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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Seems the motive of Bin Ladan changes half way through the Article. First it is stated that he planned the attacks because of the US support of Israel. Later, it mentions the reason as Religious but doesn't touch upon the Israel part at all. The religious part was cleary not the main motivator for the attacks at the time, and was added to gain more support than those just concerned with the Israel/Palistine issue. I think this should be mentioned in the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.223.155 ( talk) 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Even in the UK, where our dates are written the other way around, I think most people will know this as 9/11. It's the most commonly used term, which is what decides the name of a wikipedia article. Other terms become redirects. So, how did this article about 9/11 avoid being titled 9/11 ? No-one is going to put "september 11 2001 attacks" into the search bar, they're going to put 9/11. Feel free to post to my talk page instead of here if this is a complete noob question where this talk page is concerned.:) Sticky Parkin 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was allowed, but oh well. Someone wants to delete a wiki-link saying its unrelated, or something. It's not clear what exactly. But that is why we have talk. I would like to see some sort of explanation before people delete my good-faith edits. I mean, I have yet to see even a proper edit summary on the subject. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 08:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is a discussion on the use of a comma in the lead sentence.
I have found a reference to back up my suggestion that the current lead sentence is flawed and must be replaced. The lead currently read "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." while the new consensus version removed by the page protecting administrator was "The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."
The use of the word attack to define attacks is wrong per this reference, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/
Since there is a reliable sourced reference, the lead sentence must go. Let's open the floor to suggestions. Presumptive ( talk) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide missions by al-Qaeda in the Eastern United States."
2. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were four simultaneous al-Qaeda suicide missions involving hijacker commercial airliners used against high profile targets in the Eastern United States.
As I stated earlier, every American style manual I've consulted, including the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 6.46, states that the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy format is parenthetical and should therefore be set off by commas (e.g., September 11, 2001, attacks). I won't belabor the point. If the consensus is to keep the title of this page punctuated as it is now, I'll live with it. However, Peter Gray insists that "various rules of style" are implicated here and that there is "more than one correct formula" (i.e., that "September 11, 2001 attacks" is equally correct). I'm genuinely curious if there is any authority for that proposition. Does anyone have any kind of authoritative style guide that advocates NOT setting off the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy format with two commas? Thanks Lowell33 ( talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind calling the article September 11 attacks but that's just me :-) Perhaps a straw poll / discussion? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 19:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose this article be renamed. The current title isn't specific enough towards what the article is about as it could refer to any random attack that took place on 09/11/2001.
I suggest something along the lines of "The Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001".
Yey or Ney?
81.151.140.33 ( talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A title is not a sentence & is not subject to the same rules of style. The year is not parenthetical to the title-- JimWae ( talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
One obvious difference: titles do not need periods at the end. They are not sentences. I am not saying titles never get any punctuation, just that they differ from sentences, and that what might be parenthetical in a sentence, need not be so in a phrase -- JimWae ( talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Btw, here is an example by a learned editor that does not add the extra comma even to the SENTENCE: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/s1941_is.htm -- JimWae ( talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) and another: http://www.gwu.edu/~icdrm/publications/nsf911/attacks.html -- JimWae ( talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not "finding someone", this is finding a predominant usage among learned writers -- JimWae ( talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying in a nutshell: Don't generalize the actions of a few into accepted behavior |
It is "the few" who add the extra comma. Is that clear enough for YOU, without insult? -- JimWae ( talk) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you do the search? Perhaps you should remember that style guides do not dictate what the "rules" should be; the rules follow what the majority of learned writers do. The Chicago Manual of Style also particularly notes that the use of the extra comma when the date is used as an adjective is awkward. ( http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch05/ch05_sec079.html ) It recommends avoiding that construction, and while removing the year would avoid that problem, objections have been raised to doing that (due to concerns that it might be confused with attacks on September 11th in other places and/or other years past or future). The title with an extra comma would be even more awkward than the sentence with one. Renaming the article to "September 11 attacks" would be less awkward than "September 11, 2001, attacks", and the slight risk of ambiguity is preferable & more easily resolved than such awkwardness would be. I cannot believe so much energy is being devoted to this when the majority of learned writers do not observe the rule as presented in the style guide. One function of Style Guides is to help writers reduce awkward constructions, and I have to wonder how long it might be before this awkward consistency gives way to recognition of an exception for dates used as adjectives, when the construction is entrenched in the language. Meanwhile, style guides are guides, not rulebooks. However, if consensus is that, despite awkwardness, we MUST follow the style guide on this, avoiding the construction (by removing the year) is preferable. I think the consensus, however, has been that it is OK without the extra comma. -- JimWae ( talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You guys need to realize... in a nutshell: It's just a comma. Get over it. Seriously. |
-- Tarage ( talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you persist in making this a personal battle? Stick to the issues. I still see no evidence you have done the searches. To use the article link, I had to start a 30-day free trial. The argument that the year is parenthetical is NOT presented in the Chicago MoS - no rationale is given at all (other than an implied consistency). The year is neither parenthetical nor appositive - else it would be so in other date-styles. The comma after the year appears to be a generalization from other sentence structures where the comma after the year has a function. In this case, however, it is similar to writing "The old, yellow, dog ran across the dry, brown, plain". The extra comma breaks the forward-looking adjective apart from the noun it modifies (this the Chicago MoS does so acknowledge - Btw, those sections say NOTHING about the current "wording", but rather restrict the remarks to the punctuation). While disagreements with the Chicago MoS certainly cannot be settled here, absent "rules" from other MoS, and with apparent consensus that both the sentence & the title are OK without the extra comma, it is time to bring this discussion to a close. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
V:You misread my posts, make personal attacks, make yourself a personal authority (see "I've never..." in your post above), & then accuse me of "playing games"??? Btw, Google does not distinguish "September 11, 2001, attacks" from "September 11, 2001 attacks". You seem to be using the punctuation argument primarily as a strategy to change the name of the article. Btw2, your source admits to some uncertainty on this issue. The appositive/parethetical argument is one regarding meaning - not style. If it were a meaning distinction, it should hold in other date-formats (which it does not). The only reason I am even taking notice of you, is your repeated personal challenges. Do you think this is the only way anyone will notice you? Stop the personal attacks now.-- JimWae ( talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't resist using the diminutive, could you? (I am glad to say we are unlikely to ever meet in person.) You have not yet fully demonstrated it is "wrong", and you have again misread my argument. Instead, "if it works in one, it should work in all" appears to be your argument for ALWAYS including the comma after the year. If the year is parenthetical, it does not matter what format is used. "Parenthetical" is NOT the proper rationale for this "rule" (it appears to be more an over-generalization than to serve any useful function when the year is an adjective). I oppose adding the comma to the title. However, compromise may again be in order to bring this tedious discussion to an end. I reiterate my preference for changing the title to "September 11 attacks" over adding an awkward comma -- JimWae ( talk) 19:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Only if forced to choose between those two. I have a different explanation of why the comma gets put after the year if there is already one in the date (and inherently includes a rationale why not to do it when the date is an adjective) - but I wll save it for someone who is trying to elevate the discussion instead of pushing people's noses into ugly smells to decide which is least bad, while repeatedly berating them -- JimWae ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of any style guide that would explain the comma placement after MM/DD/YY (please note) as I would. Indeed, the Chicago style guide gives NO rationale at all. The other source admits to uncertainty & gives the faulty parenthetical explanation. So, my rationale would likely be subject to claims of WP:OR. Still interested?-- JimWae ( talk) 06:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Voting for: September 11, 2001 attacks. Why did you change it to 'September 11 attacks'! Don't you usually have the year in it aswell, with most major events? Change it back. It was fine the way it was. -- SamB135 ( talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we seriously arguing about a single comma, when this article is rife with other issues? This article still uses references from sources who do not have access to the data needed to assess the factuality or non-factuality of the assertions of fact for which there is not reliable evidence nor consensus. And the comma or lack of a comma in the lead neither improves nor harms the article to the degree that including unfounded assertions of fact does. Excuse my grammar, it's late. User:Pedant ( talk) 07:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to September 11 attacks. There is a fair, if not overwhelming, consensus for the move and it is well in keeping with WP:UCN. I have discounted three of the four discernible opposes which offer no rationale whatsoever, policy/guideline based or otherwise, in support of keeping the article at the current name, nor do they address the naming convention basis for the request. I have also considered discussion higher on this page (in which at least one other user supported the move who did not comment below). As a side result, this also solves the "comma issue".-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a grammar expert, but would be content with either "September 11 attacks" which seems more common usage or "September 11, 2001, attacks" which I may need the comma. With the possibility of a page move, I think there should be a request for comment to get opinions of people uninvolved here. -- Aude ( talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good for everyone to weigh in once here, so this section doesn't get out of hand. The discussion can continue in a different section. -- Aude ( talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of American idiom, "the September 11, 2001, attacks" probably needs the second comma. But I don't see why we need that form in the article title - or, in that expression, elsewhere. "The attacks.... on September 11, 2001." will do fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I support a rename to September 11 attacks. That is the most common name (besides 9/11 which we obviously can't use). I believe the exact naming convention this article should follow is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), where it lists terrorist attacks as those that come under it's jurisdiction. There it says:
"If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: Where the incident happened, and What happened."
