSNBC TV documentary is not as widely available, but I still think it's best for now. -- Aude ( talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What appears missing from many sources is a possible 'drug connection' to 9-11, even as part of a conspiracy theory ?
As Canadian troops, have found that Afghanistan is providing over 80% of the world's opium supply. [1]
Could it be that the attack on 'America' was in part due to America's war on drugs, and or elements intercepting drug shipments to America ?
Seems that the logic of the situation merits some reference to this.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats the problem. No source. It was not ever mentioned that Afghanistan was the world's greatest Opium producer, all the talk was about oil.
Even though much of the conjecture was about oil, never was a drug connection mentioned.
Just last week the Canadian Foreign Minister was showcased on the CBC dating the former wife of a Drug Dealer.
So is there a connection ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I look at the current "motives" for the attack and I don't see any logical motives ?
It is only conjecture, but if some part of the US establishment is interfering in your illegal activity, who are you going to report this to ?
There was a movie to this effect some years ago.
Seems like the other 'suggestions' in the thread are pure conjecture as well....
Just asking for a logical explanation to why "they' did what 'they' did...so far very little there that makes logical sense ?
Just asking for a logical explanation.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Taliban Drug Connection Terroist link
Somehow a previous link has not shown up, but here is another.
Some truths no one wants printed ?
I will respond to your question on my talk page, as I see an ambush approaching...( it is hoped that this will serve as a model for future cases)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this article mention the PBS special Frontline, that came to the conclusion that the Bush whitehouse needed something to invade Iraq, and built "Al-Quida", when in fact this was suppose to be about Bin Ladin...and whatever ?
(Just a quick note about a movie, anyone know the name that outlines how a 'special agent force' used Air forces to attack a drug cartel in Columbia, with the intent of making it appear like a drug war ?)
VegitaU what are your qualification about this issue ?
Anyway, I will leave this issue for now.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion should be in the template talk page, I know, but since few, if any, editors check it compared to this article (and since it affects all 9/11-related matter), I'll post it here. Is anyone else really put-off by that sidebar? It just clogs up one end of the article, moves everything out of its way, and prevents any right-sided images. So, if you want your article to be full of pictures, you have to jam them all in on the left side.
This isn't just a rant, however. A problem like this can be easily fixed, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in template syntax to do it. Editors should be able to choose what kind of format they want, vertical or horizontal. Something like {{{{ifeq:}}|horizontal=yes}} (this is just a guesstimate example) added to the template code would allow the template to be displayed horizontally along the bottom, much like the 9/11 hijackers template. And the damn thing should be able to hide in horizontal (not vertical) mode. Then, we could add a variety of images on both sides of the article.
BTW, this complaint arises from the Flight 11 page and its crowded right side. Can anyone help me with this? -- VegitaU ( talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please add reliable sources. Many of the sources have sided arguments. The sources should be from "neutral" organizations according to Wikipedia Policies. Don't you question the sources?-- Ilhanli ( talk) 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope I'm putting this discussion in the appropriate place on the page. If not, feel free to move it. Anyway, VegitaU and I disagree on a point and I wanted to see what others think. In the memorial section, there is a quotation. I like the version of the quotation that includes the name of the person that said it:
VegitaU prefers the version with no attribution:
The reason I like the first one better is that (1) I don't like it when people quote me without using my name. (I've had this happen.) I'm sure Mark Sigmund wouldn't like it either (2) If I were writing an essay or report, I would prefer to have the name of the person who said the quote and I would prefer to have the full quotation so that I could change it to suit my essay.
I just dislike anonymous quotes, because Wikipedia has an anonymous quote and then someone else quotes Wikipedia and someone else quotes that and pretty soon no one knows how to find out who originally said the quote. When I look up a quote on a Web site and it says, "anonymous" that bugs me.
But if most people agree with VegitaU, I will go along with that, because I believe in consensus. What do you guys think? Maurajbo ( talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There's been a rename suggestion made on
Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Requested_move_2.
