![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
what the hell is this? archiving an ongoing discussion? your disagreement doesn't make it fringe. 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Not only have multiple reliable sources, including the most prominent media in the U.S., widely reported on the information that is missing in the article, the issue has made headline news over a time span of several years (2001, 2004, 2006, see the sources below). I ask Turian to reopen the discussion on the on the proposal made by the IP editor. Cs32en 11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No, like I said, you need to take it to the relevant article. Sources of a bunch of people questioning the even that is mainstream sounds like fringe. And I am not stupid, their is some implication of fringe whenever you you guys have ever talked about the attacks. So no, I will not open the discussion. Take it to where it is highly relevant, but leave it out of here. And yes, I will be monitoring discussions over there as well. – túrian patois 12:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
do as you will, report to an/i, but i will continue discussing the matter here, as seems few others will too. you are minority, and you don't have wp:consensus. 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
<- so let's try to write an informative paragraph about the topic. other editor noted that my suggestion may not be NPOV worded. does anyone have another suggestion? 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 12:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I will not be able to participate in the discussion on this talk page from September 27 until October 10, per the result of an arbitration enforcement procedure. I encourage editors to use the sources above, as well as other reliable sources, in order to find the most important points of information concerning this issue. It's best to present the sources in a factual way and to describe the facts in a way that is accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject of the article. Cs32en 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I've been saying from the beginning that this doesn't belong on this article. I've just been trying to say it in nicer terms. But túrian is correct, this feels very much like a POV push. -- Tarage ( talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"X failed to do Y" contains the implicit assumption that Y was X's job to begin with. It is not an automatic job of any agency to go around gunning down hijacked planes, conspiracy theorists' claims notwithstanding. 88.112.58.122 ( talk) 06:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Say túrian, how do you report these fringe/POV problems? I want to report violations like this, but I don't know where to go or what to do. You said you'd be monitoring the page U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks, which is overflowing with these problems, but I haven't seen you there. Like I said, it's being carefully guarded by a single user who treats it like her/his personal web page, making sure his conclusions and findings of blame remain in the article. Have a look at the discussion page. I'm a newbie & I need help over there. Dcs002 ( talk) 10:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Were the bodies of the hijackers found? Were they prosecuted posthumously? If not, aren't they innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? What are the implications of that on this article?? JiminezWaldorf 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Guilty" is a legal term, which has its limitations. The 19 hijackers cannot be found guilty because the US does not prosecute dead people. However, there are criminal investigations, in this case by the FBI, and those investigations draw evidence-based conclusions. In addition, one defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui, was tried in a US court for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, and he was found guilty based on the conspiracy scenario involving the 19. The evidence is overwhelming, widely reported and available, represents a worldwide consensus, and it all points toward the 19 (and their Al-Qaeda hierarchy). A criminal trial produces a legal verdict, which does not represent a finding of factual certainty. The evidence in this case has been reviewed and scrutinized by experts and scholars around the world. A guilty verdict only represents the opinions of 12 ordinary people. I think what we have is more reliable than a guilty verdict. The only advantage a guilty verdict would bring to an encyclopedia is freedom from libel, which is not an issue when the potentially libeled are all dead by their own crime. Dcs002 ( talk) 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's actualy parodied in Postal movie. I didn't saw it competely but in the begining there is a clear parody on terrorist pilots and their passanger victims. Yeah very smart and funny to play such things on tragedys.
Also there is no "9/11 in culture" part in the article. And its influencing such things like movies and so on. Some of them where canceled/edited as for their terrorism content. Also I've heard that pig cops where removed from Duke Nukem Forever to show respection to police officers who died there.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
is this relevant Operation Northwoods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What is this based on?
I find it insulting, that im expected to believe this.