So since we have a common name (September 11 attacks) then there is no need to disambiguate with the 2001 part, or even with a US part (it happened in a few differing locations), thus making the discussion about commas mute! I also note that September 11 attacks is a redirect to the current location anyway. All that would be needed is a redirect in the other direction instead.
I think that particular naming convention needs updating though: it has as an example " Attacks of September 11, 2001" i.e. where the current article used to be. We should rename to the above suggestion and then change that example. Deamon138 ( talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess I've never heard that one before. User:Jc-S0CO seems to think so, but it sounds a bit "out there" and I have yet to see any explanations by that user here, so I was wondering if someone else can explain those actions instead... Please notice that the first two sentences are totally about "causation," and the last one is totally about"the collapse." So basically regardless of who thinks who is POV, its just crappy english on another level, to not put a transition there... and please don't delete wikilinks without good reason dude, again we have a collapse wikilink but no causation wikilink unless you can find it in your gorgeous heart to not "r-v" my good faith edits again... 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 06:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
it would seem that all this nonsense about commas is a device to bury discussion questioning this article's neutrality. The article states without citation that this was
a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda.
There has not been any ruling by a formal criminal investigation, so according to international law and our constitutional principles, this is at best
a series of coordinated suicide attacks allegedly carried out by al-Qaeda.
-- APDEF ( talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission meeting with the President was closed-doors and no transcript was allowed. How can we use this as reliable evidence? Bukkit surch partee ( talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission report is anything but detailed. It completely fails to even mention WTC 7, and it doesn't say ANYTHING about what happened after the towers began to collapse. This is crucial, because video evidence, among other post-collapse data, very strongly suggests that the 9/11 commission's explanation of why the buildings collapsed completely defies the laws of physics. I'll consider contributing to the criticism of the 9/11 commission maybe sometime this weekend when I have time. Bukkit surch partee ( talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"So if Congress and the president says Al-Qaeda did it then Al-Qaeda did it" - That is some pretty scary nationalism right. Just because a small group of people decreed it so, it does not mean it is true. Perhaps it makes it true for all intents and purposes within the US legal/political system, but it certainly doesn't make it the truth. Also, you should remember that wikipedia is not written from a US perspecive, and therefore whatever the US political system has said is entirely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.129 ( talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the final sentence "There are no known survivors from any of the flights." is repeating this, earlier in the same paragraph, "...killing everyone on board....". 72.155.18.185 ( talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Veggy and I have been working on the last sentence in this paragraph because it is a non-sequitur to the topic fo conspiracy theories about the attack. In order to make the sentence flow in the paragraph, it seems that the theories about the collapse of the towers need to be highlighted. I suggest that the sentence be removed since we don't want to address the specific theories in this article. Dscotese ( talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Various conspiracy theories have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. [1] An example of this is the controlled demolition theory, but the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers. [2] Dscotese ( talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Various conspiracy theories have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. [3] However, the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of hijacked jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers. [4]
Dscotese ( talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | Examples of this are theories that missiles were used citation needed, that high energy weapons were used citation needed, or that it was a controlled demolition, but the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of hijacked jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers. | ” |
If you have sources for the other theories, that would be great. This addition will take care of the non-sequitur without undue weight. Dscotese ( talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Nineteen religious fanatics who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour & 20 minutes. Three concrete and steel buildings are disintegrated and melted, crumbling straight down into the path of most resistance at nearly free-fall speed in perfect symmetrical collapses "due to fire" for the first time in the history of modern architecture, in defiance of fundamental Newtonian laws of physics.
Current use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as a denigrating pejorative label for those who question established ideas is discussed here http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm:
"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."
You, and newdemocracyworld.org are absolutely wrong, the term "Conspiracy theory" either means that literally, nor is it even rarely used for that effect :
conspiracy theory means exactly what it says, and no one uses it to say "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.".. for that effect someone would say "conspiracy nut", george bush once said "internetters" also for that effect.
and since no real evidence has been found that alquade are actually behind it.. although unorthodox and maby unlikely, it is 100% perfectly legit to state the the official explanation from the us is infact a conspiracy theory.
-- MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 09:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well said, MrEguy. I agree. Neurolanis ( talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Here I have attempted to get Tom involved in this discussion, but he has not joined, and instead simply reproduced the non-sequitur discussed above. What is the best way to handle this kind of negligence? Should I just post to his talk page again? I'm afraid he might just be ignoring me now. Dscotese ( talk) 04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.[157]
-I am truly grateful to the writer of this sentence. It is very important that the people of the world believe this. Excellent work, and well placed. You have my respect. God Bless America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 ( talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate a sentence written to the effect of the Pentagon being attacked on the sixtieth anniversary of its groundbreaking. GuamIsGood ( talk) 03:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that that tidbit would lend some context, as well as interesting prose to the article. Anyone else, Buehler...Buehler? GuamIsGood ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Attackers and their Motivation
"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.[64][65][66]"
Link number 65 makes absolutely no reference to the mission statement, which is actually contained within link 66 in full, however is not contained in link 64. Link 65 technically has no relevance whatsoever because it's discussing security failures that lead to 9/11 within the FBI and intelligence sharing, and doesn't even reference motivations of the attackers, much less their stated reasons.
This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."[64] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."[67]
If I were an outsider doing a research paper (which I am by the way), and I were using wikipedia as a source (which I'm not, and for good reason), I should be under the impression that Al Qaedas primary motivation for 9/11 would be to simply kill Americans for the hell of it. However, that is entirely inconsistant with both the mission statement and Bin Ladens letter to America, which make it clear his motivations for attack are undeniably within 3 general categories:
1) Presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Middle East 2) Support for Israel 3) Support for "corrupt" governments in the Middle East
This information is contained in full in link 66 and 67. However it's interesting note how the author of the wikipedia article seems to stress the (harder to find) Islamist message while ignoring the main points (political motivations). Bin Laden makes it quite clear in an [16]unmistakeable Q and A format:
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
Under "motivations" I think it would be more appropriate to stress the political motivations since they are more prominent and these are the stated reasons of the attackers themselves. It seems the original author was writing using his own political motivations and biases in an attempt to persuade the reader, and it's very dishonest to say the least.