Cordially,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was my edit taken out ( diff)? Also, what does CT mean? Please use clear, well-recognized acronyms if you're going to use acronyms in an edit summary. Please respond or I will revert. ImpIn | ( t - c) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Then we can note those papers as well. However, the paper I put in was done by an academic (Poteshman) in the field of business. It says that there was unusual activity. This is not the FBI's field; it is this academic's field. This stuff deserves to be mentioned in the article under motivations. It seems that both of you are entirely set in your opinion. Do you want me to open a RfC? Further, it seems that the NR paper outlining the 9/11 Commission's findings provides a very good balance to Poteshman's paper, showing that there was no insider trading. ImpIn | ( t - c) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's still a theorized motivation published in a RS by an author who has published at least 39 papers in finance. It doesn't matter if it has been contradicted; both will balance each other. Plus, it's not a "conspiracy" claim, unless by conspiracy you mean the general conspiracy by the terrorists to commit the action (which, technically, was a conspiracy, but is discussed in "responsibility", a strange name). ImpIn | ( t - c) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That was no discussion. That was a statement by one person -- I clearly see relevance to this article. If something has been claimed by a RS, and there is a subsequent debunking, it makes more sense to include both. Encyclopedias are here to record information. What surprises me is that you don't realize that by immediately settling the question of insider trading in the main article, you would actually decrease interest in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't take issue with the "conspiracy theory" label, which is well-accepted, but I don't like the "responsibility" title much (vague), and I don't think that insider trading can be categorized as "conspiracy theory" rather than "responsibility". The author of this paper clearly targets the terrorists as the ones trading. Do you dispute that? I do wonder why Poteshman didn't mention the work done by the government, however. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No. The claims of unusual options activity have been confirmed by researchers in finance. The connection of this activity to the terrorists (or other parties) has been dismissed. Two separate things. However, it's not worth battling over; I see it is covered at the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
RxS, you don't seem to understand that one RS does not immediately silence another RS, especially when each is equally (or uniquely) qualified to make claims. ImpIn | ( t - c) 09:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone's heard of a lot of false information about 9/11. This is the place for factual information. No insider trading. -- VegitaU ( talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the wake of the attacks there was widespread speculation about everything. Now, seven years later, we have definitive answers to almost all that speculation and we've written those answers here and cited them. Speculation may be encyclopedic, but it doesn't go here where only factual cited information is written. Like I said above, you can put this in another subarticle about the attacks to your liking, but not here where we state cited facts. -- VegitaU ( talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The insider trading issue has NEVER been disproved, only the connection of the trading to al Qaeda has. The conclusion from the 911 commission:"Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that he is initiating an investigation of the insider trading that took place leading up to 9/11, particularly in regards to put options placed on American Airlines and United Airlines stock."
February 22, 2008.
I personally believe that the article states that the only possible explanation for the atttacks is that Al-Qeuda and Usama Bin Laden carried it out. However, there has been sufficient evidence that they were not involved.
I'm not saying it should be completely changed, all I ask is that the beginning of the article state that it is "Believed to have been commited by Usama Bin Laden and Al-Queda".
- User:Magicman710 —Preceding comment was added at 04:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I'm planning to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon. Being a huge article on such a major event, it'll probably take over a month to get through and will undoubtedly run into opposition. If you have any concerns, please address them now. Also, when an opposing point comes up on the FA-review board, please address it immediately if I'm not around. Thanks.
In other news, American Airlines Flight 11 was recently nominated for FA and American Airlines Flight 77 is up right now for review. -- VegitaU ( talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the article needs to state how many living people were pulled from the rubble after the buildings' collapse. The article Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11, 2001 attacks makes the curious statement that 11 people were rescued from the rubble on September 12, but the cited source is a televised Larry King show, and it isn't stated how many were rescued from the rubble on September 11. (I presume it was 0 people on September 13 and afterwards.)
If anyone could find this data with a citable source, then I'd appreciate it being added to the "Rescue and recovery" section, which currently doesn't actually discuss the level of success of the rescue and recovery. Tempshill ( talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that we are moving forward with improving 9/11 topic articles, I have setup a new WikiProject to allow us to coordinate things and help each other. I think that might help. -- Aude ( talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There is content in "Collapse of the World Trade Center" that appears to merit either substantial modification or complete removal from this article. For example, the article section states in relevant part:
These and other items included in this section of the article appear to be inconsistent with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. None of the references cited provide details either "confirming" or "concluding" facts or evidence in question in this article subsection. None of the references demonstrate that any prospective reports will include observations based on direct examination. There is mention of "working hypotheses" and "computer models":
"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires [...] that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
Additionally, the references cited assert the validity of these hypotheses as being responsive to unofficial conspiracy theorists, but this article is not about those non-official conspiracy theorist accounts. There's already a separate article for that.