how much evidence would be required to have this article updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.237.182 ( talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I was right. Carry on. -- Tarage ( talk) 08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
User: The Original Wildbear, reverted my edit made on solid grounds and implied that Mr. Rumsfeld is a pig [1]. I think he should be dealt with swiftly. InnerParty ( talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, death toll is mentioned as 2993. In the table immediately to the right, it's stated as 2995. Which one's correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.237.172 ( talk) 07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Italic text
Why are the deaths of the hijackers included? Does the gov. count their deaths as well? Jlujan69 ( talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just read on CNN.com: 3031 deaths... than which one is true? pls answer on my talk page -- Mdönci ( talk) 09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Al quida hijackers that the United States intelligents "claims" crashed the airplaines into the twin towers have been found alive. Bringing the validity of these intelligent reports along with the whole official story into question 24.10.121.82 ( talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Al Qaeda terrorists should not be included in the number dead; rather, there should be a separate column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.132.3 ( talk) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The number of dead is a matter of statistics, a fact, as best as can be determined, and the hijackers should be included in that, but an asterisk stating that "x" number of fatalities were hijackers would be appropriate. Removing emotion from the equation, the hijackers WERE among the dead. 76.88.76.161 ( talk) 07:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
At the top of this page we have a notice about 2008 arbitration case, upon reviewing the statements and learning about deeper context I would like to note that decorum has been broken by the two editors who have previously shown continuous tenacious approach to this article. These two editors are clearly a part of the wider group which is Gaming the system and whose interests have nothing to do with guidelines and principles established by Wikipedia Community. In line with their previous efforts, these editors have shown disregard to the editorial process while removing and/or omitting publicly known, notable and well referenced material from the article. There is no doubt that their refusal to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge' has no valid or logical foundation and that their actions hurt the project, fuel unnecessary vandalism and unwelcome behaviour. Since this is historically repeating occurrence that is well know within and outside of Wikipedia, I would at this time ask for swift and appropriate action of the administrate. InnerParty ( talk) 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There are two famous statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
'I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z' statement.
And less famous, 'I make up stories,' statement. [2]
I would appreciate some opinions on why would second reference be of lesser value than the first one ( POV pushing? How in the world, and omission of 'admission by torture' is… what?). I'd also like to discuss lack of 'torture section'. Although I'm not surprised that information about torture of Kahtani, Zubaydah and others is missing... I'd really like to see some non-conspiratorial and decent work actually being done here, so here is the link to the blogspot article which is, imo, referenced well enough to serve as a good starting point for suggested discussion. InnerParty ( talk) 14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Should I even bother with a sock check? I mean honestly, he made it far too easy this time, especially considering this 'new editor' appeared directly after the last sock was blocked. I would say that this "I suddenly agree with everything you guys say" approach was interesting, but really, this is just tedious. I had my doubts from the very first edit. Can someone else put in the request this time? -- Tarage ( talk) 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
what the hell is this? archiving an ongoing discussion? your disagreement doesn't make it fringe. 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Not only have multiple reliable sources, including the most prominent media in the U.S., widely reported on the information that is missing in the article, the issue has made headline news over a time span of several years (2001, 2004, 2006, see the sources below). I ask Turian to reopen the discussion on the on the proposal made by the IP editor. Cs32en 11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No, like I said, you need to take it to the relevant article. Sources of a bunch of people questioning the even that is mainstream sounds like fringe. And I am not stupid, their is some implication of fringe whenever you you guys have ever talked about the attacks. So no, I will not open the discussion. Take it to where it is highly relevant, but leave it out of here. And yes, I will be monitoring discussions over there as well. – túrian patois 12:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
do as you will, report to an/i, but i will continue discussing the matter here, as seems few others will too. you are minority, and you don't have wp:consensus. 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
<- so let's try to write an informative paragraph about the topic. other editor noted that my suggestion may not be NPOV worded. does anyone have another suggestion? 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 12:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I will not be able to participate in the discussion on this talk page from September 27 until October 10, per the result of an arbitration enforcement procedure. I encourage editors to use the sources above, as well as other reliable sources, in order to find the most important points of information concerning this issue. It's best to present the sources in a factual way and to describe the facts in a way that is accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject of the article. Cs32en 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I've been saying from the beginning that this doesn't belong on this article. I've just been trying to say it in nicer terms. But túrian is correct, this feels very much like a POV push. -- Tarage ( talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"X failed to do Y" contains the implicit assumption that Y was X's job to begin with. It is not an automatic job of any agency to go around gunning down hijacked planes, conspiracy theorists' claims notwithstanding. 88.112.58.122 ( talk) 06:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Say túrian, how do you report these fringe/POV problems? I want to report violations like this, but I don't know where to go or what to do. You said you'd be monitoring the page U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks, which is overflowing with these problems, but I haven't seen you there. Like I said, it's being carefully guarded by a single user who treats it like her/his personal web page, making sure his conclusions and findings of blame remain in the article. Have a look at the discussion page. I'm a newbie & I need help over there. Dcs002 ( talk) 10:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Were the bodies of the hijackers found? Were they prosecuted posthumously? If not, aren't they innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? What are the implications of that on this article?? JiminezWaldorf 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Guilty" is a legal term, which has its limitations. The 19 hijackers cannot be found guilty because the US does not prosecute dead people. However, there are criminal investigations, in this case by the FBI, and those investigations draw evidence-based conclusions. In addition, one defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui, was tried in a US court for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, and he was found guilty based on the conspiracy scenario involving the 19. The evidence is overwhelming, widely reported and available, represents a worldwide consensus, and it all points toward the 19 (and their Al-Qaeda hierarchy). A criminal trial produces a legal verdict, which does not represent a finding of factual certainty. The evidence in this case has been reviewed and scrutinized by experts and scholars around the world. A guilty verdict only represents the opinions of 12 ordinary people. I think what we have is more reliable than a guilty verdict. The only advantage a guilty verdict would bring to an encyclopedia is freedom from libel, which is not an issue when the potentially libeled are all dead by their own crime. Dcs002 ( talk) 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's actualy parodied in Postal movie. I didn't saw it competely but in the begining there is a clear parody on terrorist pilots and their passanger victims. Yeah very smart and funny to play such things on tragedys.