-- Bronsonkaahui ( talk) 23:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- In a second fatwā issued in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.[70]
- Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.[109] Others, such as Jason Burke, foreign correspondent for The Observer, focus on a more political aspect to the motive, stating that "bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity [...] but his agenda is a basically political one."[110]
"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.[64][65][66]"This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."[64] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."[67]
This statement is clearly POV, as it is suggesting that the "overall objective" of Al Qaeda is to "attack us for our freedoms" and what not. Why is it relevent to say how the statement begins without pointing out the more pertinent information, such as the (self-stated) main reasons for the attacks? To the outside reader it suggests bias, perhaps it should be re-worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronsonkaahui ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
-- 24.211.75.194 ( talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"The No. 2 listed grievance is the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.".. seems out of date. One would think that Bin Laden would now have a new list of grievances, you wouldn't think that moving forces from Saudia Arabia to Iraq would deserve an apology, would you ?And wouldnt the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and repeat attacks on his Taliban(etc) minders disallow apologies.. 202.92.40.8 ( talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I recall a version of "why a helicopter rescue was not attempted" was because of the wind (the pilot did not think he could land safely) I can/will try to dig it up unless someone does not want me to (see footnote 39 of the contemporary article). I will check the archives before I attempt a search to see if the issue has been addressed. Regards Johndoeemail ( talk) 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
...with the renaming. This is not the page for it, but it is relevant, and since the responsible project's talk page does not show much traffic, I thought I'd post a notice here. Perhaps a group request for move should open; I am not sure. I have started a discussion here. Waltham, The Duke of 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all the articles have been done. I have made a CFD to rename the categories as well here. Deamon138 ( talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone add something about their total lack of training for situations like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
September 11 attacks#Hate crimes says "hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people, particularly Sikhs, because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims in the United States." This section focues too much on Sikhs and doesn't say much about other studies. AdjustShift ( talk) 03:45, 11 September 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.
An independent U.S.-based group called World Public Opinion.org asked 16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
Majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks, a finding that surprised World Public Opinion.org's director, Steven Kull.
...
Kull says an average of 15 percent say the U.S. government plotted the attacks.
'In Turkey, 36 percent have this view, Turkey, one of our allies. Palestinian territories, 27 percent have this view. In Mexico, 30 percent have this view, and perhaps most surprising of all, in Germany, 23 percent have the view that the United States was behind the 9/11 attacks.'
...
"It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-10-voa59.cfm
Given this data, based an international poll of 16,000 people, this article is POV.
The allegation that "al-Qaida" has responsible for 911 is dispute by a significant number of people:
- Only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks.
- Even among US allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority.
MichiganMilitia ( talk) 05:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the source of the data and description of the polling methodology:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=
Approximately 43% of Britain, 37% of France, 35% of Germany... on average 54% of the 16,000 people polled in 17 countries do not believe that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11. Significant populations believe that the US government or Israel carried out 9/11. MichiganMilitia ( talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So again, we see a majority of a population, in this case 56% doubts that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11.
This number of 56% is almost exactly the same as the figure of 54% produced by the GlobalPublicOpinions MichiganMilitia ( talk) 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
'For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allahand lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace.' I read this from somewhere but I cant confirm it without an actual Quran, could this be any of knowledge value to the article or other smiliars? - Johndoe789 ( talk) 11:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference 75 is no longer valid for this article and nowhere on the UK Gov website can I find that article
What is the accurate number of deaths? the article says "Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing and presumed dead." 2,974 and 24 equals 2,998, but then the summary thing on the upper right of the page says 2,999. And under "casualties" it has 2,975(which would equal 2,999 if 2,975+24). The September 11(article with lists of events/births/deaths) has 2,974(doesnt mention the 24 missing). Does anyone know the accurate number of deaths(including or excluding the missing) and the correct reference for that number? If so, could you make the edit to show that correct number, on this page as well as the September 11 "day page". Issmortor ( talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are the hi-jackers left out of the list of deaths caused? From an encyclopedic perspective, this doesn't seem to make sense, as they certainly were casualties of the attack. Additionally, from a human perspective, it seems quite cold to exclude these few from the final death count, this loss of life was no less tragic (perhaps even more so?) than any of the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.129 ( talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree.but i think that under victims the number should exclude the hi-jackers but death is death and a death count should include everyone. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.170.81.55 (
talk)
06:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't read right but not all the times for the planes striking or the towers collapsing are included in the article. They can be found on my blog here:
http://www.davidjmoore.com/2008/09/11/911-seventh-anniversary/
If someone could update the article that would be great. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't deal with blogs. Sorry. -- Tarage ( talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I simply asked you to take the information from it and put it in the article. What's that got to do with dealing with blogs? The article is missing information and if your clever enough you can verify what I have written anywhere on the net! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty shocked I have to cite a stated time, it's a well known fact - can't believe it wasn't already in the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing the information as being added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't do it because it is semi locked? Or am i being stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that certain footage of the actual attacks may not be shown because it looks to spectacular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it, any media footage that good would have ended up in the medias hands and aired well before the gov managed to put a censor on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
i need to know more about 9/11 for my science prodject can yall tell me exactly wut happened on 9/11 and wut are they doing about the memorrial and how many poeples lives were lost .the whole school walked a mile for their memorial but i want to know what the united states does for their memorial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.134 ( talk) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. RxS ( talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The section CIA preparation and tracking seems off-topic for this page. It might go better in Al-Qaeda. Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Three different editors have removed this section, but Frank Freeman keeps putting it back:
Trying to shoehorn this in against consensus risks destabilizing the article, and the edit summary impugning the motives of the rest of us doesn't help either. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 19 September 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.
Here's a reminder of the facts which are omitted from the article>
9/11 Commission report is rejected (by the members of Commission and by world wide public) [19]
War on Terror is rejected (the numerous warmongering and fearmongering lies made by US administration are recognised within the mainstream) [20]
People around the world demand new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks (documentary Zero went public in many European countries, as well as in Russia, yesterday, now we have more than 30 million people who are questioning attacks). [21], [22]
When will the article recognise the facts stated above? Mass driver ( talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The edit request was removed because this page is not fully protected. 76.95.124.146 ( talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please expand 9/11 Commission section as seen below.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) was formed in late 2002 to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, including preparedness for, and the immediate response to, the attacks. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued the 9/11 Commission Report. The commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism.[161][162] Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated that they were lied to by the NORAD and Defense Department's officials, the Commission was denied of the evidence and 'set up to fail'. [27], [28], [29], [30]
Thanks. Mass driver ( talk) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid a handful of articles are not enough to tip the scale when there are piles and piles of such on the other side. Please read the archives and make sure the arguments you are making here have not already been made and rejected before. We have a low tolerance for redundant arguments here. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Does nobody find it important to mention the election that occurred the day of 9/11. Worker turnout was massively lower than normal. I don't know where, but it should be able to be incorporated somehow.
Blind
man
shady
05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The NYC mayorality primary election was postponed as a result of the attacks http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040721.html -- JimWae ( talk) 09:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind peple that "Don't know>" is better interpreted as ignorance, not doubt. Put people on the spot, with no guidance, and they'll say the stupidest things, blurt out the answer to the wrong question ("Who was attacked in the..."), or forget the most basic facts. The September 11 attacks just aren't that important to someone in the Ukraine, as compared to people who have strong ties to the U.S. - it's not unnatural for them to be confused or forgetful of the details when put on the spot.
Who conducted the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for example?