Consequently, because this section: 1) asserts items not directly supported by the references; 2) contains assertions that are forward-looking and prospective; and 3) casts forward-looking interpretations in a light not consistent with the references used for support; it would seem appropriate that this content be removed from the article unless and until someone can address these deficiencies. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The official government report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is a notable event almost certain to take place
---
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Everything has been cited. Doesn't matter what you think is a valid source or not, these are cited facts. -- VegitaU ( talk) 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Edkollin, you were sorta close to what I was "getting at", but there's one very important qualification. As you know, personal opinions of "suckiness" really don't mean squat and don't belong in WP articles. What does belong, however, is a balanced, NPOV, and reliable representation of what appears in cited references to the extent relevant to the article.
Nowhere in the article is there any mention of the "uniqueness" of the study methodologies here, even though such mention is included in the cited reference.
We see referenced here a purportedly forensic analysis that doesn't even include the inspection of physical evidence. ... Regardless of whether you or I think that "sucks" ... the fact that such approach is not only unique, but cited in the reference as "perhaps historic" ... it seems amazing that a balanced and neutral reading of the cited source would permit such a detail to be entirely omitted from this article. dr.ef.tymac ( talk) 15:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Alvin Hellerstein, on July 7, 2008 ruling is the biggest thing ever since 9/11. It is so notable and controversial, since it put to the trash the memories of those who lived and suffered. nysun.com, Judge Rules for City on Search for September 11 Victim Remains bbc.co.uk, Judge rejects 9/11 burial claimsThese links or reference show the grief untold.-- Florentino floro ( talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This article currently begins with a phrase reading in part: "..suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." I would like to change this to read "suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon targets inside the United States." The former phrasing assumes and foregrounds America as a cohesive entity which can be "attacked" rather than a complex and shifting arrangement of discourses, alliances, values, and people characterized by diversity and contestation. Also, the former phrasing doesn't differentiate between America as a nation-state (polity) and America as a socio-cultural entity. I think this is a mistake because it claims coevality between the state (system of government) and its citizens, and it also serves to mystify the attacks by removing them from their political context rooted in specific conditions. I believe the suggested revision offers a more accurate and balanced description of the attacks. What do you think?
Lllbllll ( talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)lllbllll, 07-11-2008 Lllbllll ( talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree I think the notion of "The United States" needs to be problematized by making that statement more specific and balanced. Bin Laden certainly attacked an "idea" of America, not merely structures, but saying an "attack upon the United States" suggests it actually exists as a stable, consensual whole. "Attack upon targets" foregrounds the acts as political and directed at the government / institutions of power (global capital industries) rather than an ill-defined and ostensibly unified populace. Lllbllll ( talk) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarification I think I need to restate my argument a bit. What I'm trying to say is that if there were an attack upon the Toledo, OH courthouse, it wouldn't be considered an "attack upon Ohio." Saying that it does suggests that everyone in Ohio considers themselves an "Ohioian" and smudges over diversity and disagreement and the divisions within a culture. It incorportates them into an ideology without their consent. If Bin Laden had attacked just the Pentagon, would it have been an "attack on America?" What if a plane crashed into a local library? I'm just suggesting that the idea of WTC = America is a mystification that conceals the natural fissures within America and serves the status quo. Lllbllll ( talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me theological question of justification is one we don't need to answer here and now. The stated motivation for the attacks was the actions of the US government; the means was to strike against military, economic, and government institutions within the US; and the immediate effect of the attack was damage to buildings and loss of citizens and military personnel (all US except for a minority of the civilians). The question is how best to represent that information briefly and concisely in the lead. Perhaps "against the US" does over-simplify, but at least it does encompass all of the above, and more specific information is provided later in the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
A country is more than it's government, particularly a country that, at least formally, is a democracy. The World Trade Center was not attacked because of an accident of geography. Seven years later the hysteria over the World Trade Center has yet to die down - no-one anywhere on the planet thinks of it as just another office building. It was highly symbolic of the US and US corporations, which run the US government and determine US foreign policy. Peter Grey ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The most airtight phrase to avoid any hint of OR and POV would say that it was an attack in the United States or East Coast of the U.S. This is merely descriptive. "Upon" is a judgement that the intented effect of the attack was against the U.S. Such statement would be better later in the article if there is discussion about the motives of bin Laden (which would need references / we know bin Laden did it and he hates the U.S. but any mention needs references) Presumptive ( talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, the United States has been in a Cold War with the USSR empire since 1945. The Russians have SS-20 rockets, which can fly over US territory and carry atomic warheads. It is well known that the USA has a semi-automated defence against this. Now, the Russians do not equipe their rockets with transponders. It follows that objects without transponder can still be detected by the military. I feel the article should address the issue how Civilian airliners would have been able to evade detection and interception for 50 minutes after the first building was ever hit. It should also take into account the testimony of your Minister of Transport to the 9/11 Commission, who overheard your Vice President being updated on the progress of an airliner prior to the destruction of the Pentagon.
