This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I'm sure it's far too late to change the name, but this section is actually 29 pages: Pages numbering 415-443. That difference is 28, except that there is also material on p. 415. Thus, the document called "The 28 Pages" actually contains 29 pages.
I don't think it matters, but whoever came up with the name failed to adequately check the name. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
What is known about Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi?
As documented on p. 433 of the declassified "Part 4", these two "attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit" in a flight in 1999. "The plane made an emergency landing and the FBI investigated the incident, but decided not to pursue a prosecution. At the time, al-Qudhaeein and al-Shalawi claimed that the Saudi Embassy paid for their airplane tickets."
These names do not appear on the list of w:Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. Does anyone know if they are still alive? Or might they have been part of the 19 under different names?
Beyond that, this "declassified Part 4" (aka "The 28 Pages", even though there are 29) discusses another Saudi national with "close ties to a member of the Saudi royal family. [He] no longer resides in the United States, but is still the subject of an FBI investigation" -- so was still apparently alive in 2002. He also worked for Saudi Arabian Airlines and was reportedly "checking security at the Southwest border and discussing the possibility of infiltrating individuals into the United States" in 1999 (pp. 418 and 436-437). His (or her, though almost certain "his" given the Saudi culture) name was not declassified with the rest of The 28 Pages.
If this is accurate, at least 3 people beyond the 19 suicide attackers were involved in planning the September 11 attacks, not counting Prince Bandar's wife and others in paid by the Saudis in the U.S. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 19:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for adding new materials to the article. However, it's expected that you add citations to reliable sources to maintain the verifiablity policy. Thanks again. -- Mhhossein talk 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Note:This comment was copied from DavidMCEddy's talk page by DavidMCEddy. -- Mhhossein talk 15:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein has asked for a source for quotes from a declassified U.S. government document.
User:DavidMCEddy provided citations to pages on the referenced declassified U.S. government document including links to that document on Wikisource.
User:Mhhossein insists that this primary source is not acceptable for this purpose.
User:DavidMCEddy still believes that these citations to the primary source in question are consistent with the letter, spirit and intent of the Wikipedia policy on "identifying and using primary sources".
We are therefore requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
3O Response: There has been so much back and forth here that it's unclear exactly whst the issue is. It would be helpful if both editors could spell out there concerns. From the article history, the following issues appear to be contentious:
1) The 28 pages were classified as top secret. My opinion is that this can't be included without a secondary source. WP:PRIMARYCARE seems clear enough here. We can only use a primary source to make straightforward descriptive statements. This is anything but straightforward or descriptive. A straightforward descriptive statment would be "The preamble to the paper warns any readers to take care because the document is classifed top secret". Having the words top secret on the top and bottom of a page, apprently crossed out, is not that. Being crossed out usually indicates an error that has been redacted. As such it is far from simple or clear what the status of the document is, what it was, and when or if it was changed.
2) The statement that since it is top secret, this means that it could cause damage. This definitely can not be included. This is classic WP:SYNTH. The primary source says its's top secret. Another unrelated source defines what top secret means. Textbook synthesis and never going to pass any sort of dispute resolution
3) The statement "The text describes two incidents that, in retrospect, appear as preparations for the Sept 11 attacks". In my opinion this clearly can't remain. At no point does the document state or imply that these incidents were preparations for the later attacks. We can not use primary sources this way. A good example of the how a primary source should be used is "The 28 pages state that some of the hijackers recieved support from individuals connected to the Saudi government." That is a clear descriptive statement. Anyone reading the source can see that it makes a statement to that effect. The report never says that any previous incidents were preparations for later attacks. In fact the incidents are mentioned under the heading "connections between Saudi Givt and possible terrorists". There isn't even the slightest hint that these incidents were preparatory.
4) Tthe statements that this was clearly known to the FBI prior to the Afghanistan invasion and discussed by the Bush administration. Those statements are supported solely by a link to a Wikipedia article. That is a clear violation of WP:CIRCULAR. At this point those statements are unreferenced and need to be removed per WP:NPOV.
Remember, anything we attribute to a primary source must be streaightfoward descriptive statement. Basically, if it doesn't take the form of "the document says X" or "on page 34 is a photograph of a male person" then it can't be referenced to the primary source. Mark Marathon ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Mark Marathon ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
On 2018-08-52, user 216.248.99.93 inserted a discussion of a draft plank supporting declassification at the 2016 Republican National Convention. This included claims that it was inserted by AIPAC:
The third reference given here said that AIPAC was NOT involved in this, contradicting the other two. This claim is controversial and is tangential to the main thrust of this article. I therefore removed it. This was contained in the paragraph about the 2016 Republican National Convention. The rest of that paragraph seems fine to me and consistent with recent publications that seem otherwise credible. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Mark Schierbecker: On 2018-07-18, user:Mark Schierbecker deleted the "External link" to:
This link may seem redundant. However, I think it's important to keep it, because it establishes clearly that "The 28 Pages" document was at one time actually available from a US government source and not a bit of propaganda by pinkos intent on destroying the good reputation of the US government. The fact that one must use archive.gov to get this is itself an interesting story in this regard, I think.
Accordingly, I'm restoring that external link. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Bruce Riedel includes a mention of the 28 pages in the appendix of his 2017 book, Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States since FDR. It is not available within the Google Books preview, but can be seen in the Amazon preview. It may prove useful in the writing of this page. Tkbrett (✉) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I'm sure it's far too late to change the name, but this section is actually 29 pages: Pages numbering 415-443. That difference is 28, except that there is also material on p. 415. Thus, the document called "The 28 Pages" actually contains 29 pages.