In short, the poll may successfully show ignorance, but it should not be added to the article for any of the conspiracy-mongering purposes suggested, not even to claim that there's doubt in an argumentum ad populum, and a false one at that. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Mohamed Atta was the tactical leader of 9/11. Our Wikipedia article doesn't mention much about him. AdjustShift ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the first few paragraphs of this article, and I marked it as such. The sentence in the body text reads: "2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing or presumed dead." 2974 + 24 = 2998. However, the infobox on the side states that 2999 people were killed in the attacks. Which is correct? -- Quintin3265 ( talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This must have been proposed and rejected at some point by someone, but I cannot find it. Why is there no article entitled "List of September 11 attacks victims"? I realize that the vast majority of the victims are not notable and therefore do not get personal articles, but what about a simple list?-- MrFish Go Fish 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In the 'conspiracy' section it states "The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers." I don't find its references very helpful in establishing that supposed fact, and in searching for any those sites only seem to reference each other, or Wikipedia’s own statement. At the very least I think it should be mentioned that there is a growing number of architects and engineers disproving the official story, along with hundreds of senior military officials, intelligence agents, firemen and witnesses of the explosions that brought the towers down. Check out: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
(This is the THIRD time that I've re-posted this comment in the past week. If someone has a problem with my comment, then say so and don't remove it without at least giving me an explanation.) Neurolanis ( talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is to laugh. I've forgotten that Wikipedia's "credible sources" are mainstream propaganda sites. I keep forgetting that Wikipedia is totally left-side of the brain, trapped in the box, helpless to the world. Sorry, my bad.
But really though ... the statement I commented about has NO BASIS, so taking that alone, how could it not be removed? Could anyone explain that to me, honestly? Neurolanis ( talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you living in a cave somewhere? Get real! There is so much strong evidence which PROVES that 9-11 was an inside job that I honestly wouldn't know where to start! The Pancake Theory is LAUGHABLE. REAL scientists (independent, cutting-edge) know better. Hell, any little boy scout should know that a roaring flame at a campfire site cannot melt a cheap steel pan. Anyone with half a brain should know that if a structure collapses at freefall speed that there was NOTHING there to deter its fall! Anyone should know that if various witnesses of different walks of life, including experienced firemen, run out of a building crying that they heard explosions going off in the lower sections of the tower before the tower collapsed, and at least one "underground" explosion, that explosives were used! Anyone with any brain cells at all should be able to deduct that if a plane was so completely pulverized that no bodies could be distinguished from the wreckage, wreckage which was spread out over a large radius, that finding a paper ID card would not be possible. A plane that breaks open a side of the Pentagon and yet leaves behind only a few small fragments of material, and a later-released and wrongly-dated video of a flying object heading into the Pentagon which is clearly NOT a large passenger plane as they claim can be laughed at by anyone with half-decent vision or a pair of specs. Planes supposedly flown by men whose flying talents were laughed at by their instructors, who left Currans and ID cards everywhere, and a written admission of guilt, who left their hotel just in time to make the flight, who dropped by a Burger King on the way, and several of whom are still alive! Bin Laden held responsible despite the fact that his family were always close friends businesswise with the Bush family, and whose family was secretly flown out of the USA on the very day of the strikes! Basic COMMON SENSE should tell you beyond any doubting that the official story is a load of hogwash! If you believe any different you are either in on the scam, are in admiration of it, or are otherwise a complete and utter moron. Neurolanis ( talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's never a waste of time to speak the truth and attempt to explain evidence to those who will not listen. I have tried posting facts on the 9-11 Conspiracy several times and have always found the same things: 1. Even if I use sites for references which are commonly used on that page or on many, many others, they are called "not credible". 2. Video evidence, which is of vast importance to topics such as this are not considered credible (even though they are used on less controversial subjects without problem.) 3. When you're talking about this degree of criminality, mainstream news sites such as CNN or Fox News are not helpful as they will ignore, lie about or only vaguely mention important facts indicating the political/corporate criminality (they are politically-guided and corporate-owned companies, after all.) Their reporters are newsreaders; who pass on what facts appear on the surface and what certain political figureheads say (which is no better than common gossip), rather than investigating and reporting on the ‘hows and whys’ behind the surface of things (real journalism.) However, these real journalistic websites are called "Not credible" by Wikipedia. Intelligence, wisdom, cutting-edge science, full historic detail and many public understandings are thus ignored, and we are left with mainstream fast food.
Despite the opinions of Sheffield Steel, I hope that others will consider what I have said. I would like the quoted statement above to be removed or reworded, on the grounds that I have given. Thanks. Neurolanis ( talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well Neurolanis the reason why nobody would listen to you is that your theories are laughable and just like what Sheffield Steel said, no proof available. Even if we could provide a 'perfect proof' that Al Qaida did it, you and your left wing ilk will just brand it as a "manufactured propaganda". And really, those sources of yours, have you even tried questioning them instead of just accepting them at face value. If you think one side can twist the truth, so can the other side...so your accusation that the 9/11 tragedy was a government "inside job" doesn't stand.
Actually, I'll be nice and give you tip for others to listen: Try to add that E.T. and pals from outer space helped the government in hatching the plot. Hey...you would get a million listeners right there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macalatus ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Neurolanis on the subject and will provide a credible source for my story. Peter Greyland states that the steel weakened and no-one claims it melted. It did melt, there were pools of molten steel registered under the debris of the towers that were several hundreds of degrees higher than the highest burning temperature of kerosine and clear signs that the structural steel had been melted away. http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/molten_steel.jpg http://bradleyinfotainment.com/_images/thermite.jpg This together with other facts surrounding the collapse, such as the presence of sulfur in the molten steel chunks and the existence of "the meteorite", a block of concrete molten together with steel and other materials, cannot deny that thermite (or rather the sulfur-enriched demolition variant thermate) was used in the collapse. This statement was made by Dr. Steven Earl Jones, a renowned physicist that I believe need no further introduction for people with interests in this subject. He also founded Scholars of 9/11 Truth, which was joined by numerous scholars that support his theory. Often his suggestion of controlled-demolition was criticised. His university of Brigham Young stated that peer technical research of the subject would surely debunk his story, though none of this has been done. This, in my opinion, is mainly because of how Dr. Jones was thrown on the streets by his university, while casting aside the deal they made about keeping his papers publicated. 9/11's real story seems to be taboo, however in my opinion a site like Wikipedia should lend an equal ear to all sides of the story, especially those with a scientific foundation, so I ask you all to give the so called "conspiracy theories" a little more credit and recognision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChronoDensetsu ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — ChronoDensetsu ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I've noticed a small grammar error under the "Osama Bin Laden" sub-section of this page, in the last paragraph. A line reads, "...al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted..." There should be a period (.) after the "S" in U.S. It should read, "...attacks on the U.S., and admitted..."
I don't mean to sound picky, just noticed it and thought it would look better if corrected. Neurolanis ( talk) 21:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't realize that it was only semi-locked. Neurolanis ( talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This video got released with extensive research proving that the view of this article is biased, this is enough proof to say that it is POV?
Why not then just mention the things mentioned on the video?
Btw: I have nothing to do with the video, I found it randomly around and came here to check if it was already mentioned, seemly it is not.