Greetings from Holland, and thanks for this great project, I like it! Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The preceding post was actually made by Da monster under your bed ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone explain why the use of the word terrorist, is acceptable in this article? I only ask this as I have been editing a few Northern Ireland/Ireland/IRA related articles, and it seemed to be the case that the use of the word terrorist was frowned upon. Are there some boxes that need to be ticked before using the word? Sennen goroshi ( talk) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is the FAQ? I see no FAQ.. also if there has been some form of consensus regarding the word in question, can you link me to it, I can't be bothered with 10 plus pages of archives Sennen goroshi ( talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan."
Cool it, guys I think someone's about to violate a 3RR -- VegitaU ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
there does not seem to be consensus either way, I hope we get a little more input on this talk page, so I can stop caring about this article. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the most famous terrorist attack in history. Why are we debating this (again)? Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The term "terrorist" has a defined meaning. Anyone who meets that definition is a terrorist. If an editor can cite a reliable source for each fact necessary to support the contention that a particular person fits that definition, then the editor is entitled to identify that person as a terrorist. Nobody has any business changing that identification without first showing that one or more of the necessary facts is not supported by a reliable source. The fact that people aren't comfortable with the use of a certain term in a certain context is not relevant. Thefactis ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict:
That is absurd, I am not putting forward any original research, I am not making any claims that require verification or reliable sources and as for civility, if you are offended by the words I have used, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#CENSOR
All I am suggesting is that non-leading terms are used, in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fightereditors on other articles have no problem with refraining from using the term terrorist, is this article so sacred that you choose to ignore NPOV? Sennen goroshi ( talk) 06:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me just remind everyone that consensus can change. Also, I've looked through the archives and the following discussions have come up (bolded the last as it came to a lengthy discussion and vote):
Discussions | Conclusion | Consensus? |
---|---|---|
First | Continue using terrorist | No |
Second | Continue using terrorist | No |
Third | Continue using terrorist | Poor |
Fourth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Fifth | Continue using terrorist | No |
Sixth | Ongoing... | No |
Seventh | Ongoing... | No |
Eight | Ongoing... | No |
Ninth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Tenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Eleventh | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Twelfth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Thirteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Fourteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Fifteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
Sixteenth | Continue using terrorist | Yes |
I'm done researching. There are plenty more discussions on this topic and I'm willing to bet they all arrived at the conclusion that, although "terrorist" is a word to be avoided, it cannot be totally abolished in circumstances like these. -- VegitaU ( talk) 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi wrote: "I agree with you that... those in the article fit that definition - however they also fit the definition of "freedom fighter" and "martyr" ..."
They can't be martyrs, because martyrs don't commit suicide. And how do you figure they fit the definition of freedom fighters? Whose freedom were they fighting for?
Sennen goroshi wrote: "...we should not be using terms that imply anything, we should be using purely factual terms..."
Quite a task, as most words carry some connotations.
Sennen goroshi wrote: "...depending on your location/beliefs Nelson Mandela and George Washington could easily fit the definition of terrorist..."
Can you identify a terrorist act by Washington? Also, if everything is relative then why strive to be factual?
Sennen goroshi wrote: "...sheer numbers do not make consensus ..."