I don't think it matters, but whoever came up with the name failed to adequately check the name. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
What is known about Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi?
As documented on p. 433 of the declassified "Part 4", these two "attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit" in a flight in 1999. "The plane made an emergency landing and the FBI investigated the incident, but decided not to pursue a prosecution. At the time, al-Qudhaeein and al-Shalawi claimed that the Saudi Embassy paid for their airplane tickets."
These names do not appear on the list of w:Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. Does anyone know if they are still alive? Or might they have been part of the 19 under different names?
Beyond that, this "declassified Part 4" (aka "The 28 Pages", even though there are 29) discusses another Saudi national with "close ties to a member of the Saudi royal family. [He] no longer resides in the United States, but is still the subject of an FBI investigation" -- so was still apparently alive in 2002. He also worked for Saudi Arabian Airlines and was reportedly "checking security at the Southwest border and discussing the possibility of infiltrating individuals into the United States" in 1999 (pp. 418 and 436-437). His (or her, though almost certain "his" given the Saudi culture) name was not declassified with the rest of The 28 Pages.
If this is accurate, at least 3 people beyond the 19 suicide attackers were involved in planning the September 11 attacks, not counting Prince Bandar's wife and others in paid by the Saudis in the U.S. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 19:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for adding new materials to the article. However, it's expected that you add citations to reliable sources to maintain the verifiablity policy. Thanks again. -- Mhhossein talk 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Note:This comment was copied from DavidMCEddy's talk page by DavidMCEddy. -- Mhhossein talk 15:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein has asked for a source for quotes from a declassified U.S. government document.
User:DavidMCEddy provided citations to pages on the referenced declassified U.S. government document including links to that document on Wikisource.
User:Mhhossein insists that this primary source is not acceptable for this purpose.
User:DavidMCEddy still believes that these citations to the primary source in question are consistent with the letter, spirit and intent of the Wikipedia policy on "identifying and using primary sources".
We are therefore requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
3O Response: There has been so much back and forth here that it's unclear exactly whst the issue is. It would be helpful if both editors could spell out there concerns. From the article history, the following issues appear to be contentious:
1) The 28 pages were classified as top secret. My opinion is that this can't be included without a secondary source. WP:PRIMARYCARE seems clear enough here. We can only use a primary source to make straightforward descriptive statements. This is anything but straightforward or descriptive. A straightforward descriptive statment would be "The preamble to the paper warns any readers to take care because the document is classifed top secret". Having the words top secret on the top and bottom of a page, apprently crossed out, is not that. Being crossed out usually indicates an error that has been redacted. As such it is far from simple or clear what the status of the document is, what it was, and when or if it was changed.
2) The statement that since it is top secret, this means that it could cause damage. This definitely can not be included. This is classic WP:SYNTH. The primary source says its's top secret. Another unrelated source defines what top secret means. Textbook synthesis and never going to pass any sort of dispute resolution
3) The statement "The text describes two incidents that, in retrospect, appear as preparations for the Sept 11 attacks". In my opinion this clearly can't remain. At no point does the document state or imply that these incidents were preparations for the later attacks. We can not use primary sources this way. A good example of the how a primary source should be used is "The 28 pages state that some of the hijackers recieved support from individuals connected to the Saudi government." That is a clear descriptive statement. Anyone reading the source can see that it makes a statement to that effect. The report never says that any previous incidents were preparations for later attacks. In fact the incidents are mentioned under the heading "connections between Saudi Givt and possible terrorists". There isn't even the slightest hint that these incidents were preparatory.
4) Tthe statements that this was clearly known to the FBI prior to the Afghanistan invasion and discussed by the Bush administration. Those statements are supported solely by a link to a Wikipedia article. That is a clear violation of WP:CIRCULAR. At this point those statements are unreferenced and need to be removed per WP:NPOV.
Remember, anything we attribute to a primary source must be streaightfoward descriptive statement. Basically, if it doesn't take the form of "the document says X" or "on page 34 is a photograph of a male person" then it can't be referenced to the primary source. Mark Marathon ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Mark Marathon ( talk) 08:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
On 2018-08-52, user 216.248.99.93 inserted a discussion of a draft plank supporting declassification at the 2016 Republican National Convention. This included claims that it was inserted by AIPAC:
The third reference given here said that AIPAC was NOT involved in this, contradicting the other two. This claim is controversial and is tangential to the main thrust of this article. I therefore removed it. This was contained in the paragraph about the 2016 Republican National Convention. The rest of that paragraph seems fine to me and consistent with recent publications that seem otherwise credible. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Mark Schierbecker: On 2018-07-18, user:Mark Schierbecker deleted the "External link" to:
This link may seem redundant. However, I think it's important to keep it, because it establishes clearly that "The 28 Pages" document was at one time actually available from a US government source and not a bit of propaganda by pinkos intent on destroying the good reputation of the US government. The fact that one must use archive.gov to get this is itself an interesting story in this regard, I think.
Accordingly, I'm restoring that external link. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Bruce Riedel includes a mention of the 28 pages in the appendix of his 2017 book, Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States since FDR. It is not available within the Google Books preview, but can be seen in the Amazon preview. It may prove useful in the writing of this page. Tkbrett (✉) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)