Video: http://www.911rippleeffect.com/
More info: http://www.takebackwashington.com/re.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.98.52 ( talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems the things stated in this article are deemed "fact" when, say, Loose Change (film) or Zeitgeist (film) is deemed a "Theory". This, in my opinion, goes against Wikipedia:Neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappedgiants ( talk • contribs)
I think someone should revert Cmmmm's revision of "Islamist Terrorists" to "Islamic Terrorists." The middle-eastern hijackers (if there were any) were either about spreading Islam or creating more Islamic states, but were not terrorists because they were born in a particular religion. Cmmmmm seems to believe that the Mormon religion (Smithism?) is the only true faith, and he seems to disparage all others. I'll leave that decision to someone else, though.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islamist Wowest ( talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Seems the motive of Bin Ladan changes half way through the Article. First it is stated that he planned the attacks because of the US support of Israel. Later, it mentions the reason as Religious but doesn't touch upon the Israel part at all. The religious part was cleary not the main motivator for the attacks at the time, and was added to gain more support than those just concerned with the Israel/Palistine issue. I think this should be mentioned in the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.223.155 ( talk) 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Even in the UK, where our dates are written the other way around, I think most people will know this as 9/11. It's the most commonly used term, which is what decides the name of a wikipedia article. Other terms become redirects. So, how did this article about 9/11 avoid being titled 9/11 ? No-one is going to put "september 11 2001 attacks" into the search bar, they're going to put 9/11. Feel free to post to my talk page instead of here if this is a complete noob question where this talk page is concerned.:) Sticky Parkin 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was allowed, but oh well. Someone wants to delete a wiki-link saying its unrelated, or something. It's not clear what exactly. But that is why we have talk. I would like to see some sort of explanation before people delete my good-faith edits. I mean, I have yet to see even a proper edit summary on the subject. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 08:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is a discussion on the use of a comma in the lead sentence.
I have found a reference to back up my suggestion that the current lead sentence is flawed and must be replaced. The lead currently read "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." while the new consensus version removed by the page protecting administrator was "The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."
The use of the word attack to define attacks is wrong per this reference, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/
Since there is a reliable sourced reference, the lead sentence must go. Let's open the floor to suggestions. Presumptive ( talk) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide missions by al-Qaeda in the Eastern United States."
2. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were four simultaneous al-Qaeda suicide missions involving hijacker commercial airliners used against high profile targets in the Eastern United States.
As I stated earlier, every American style manual I've consulted, including the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 6.46, states that the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy format is parenthetical and should therefore be set off by commas (e.g., September 11, 2001, attacks). I won't belabor the point. If the consensus is to keep the title of this page punctuated as it is now, I'll live with it. However, Peter Gray insists that "various rules of style" are implicated here and that there is "more than one correct formula" (i.e., that "September 11, 2001 attacks" is equally correct). I'm genuinely curious if there is any authority for that proposition. Does anyone have any kind of authoritative style guide that advocates NOT setting off the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy format with two commas? Thanks Lowell33 ( talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind calling the article September 11 attacks but that's just me :-) Perhaps a straw poll / discussion? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 19:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose this article be renamed. The current title isn't specific enough towards what the article is about as it could refer to any random attack that took place on 09/11/2001.
I suggest something along the lines of "The Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001".
Yey or Ney?
81.151.140.33 ( talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A title is not a sentence & is not subject to the same rules of style. The year is not parenthetical to the title-- JimWae ( talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
One obvious difference: titles do not need periods at the end. They are not sentences. I am not saying titles never get any punctuation, just that they differ from sentences, and that what might be parenthetical in a sentence, need not be so in a phrase -- JimWae ( talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Btw, here is an example by a learned editor that does not add the extra comma even to the SENTENCE: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/s1941_is.htm -- JimWae ( talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) and another: http://www.gwu.edu/~icdrm/publications/nsf911/attacks.html -- JimWae ( talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not "finding someone", this is finding a predominant usage among learned writers -- JimWae ( talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying in a nutshell: Don't generalize the actions of a few into accepted behavior |
It is "the few" who add the extra comma. Is that clear enough for YOU, without insult? -- JimWae ( talk) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you do the search? Perhaps you should remember that style guides do not dictate what the "rules" should be; the rules follow what the majority of learned writers do. The Chicago Manual of Style also particularly notes that the use of the extra comma when the date is used as an adjective is awkward. ( http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch05/ch05_sec079.html ) It recommends avoiding that construction, and while removing the year would avoid that problem, objections have been raised to doing that (due to concerns that it might be confused with attacks on September 11th in other places and/or other years past or future). The title with an extra comma would be even more awkward than the sentence with one. Renaming the article to "September 11 attacks" would be less awkward than "September 11, 2001, attacks", and the slight risk of ambiguity is preferable & more easily resolved than such awkwardness would be. I cannot believe so much energy is being devoted to this when the majority of learned writers do not observe the rule as presented in the style guide. One function of Style Guides is to help writers reduce awkward constructions, and I have to wonder how long it might be before this awkward consistency gives way to recognition of an exception for dates used as adjectives, when the construction is entrenched in the language. Meanwhile, style guides are guides, not rulebooks. However, if consensus is that, despite awkwardness, we MUST follow the style guide on this, avoiding the construction (by removing the year) is preferable. I think the consensus, however, has been that it is OK without the extra comma. -- JimWae ( talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You guys need to realize... in a nutshell: It's just a comma. Get over it. Seriously. |
-- Tarage ( talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you persist in making this a personal battle? Stick to the issues. I still see no evidence you have done the searches. To use the article link, I had to start a 30-day free trial. The argument that the year is parenthetical is NOT presented in the Chicago MoS - no rationale is given at all (other than an implied consistency). The year is neither parenthetical nor appositive - else it would be so in other date-styles. The comma after the year appears to be a generalization from other sentence structures where the comma after the year has a function. In this case, however, it is similar to writing "The old, yellow, dog ran across the dry, brown, plain". The extra comma breaks the forward-looking adjective apart from the noun it modifies (this the Chicago MoS does so acknowledge - Btw, those sections say NOTHING about the current "wording", but rather restrict the remarks to the punctuation). While disagreements with the Chicago MoS certainly cannot be settled here, absent "rules" from other MoS, and with apparent consensus that both the sentence & the title are OK without the extra comma, it is time to bring this discussion to a close. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
V:You misread my posts, make personal attacks, make yourself a personal authority (see "I've never..." in your post above), & then accuse me of "playing games"??? Btw, Google does not distinguish "September 11, 2001, attacks" from "September 11, 2001 attacks". You seem to be using the punctuation argument primarily as a strategy to change the name of the article. Btw2, your source admits to some uncertainty on this issue. The appositive/parethetical argument is one regarding meaning - not style. If it were a meaning distinction, it should hold in other date-formats (which it does not). The only reason I am even taking notice of you, is your repeated personal challenges. Do you think this is the only way anyone will notice you? Stop the personal attacks now.-- JimWae ( talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't resist using the diminutive, could you? (I am glad to say we are unlikely to ever meet in person.) You have not yet fully demonstrated it is "wrong", and you have again misread my argument. Instead, "if it works in one, it should work in all" appears to be your argument for ALWAYS including the comma after the year. If the year is parenthetical, it does not matter what format is used. "Parenthetical" is NOT the proper rationale for this "rule" (it appears to be more an over-generalization than to serve any useful function when the year is an adjective). I oppose adding the comma to the title. However, compromise may again be in order to bring this tedious discussion to an end. I reiterate my preference for changing the title to "September 11 attacks" over adding an awkward comma -- JimWae ( talk) 19:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Only if forced to choose between those two. I have a different explanation of why the comma gets put after the year if there is already one in the date (and inherently includes a rationale why not to do it when the date is an adjective) - but I wll save it for someone who is trying to elevate the discussion instead of pushing people's noses into ugly smells to decide which is least bad, while repeatedly berating them -- JimWae ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of any style guide that would explain the comma placement after MM/DD/YY (please note) as I would. Indeed, the Chicago style guide gives NO rationale at all. The other source admits to uncertainty & gives the faulty parenthetical explanation. So, my rationale would likely be subject to claims of WP:OR. Still interested?-- JimWae ( talk) 06:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Voting for: September 11, 2001 attacks. Why did you change it to 'September 11 attacks'! Don't you usually have the year in it aswell, with most major events? Change it back. It was fine the way it was. -- SamB135 ( talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we seriously arguing about a single comma, when this article is rife with other issues? This article still uses references from sources who do not have access to the data needed to assess the factuality or non-factuality of the assertions of fact for which there is not reliable evidence nor consensus. And the comma or lack of a comma in the lead neither improves nor harms the article to the degree that including unfounded assertions of fact does. Excuse my grammar, it's late. User:Pedant ( talk) 07:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to September 11 attacks. There is a fair, if not overwhelming, consensus for the move and it is well in keeping with WP:UCN. I have discounted three of the four discernible opposes which offer no rationale whatsoever, policy/guideline based or otherwise, in support of keeping the article at the current name, nor do they address the naming convention basis for the request. I have also considered discussion higher on this page (in which at least one other user supported the move who did not comment below). As a side result, this also solves the "comma issue".-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a grammar expert, but would be content with either "September 11 attacks" which seems more common usage or "September 11, 2001, attacks" which I may need the comma. With the possibility of a page move, I think there should be a request for comment to get opinions of people uninvolved here. -- Aude ( talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good for everyone to weigh in once here, so this section doesn't get out of hand. The discussion can continue in a different section. -- Aude ( talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of American idiom, "the September 11, 2001, attacks" probably needs the second comma. But I don't see why we need that form in the article title - or, in that expression, elsewhere. "The attacks.... on September 11, 2001." will do fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I support a rename to September 11 attacks. That is the most common name (besides 9/11 which we obviously can't use). I believe the exact naming convention this article should follow is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), where it lists terrorist attacks as those that come under it's jurisdiction. There it says:
"If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: Where the incident happened, and What happened."