Maybe so, but what does? Thefactis ( talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
My arguments are weak? are you joking? I have quoted wikipedia guidelines that are specifically against the use of the word terrorism, I have made it clear that other 9/11 related articles do not use the term, and I have pointed out the obvious - ie. the word terrorist is POV and leading. My arguments have been flawless. I see no reason why I should not revert the article - if someone does not agree with me, then they are welcome to take it to the village pump, or wherever they wish. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 05:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the word terrorist could be used, but in the proper context. That is, person X or government X calls person Y or group Y terrorist. Anything less seems unencyclopedic. Slipgrid ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand here can we pull it back a little, can editors please not start pulling diffs out about you said this and you said that and accusing editors of having a POV. IMO no editor is trying to say that these men weren't terrorists using the dictionary definition of the word. But still the fact remains that terrorist is used when hijacker could easily replace it and loose nothing from the article. BigDunc Talk 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No VegitaU, it does not matter if mainstream, reliable sources call these guys "terrorists," what matters is if they verify that these guys fit the definition of the word. If reliable sources verify each element of the definition, the word is appropriate whether not the sources use that word. To illustrate, think of the word "servant." If reliable sources verify that a certain actor pays someone to live in his house, pick up after him, drive him around, and generally do his bidding, could anyone reasonably object to the use of the word "servant" in a Wiki article on the grounds that the sources hadn't used it? Of course not. The facts shown in the reliable sources verify that this employee is a servant, whether or not those sources use the term. It's the same way with the word "terrorist." Thefactis ( talk) 11:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Who has the final authority when it comes to this article? Surely, the entire thing cannot go without any mention of alternative theories. Have alternative theories made NO progress as far as consideration in the wording goes? For it to be considered neutral, as just a passerby, I would expect there to be a little less certainty and definitiveness in the wording, especially in the first few sentences. Phrases like "thought to have been" and "believed to be" could really go a long way. The way it is now is far from neutral and far from encyclopedic. Jiminezwaldorf ( talk) 06:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like a decision made on what to do about some possible information added. I cloaked it because it was improperly formatted and read too much like an essay, but I didn't want to delete it outright. What does everyone think? We can't leave it cloaked—too unprofessional. Suggestions? -- VegitaU ( talk) 03:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
from the wiki article on him: Küntzel was a senior advisor of the Federal Parliamentary Fraction of Germany’s Green Party. In 1991, he received his doctorate, summa cum laude, in Political Science at the University of Hamburg. His thesis Bonn & the Bomb. German Politics and the Nuclear Option, London: Pluto Press was in English in 1995. In 2004, he has been named a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since 2001, his main field of research and writing have been anti-Semitism in current Islamic thinking, Islamism, Islamism and National Socialism, Iran, German and European policies towards the Middle East and Iran. Among others, he wrote for The New Republic, the Wall Street Journal and Internationale Politik. In 2006 he became a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
In 2003, he delivered the Keynote Address at the Conference on "Genocide and Terrorism – Probing the Mind of the Perpetrator" at Yale University. In 2004, he was a panelist at the "Lessons & Legacies VIII International Conference on the Holocaust: From Generation to Generation" at Brown University. In 2005, he discovered antisemitic tracts at the Iranian stands at the Frankfurt Book Fair: an incident he wrote about in the Wall Street Journal. He was a panelist at the 2006 Paris conference "Les démocraties face au défi islamiste" (The democracies in the face of the Islamist challenge) organised by the Center for Security Policy and L’institut pour la Défense de la Démocratie. He organized the 1999 conference "Die Goldhagen-Debatte: Bilanz und Perspektiven" (The Goldhagen-Debate: results and perspectives) of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany, with Daniel Goldhagen, Andrei Markovits, Wolfgang Wippermann, Jürgen Elsässer, et al. at Potsdam/Germany. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rosedora (
talk •
contribs)
02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added the POV tag as I feel the use of 'terrorist' is far from neutral and can be changed. BigDunc Talk 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Was there ever consensus on this article? Judging by the amount of people who have removed the term terrorists from the article over the years, who backed up their edits with clear wikipedia guidelines, I would say there has never been true consensus supporting the use of the term terrorists - just a group of editors/admins who are willing to act as meat puppets and use the 3RR to prevent the term terrorists from being removed. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Could Aude please explain why he undid my additions to the motives section. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and not sure of norms. Aren't you supposed to put something on talk page if you undo someone's work? What I put in was footnoted and from reputable source. Are there special rules for this page? -- waldenpond ( talk) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora
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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived per WP:TALK - talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not soapboxing about other editors or the article subject. Euryalus ( talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Who is User_talk:Tom_harrison? Why does he have the power to censor and block access to this important subject matter. Let the reader take note of this concern. User:peterbadgely Peterbadgely ( talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)