Also there is no "9/11 in culture" part in the article. And its influencing such things like movies and so on. Some of them where canceled/edited as for their terrorism content. Also I've heard that pig cops where removed from Duke Nukem Forever to show respection to police officers who died there.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
is this relevant Operation Northwoods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.164.168 ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What is this based on?
I find it insulting, that im expected to believe this.
how much evidence would be required to have this article updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.237.182 ( talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I was right. Carry on. -- Tarage ( talk) 08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
User: The Original Wildbear, reverted my edit made on solid grounds and implied that Mr. Rumsfeld is a pig [1]. I think he should be dealt with swiftly. InnerParty ( talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, death toll is mentioned as 2993. In the table immediately to the right, it's stated as 2995. Which one's correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.237.172 ( talk) 07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Italic text
Why are the deaths of the hijackers included? Does the gov. count their deaths as well? Jlujan69 ( talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just read on CNN.com: 3031 deaths... than which one is true? pls answer on my talk page -- Mdönci ( talk) 09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Al quida hijackers that the United States intelligents "claims" crashed the airplaines into the twin towers have been found alive. Bringing the validity of these intelligent reports along with the whole official story into question 24.10.121.82 ( talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Al Qaeda terrorists should not be included in the number dead; rather, there should be a separate column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.132.3 ( talk) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The number of dead is a matter of statistics, a fact, as best as can be determined, and the hijackers should be included in that, but an asterisk stating that "x" number of fatalities were hijackers would be appropriate. Removing emotion from the equation, the hijackers WERE among the dead. 76.88.76.161 ( talk) 07:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
At the top of this page we have a notice about 2008 arbitration case, upon reviewing the statements and learning about deeper context I would like to note that decorum has been broken by the two editors who have previously shown continuous tenacious approach to this article. These two editors are clearly a part of the wider group which is Gaming the system and whose interests have nothing to do with guidelines and principles established by Wikipedia Community. In line with their previous efforts, these editors have shown disregard to the editorial process while removing and/or omitting publicly known, notable and well referenced material from the article. There is no doubt that their refusal to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge' has no valid or logical foundation and that their actions hurt the project, fuel unnecessary vandalism and unwelcome behaviour. Since this is historically repeating occurrence that is well know within and outside of Wikipedia, I would at this time ask for swift and appropriate action of the administrate. InnerParty ( talk) 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There are two famous statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
'I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z' statement.
And less famous, 'I make up stories,' statement. [2]
I would appreciate some opinions on why would second reference be of lesser value than the first one ( POV pushing? How in the world, and omission of 'admission by torture' is… what?). I'd also like to discuss lack of 'torture section'. Although I'm not surprised that information about torture of Kahtani, Zubaydah and others is missing... I'd really like to see some non-conspiratorial and decent work actually being done here, so here is the link to the blogspot article which is, imo, referenced well enough to serve as a good starting point for suggested discussion. InnerParty ( talk) 14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Should I even bother with a sock check? I mean honestly, he made it far too easy this time, especially considering this 'new editor' appeared directly after the last sock was blocked. I would say that this "I suddenly agree with everything you guys say" approach was interesting, but really, this is just tedious. I had my doubts from the very first edit. Can someone else put in the request this time? -- Tarage ( talk) 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)