So since we have a common name (September 11 attacks) then there is no need to disambiguate with the 2001 part, or even with a US part (it happened in a few differing locations), thus making the discussion about commas mute! I also note that September 11 attacks is a redirect to the current location anyway. All that would be needed is a redirect in the other direction instead.
I think that particular naming convention needs updating though: it has as an example " Attacks of September 11, 2001" i.e. where the current article used to be. We should rename to the above suggestion and then change that example. Deamon138 ( talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess I've never heard that one before. User:Jc-S0CO seems to think so, but it sounds a bit "out there" and I have yet to see any explanations by that user here, so I was wondering if someone else can explain those actions instead... Please notice that the first two sentences are totally about "causation," and the last one is totally about"the collapse." So basically regardless of who thinks who is POV, its just crappy english on another level, to not put a transition there... and please don't delete wikilinks without good reason dude, again we have a collapse wikilink but no causation wikilink unless you can find it in your gorgeous heart to not "r-v" my good faith edits again... 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 06:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
it would seem that all this nonsense about commas is a device to bury discussion questioning this article's neutrality. The article states without citation that this was
a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda.
There has not been any ruling by a formal criminal investigation, so according to international law and our constitutional principles, this is at best
a series of coordinated suicide attacks allegedly carried out by al-Qaeda.
-- APDEF ( talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission meeting with the President was closed-doors and no transcript was allowed. How can we use this as reliable evidence? Bukkit surch partee ( talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission report is anything but detailed. It completely fails to even mention WTC 7, and it doesn't say ANYTHING about what happened after the towers began to collapse. This is crucial, because video evidence, among other post-collapse data, very strongly suggests that the 9/11 commission's explanation of why the buildings collapsed completely defies the laws of physics. I'll consider contributing to the criticism of the 9/11 commission maybe sometime this weekend when I have time. Bukkit surch partee ( talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"So if Congress and the president says Al-Qaeda did it then Al-Qaeda did it" - That is some pretty scary nationalism right. Just because a small group of people decreed it so, it does not mean it is true. Perhaps it makes it true for all intents and purposes within the US legal/political system, but it certainly doesn't make it the truth. Also, you should remember that wikipedia is not written from a US perspecive, and therefore whatever the US political system has said is entirely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.129 ( talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the final sentence "There are no known survivors from any of the flights." is repeating this, earlier in the same paragraph, "...killing everyone on board....". 72.155.18.185 ( talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Veggy and I have been working on the last sentence in this paragraph because it is a non-sequitur to the topic fo conspiracy theories about the attack. In order to make the sentence flow in the paragraph, it seems that the theories about the collapse of the towers need to be highlighted. I suggest that the sentence be removed since we don't want to address the specific theories in this article. Dscotese ( talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Various conspiracy theories have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. [1] An example of this is the controlled demolition theory, but the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers. [2] Dscotese ( talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Various conspiracy theories have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. [3] However, the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of hijacked jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers. [4]
Dscotese ( talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | Examples of this are theories that missiles were used citation needed, that high energy weapons were used citation needed, or that it was a controlled demolition, but the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of hijacked jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers. | ” |
If you have sources for the other theories, that would be great. This addition will take care of the non-sequitur without undue weight. Dscotese ( talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Nineteen religious fanatics who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour & 20 minutes. Three concrete and steel buildings are disintegrated and melted, crumbling straight down into the path of most resistance at nearly free-fall speed in perfect symmetrical collapses "due to fire" for the first time in the history of modern architecture, in defiance of fundamental Newtonian laws of physics.
Current use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as a denigrating pejorative label for those who question established ideas is discussed here http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm:
"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."
You, and newdemocracyworld.org are absolutely wrong, the term "Conspiracy theory" either means that literally, nor is it even rarely used for that effect :
conspiracy theory means exactly what it says, and no one uses it to say "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.".. for that effect someone would say "conspiracy nut", george bush once said "internetters" also for that effect.
and since no real evidence has been found that alquade are actually behind it.. although unorthodox and maby unlikely, it is 100% perfectly legit to state the the official explanation from the us is infact a conspiracy theory.
-- MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 09:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well said, MrEguy. I agree. Neurolanis ( talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Here I have attempted to get Tom involved in this discussion, but he has not joined, and instead simply reproduced the non-sequitur discussed above. What is the best way to handle this kind of negligence? Should I just post to his talk page again? I'm afraid he might just be ignoring me now. Dscotese ( talk) 04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.[157]
-I am truly grateful to the writer of this sentence. It is very important that the people of the world believe this. Excellent work, and well placed. You have my respect. God Bless America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 ( talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate a sentence written to the effect of the Pentagon being attacked on the sixtieth anniversary of its groundbreaking. GuamIsGood ( talk) 03:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that that tidbit would lend some context, as well as interesting prose to the article. Anyone else, Buehler...Buehler? GuamIsGood ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Attackers and their Motivation
"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.[64][65][66]"
Link number 65 makes absolutely no reference to the mission statement, which is actually contained within link 66 in full, however is not contained in link 64. Link 65 technically has no relevance whatsoever because it's discussing security failures that lead to 9/11 within the FBI and intelligence sharing, and doesn't even reference motivations of the attackers, much less their stated reasons.
This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."[64] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."[67]
If I were an outsider doing a research paper (which I am by the way), and I were using wikipedia as a source (which I'm not, and for good reason), I should be under the impression that Al Qaedas primary motivation for 9/11 would be to simply kill Americans for the hell of it. However, that is entirely inconsistant with both the mission statement and Bin Ladens letter to America, which make it clear his motivations for attack are undeniably within 3 general categories:
1) Presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Middle East 2) Support for Israel 3) Support for "corrupt" governments in the Middle East
This information is contained in full in link 66 and 67. However it's interesting note how the author of the wikipedia article seems to stress the (harder to find) Islamist message while ignoring the main points (political motivations). Bin Laden makes it quite clear in an [16]unmistakeable Q and A format:
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
Under "motivations" I think it would be more appropriate to stress the political motivations since they are more prominent and these are the stated reasons of the attackers themselves. It seems the original author was writing using his own political motivations and biases in an attempt to persuade the reader, and it's very dishonest to say the least.
-- Bronsonkaahui ( talk) 23:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- In a second fatwā issued in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.[70]
- Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.[109] Others, such as Jason Burke, foreign correspondent for The Observer, focus on a more political aspect to the motive, stating that "bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity [...] but his agenda is a basically political one."[110]
"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.[64][65][66]"This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."[64] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."[67]
This statement is clearly POV, as it is suggesting that the "overall objective" of Al Qaeda is to "attack us for our freedoms" and what not. Why is it relevent to say how the statement begins without pointing out the more pertinent information, such as the (self-stated) main reasons for the attacks? To the outside reader it suggests bias, perhaps it should be re-worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronsonkaahui ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
-- 24.211.75.194 ( talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"The No. 2 listed grievance is the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.".. seems out of date. One would think that Bin Laden would now have a new list of grievances, you wouldn't think that moving forces from Saudia Arabia to Iraq would deserve an apology, would you ?And wouldnt the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and repeat attacks on his Taliban(etc) minders disallow apologies.. 202.92.40.8 ( talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I recall a version of "why a helicopter rescue was not attempted" was because of the wind (the pilot did not think he could land safely) I can/will try to dig it up unless someone does not want me to (see footnote 39 of the contemporary article). I will check the archives before I attempt a search to see if the issue has been addressed. Regards Johndoeemail ( talk) 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
...with the renaming. This is not the page for it, but it is relevant, and since the responsible project's talk page does not show much traffic, I thought I'd post a notice here. Perhaps a group request for move should open; I am not sure. I have started a discussion here. Waltham, The Duke of 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all the articles have been done. I have made a CFD to rename the categories as well here. Deamon138 ( talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone add something about their total lack of training for situations like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
September 11 attacks#Hate crimes says "hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people, particularly Sikhs, because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims in the United States." This section focues too much on Sikhs and doesn't say much about other studies. AdjustShift ( talk) 03:45, 11 September 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.
An independent U.S.-based group called World Public Opinion.org asked 16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
Majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks, a finding that surprised World Public Opinion.org's director, Steven Kull.
...
Kull says an average of 15 percent say the U.S. government plotted the attacks.
'In Turkey, 36 percent have this view, Turkey, one of our allies. Palestinian territories, 27 percent have this view. In Mexico, 30 percent have this view, and perhaps most surprising of all, in Germany, 23 percent have the view that the United States was behind the 9/11 attacks.'
...
"It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-10-voa59.cfm
Given this data, based an international poll of 16,000 people, this article is POV.
The allegation that "al-Qaida" has responsible for 911 is dispute by a significant number of people:
- Only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks.
- Even among US allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority.
MichiganMilitia ( talk) 05:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the source of the data and description of the polling methodology:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=
Approximately 43% of Britain, 37% of France, 35% of Germany... on average 54% of the 16,000 people polled in 17 countries do not believe that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11. Significant populations believe that the US government or Israel carried out 9/11. MichiganMilitia ( talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So again, we see a majority of a population, in this case 56% doubts that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11.
This number of 56% is almost exactly the same as the figure of 54% produced by the GlobalPublicOpinions MichiganMilitia ( talk) 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
'For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allahand lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace.' I read this from somewhere but I cant confirm it without an actual Quran, could this be any of knowledge value to the article or other smiliars? - Johndoe789 ( talk) 11:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference 75 is no longer valid for this article and nowhere on the UK Gov website can I find that article
What is the accurate number of deaths? the article says "Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing and presumed dead." 2,974 and 24 equals 2,998, but then the summary thing on the upper right of the page says 2,999. And under "casualties" it has 2,975(which would equal 2,999 if 2,975+24). The September 11(article with lists of events/births/deaths) has 2,974(doesnt mention the 24 missing). Does anyone know the accurate number of deaths(including or excluding the missing) and the correct reference for that number? If so, could you make the edit to show that correct number, on this page as well as the September 11 "day page". Issmortor ( talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are the hi-jackers left out of the list of deaths caused? From an encyclopedic perspective, this doesn't seem to make sense, as they certainly were casualties of the attack. Additionally, from a human perspective, it seems quite cold to exclude these few from the final death count, this loss of life was no less tragic (perhaps even more so?) than any of the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.129 ( talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree.but i think that under victims the number should exclude the hi-jackers but death is death and a death count should include everyone. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.170.81.55 (
talk)
06:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't read right but not all the times for the planes striking or the towers collapsing are included in the article. They can be found on my blog here:
http://www.davidjmoore.com/2008/09/11/911-seventh-anniversary/
If someone could update the article that would be great. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't deal with blogs. Sorry. -- Tarage ( talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I simply asked you to take the information from it and put it in the article. What's that got to do with dealing with blogs? The article is missing information and if your clever enough you can verify what I have written anywhere on the net! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty shocked I have to cite a stated time, it's a well known fact - can't believe it wasn't already in the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing the information as being added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't do it because it is semi locked? Or am i being stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that certain footage of the actual attacks may not be shown because it looks to spectacular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it, any media footage that good would have ended up in the medias hands and aired well before the gov managed to put a censor on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
i need to know more about 9/11 for my science prodject can yall tell me exactly wut happened on 9/11 and wut are they doing about the memorrial and how many poeples lives were lost .the whole school walked a mile for their memorial but i want to know what the united states does for their memorial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.134 ( talk) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. RxS ( talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The section CIA preparation and tracking seems off-topic for this page. It might go better in Al-Qaeda. Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Three different editors have removed this section, but Frank Freeman keeps putting it back:
Trying to shoehorn this in against consensus risks destabilizing the article, and the edit summary impugning the motives of the rest of us doesn't help either. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 19 September 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.
Here's a reminder of the facts which are omitted from the article>
9/11 Commission report is rejected (by the members of Commission and by world wide public) [19]
War on Terror is rejected (the numerous warmongering and fearmongering lies made by US administration are recognised within the mainstream) [20]
People around the world demand new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks (documentary Zero went public in many European countries, as well as in Russia, yesterday, now we have more than 30 million people who are questioning attacks). [21], [22]
When will the article recognise the facts stated above? Mass driver ( talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The edit request was removed because this page is not fully protected. 76.95.124.146 ( talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please expand 9/11 Commission section as seen below.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) was formed in late 2002 to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, including preparedness for, and the immediate response to, the attacks. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued the 9/11 Commission Report. The commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism.[161][162] Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated that they were lied to by the NORAD and Defense Department's officials, the Commission was denied of the evidence and 'set up to fail'. [27], [28], [29], [30]
Thanks. Mass driver ( talk) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid a handful of articles are not enough to tip the scale when there are piles and piles of such on the other side. Please read the archives and make sure the arguments you are making here have not already been made and rejected before. We have a low tolerance for redundant arguments here. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Does nobody find it important to mention the election that occurred the day of 9/11. Worker turnout was massively lower than normal. I don't know where, but it should be able to be incorporated somehow.
Blind
man
shady
05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The NYC mayorality primary election was postponed as a result of the attacks http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040721.html -- JimWae ( talk) 09:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind peple that "Don't know>" is better interpreted as ignorance, not doubt. Put people on the spot, with no guidance, and they'll say the stupidest things, blurt out the answer to the wrong question ("Who was attacked in the..."), or forget the most basic facts. The September 11 attacks just aren't that important to someone in the Ukraine, as compared to people who have strong ties to the U.S. - it's not unnatural for them to be confused or forgetful of the details when put on the spot.
Who conducted the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for example?
In short, the poll may successfully show ignorance, but it should not be added to the article for any of the conspiracy-mongering purposes suggested, not even to claim that there's doubt in an argumentum ad populum, and a false one at that. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Mohamed Atta was the tactical leader of 9/11. Our Wikipedia article doesn't mention much about him. AdjustShift ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the first few paragraphs of this article, and I marked it as such. The sentence in the body text reads: "2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing or presumed dead." 2974 + 24 = 2998. However, the infobox on the side states that 2999 people were killed in the attacks. Which is correct? -- Quintin3265 ( talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This must have been proposed and rejected at some point by someone, but I cannot find it. Why is there no article entitled "List of September 11 attacks victims"? I realize that the vast majority of the victims are not notable and therefore do not get personal articles, but what about a simple list?-- MrFish Go Fish 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In the 'conspiracy' section it states "The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers." I don't find its references very helpful in establishing that supposed fact, and in searching for any those sites only seem to reference each other, or Wikipedia’s own statement. At the very least I think it should be mentioned that there is a growing number of architects and engineers disproving the official story, along with hundreds of senior military officials, intelligence agents, firemen and witnesses of the explosions that brought the towers down. Check out: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
(This is the THIRD time that I've re-posted this comment in the past week. If someone has a problem with my comment, then say so and don't remove it without at least giving me an explanation.) Neurolanis ( talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is to laugh. I've forgotten that Wikipedia's "credible sources" are mainstream propaganda sites. I keep forgetting that Wikipedia is totally left-side of the brain, trapped in the box, helpless to the world. Sorry, my bad.
But really though ... the statement I commented about has NO BASIS, so taking that alone, how could it not be removed? Could anyone explain that to me, honestly? Neurolanis ( talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you living in a cave somewhere? Get real! There is so much strong evidence which PROVES that 9-11 was an inside job that I honestly wouldn't know where to start! The Pancake Theory is LAUGHABLE. REAL scientists (independent, cutting-edge) know better. Hell, any little boy scout should know that a roaring flame at a campfire site cannot melt a cheap steel pan. Anyone with half a brain should know that if a structure collapses at freefall speed that there was NOTHING there to deter its fall! Anyone should know that if various witnesses of different walks of life, including experienced firemen, run out of a building crying that they heard explosions going off in the lower sections of the tower before the tower collapsed, and at least one "underground" explosion, that explosives were used! Anyone with any brain cells at all should be able to deduct that if a plane was so completely pulverized that no bodies could be distinguished from the wreckage, wreckage which was spread out over a large radius, that finding a paper ID card would not be possible. A plane that breaks open a side of the Pentagon and yet leaves behind only a few small fragments of material, and a later-released and wrongly-dated video of a flying object heading into the Pentagon which is clearly NOT a large passenger plane as they claim can be laughed at by anyone with half-decent vision or a pair of specs. Planes supposedly flown by men whose flying talents were laughed at by their instructors, who left Currans and ID cards everywhere, and a written admission of guilt, who left their hotel just in time to make the flight, who dropped by a Burger King on the way, and several of whom are still alive! Bin Laden held responsible despite the fact that his family were always close friends businesswise with the Bush family, and whose family was secretly flown out of the USA on the very day of the strikes! Basic COMMON SENSE should tell you beyond any doubting that the official story is a load of hogwash! If you believe any different you are either in on the scam, are in admiration of it, or are otherwise a complete and utter moron. Neurolanis ( talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's never a waste of time to speak the truth and attempt to explain evidence to those who will not listen. I have tried posting facts on the 9-11 Conspiracy several times and have always found the same things: 1. Even if I use sites for references which are commonly used on that page or on many, many others, they are called "not credible". 2. Video evidence, which is of vast importance to topics such as this are not considered credible (even though they are used on less controversial subjects without problem.) 3. When you're talking about this degree of criminality, mainstream news sites such as CNN or Fox News are not helpful as they will ignore, lie about or only vaguely mention important facts indicating the political/corporate criminality (they are politically-guided and corporate-owned companies, after all.) Their reporters are newsreaders; who pass on what facts appear on the surface and what certain political figureheads say (which is no better than common gossip), rather than investigating and reporting on the ‘hows and whys’ behind the surface of things (real journalism.) However, these real journalistic websites are called "Not credible" by Wikipedia. Intelligence, wisdom, cutting-edge science, full historic detail and many public understandings are thus ignored, and we are left with mainstream fast food.
Despite the opinions of Sheffield Steel, I hope that others will consider what I have said. I would like the quoted statement above to be removed or reworded, on the grounds that I have given. Thanks. Neurolanis ( talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well Neurolanis the reason why nobody would listen to you is that your theories are laughable and just like what Sheffield Steel said, no proof available. Even if we could provide a 'perfect proof' that Al Qaida did it, you and your left wing ilk will just brand it as a "manufactured propaganda". And really, those sources of yours, have you even tried questioning them instead of just accepting them at face value. If you think one side can twist the truth, so can the other side...so your accusation that the 9/11 tragedy was a government "inside job" doesn't stand.
Actually, I'll be nice and give you tip for others to listen: Try to add that E.T. and pals from outer space helped the government in hatching the plot. Hey...you would get a million listeners right there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macalatus ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Neurolanis on the subject and will provide a credible source for my story. Peter Greyland states that the steel weakened and no-one claims it melted. It did melt, there were pools of molten steel registered under the debris of the towers that were several hundreds of degrees higher than the highest burning temperature of kerosine and clear signs that the structural steel had been melted away. http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/molten_steel.jpg http://bradleyinfotainment.com/_images/thermite.jpg This together with other facts surrounding the collapse, such as the presence of sulfur in the molten steel chunks and the existence of "the meteorite", a block of concrete molten together with steel and other materials, cannot deny that thermite (or rather the sulfur-enriched demolition variant thermate) was used in the collapse. This statement was made by Dr. Steven Earl Jones, a renowned physicist that I believe need no further introduction for people with interests in this subject. He also founded Scholars of 9/11 Truth, which was joined by numerous scholars that support his theory. Often his suggestion of controlled-demolition was criticised. His university of Brigham Young stated that peer technical research of the subject would surely debunk his story, though none of this has been done. This, in my opinion, is mainly because of how Dr. Jones was thrown on the streets by his university, while casting aside the deal they made about keeping his papers publicated. 9/11's real story seems to be taboo, however in my opinion a site like Wikipedia should lend an equal ear to all sides of the story, especially those with a scientific foundation, so I ask you all to give the so called "conspiracy theories" a little more credit and recognision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChronoDensetsu ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — ChronoDensetsu ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I've noticed a small grammar error under the "Osama Bin Laden" sub-section of this page, in the last paragraph. A line reads, "...al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted..." There should be a period (.) after the "S" in U.S. It should read, "...attacks on the U.S., and admitted..."
I don't mean to sound picky, just noticed it and thought it would look better if corrected. Neurolanis ( talk) 21:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't realize that it was only semi-locked. Neurolanis ( talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This video got released with extensive research proving that the view of this article is biased, this is enough proof to say that it is POV?
Why not then just mention the things mentioned on the video?
Btw: I have nothing to do with the video, I found it randomly around and came here to check if it was already mentioned, seemly it is not.
Video: http://www.911rippleeffect.com/
More info: http://www.takebackwashington.com/re.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.98.52 ( talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems the things stated in this article are deemed "fact" when, say, Loose Change (film) or Zeitgeist (film) is deemed a "Theory". This, in my opinion, goes against Wikipedia:Neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappedgiants ( talk • contribs)
I think someone should revert Cmmmm's revision of "Islamist Terrorists" to "Islamic Terrorists." The middle-eastern hijackers (if there were any) were either about spreading Islam or creating more Islamic states, but were not terrorists because they were born in a particular religion. Cmmmmm seems to believe that the Mormon religion (Smithism?) is the only true faith, and he seems to disparage all others. I'll leave that decision to someone else, though.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islamist Wowest ( talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)