Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30

NPOV Dispute

Just to bring everyone up to speed on the natrue of an NPOV dispbute and when a template can be removed, please take a look at this from the NPOV dispute tag article.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

--Cplot 06:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Luckily there was consensus to remove it as there has been for a number of years. --Tbeatty 21:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you're just trying to be provocative here, but for the record, no consensus had been reached and the inappropriate repeated removal of the template only allowed a period of an hour in total for editors to make comments. From that period alone there were significant numbers of editors weighing in on both sides. Hence no judgement on consensus could be made (I don't think the word consensus mean what you think it means). --Cplot 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

image

please change MEDRES to HIGHRES on the commission cover image. --Ysangkok 13:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like that should be non-controversial, so I went ahead and did that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Say, how come that we always have some image(inary) problem in the nick of fiery discussions? Lovelight 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of NPOV problems

Here are some missing analyses of the attacks that are missing from the article or do not receive proper NPOV treatment and due weight. These all are all from the verifiable, credible sources I listed above. Again, the correctness or incorrectness of these issues are immaterial to our discussion here. Its important that they be included in the article amidst the other hypotheses currently given a slanted POV treatment.

Conspiracy Theories

The use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" in the article is inappropriate. If what we are talking about are theories all the editors agree are waco and unsubstantiated than I do not see any reason to even include those in the article. Theories such as "the Jews did it" of the "illuminati did it" are no doubt verbalized about these attacks. But they are probably also blamed for Elmo TMX, yet that article makes no mention of conspiracy theories. However there are sources of theories surrounding these attacks that do not belong under the conspiracy theory heading that are also not represented in the article at all: Griffin, Jones, Tarpley, Hufschmid, Meyssan, and Thompson, just to name a few.

I do not have the above sources at hand at the moment but from memory I'll try to list important analyses that are missing from this article.

A possibility of controlled demolition

Jones and others have found evidence — such as signs of molten iron, visual analysis of the collapses, and chemical and physics analysis borne out through experimentation — that the collapses may have been due to a controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 on September 11th. If this hypothesis is correct it accounts for the greatest number of fatalities on that day. This evidence says nothing on its own about a government conspiracy, but it does suggest the attacks were much more elaborate than alternative hypotheses.

Simultaneous failure of routine defenses

Fighter jets, routinely scrambled for commercial aircraft flying off course and typically intercepting wayward aircraft within 15 minutes, were not scrambled at all until every plane had already crashed. The time between the first reported hijacking and the last collision was over an hour. Again, this does not suggest Elmo TMX flew the plane into the pentagon. However, it is a notable failure on the day of the attacks and it is cited by sever authors published in verifiable sources.

Documented efforts to delay, obstruct or avoid Congressional or other independent investigations

Some of these sources present evidence that members of the US Congress, calling for a serious and more thorough investigation of the attacks, were intimidated by executive branch agents.

The scientific surveys showing the doubts about prior investigations and the need for further investigation

The NYT and other articles cited above should also be included in the article. They show the doubts Americans (and others around the world) have about the current state of investigation into the attacks.

These last two subsections demonstrate the partiality of the official investigations (partial, both in the sense of incomplete and partial in the sense of representing an account of interested parties). The article how it currently stands presents only that one partial account: and it presents it (as some of the editors try to insist above) as simply the facts mam. Again, there are other partial accounts not included in the article.

Attacks used as a pretense ("an opportunity" according to Rumsfeld) to ram through administrations policies

Some of these sources also document this quite well. This is an important part of the US government response that is absent from that section. Some of these policies include homeland security, war against terror, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, the use of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as a "zone of total despotism for the administration", TSA intimidation of airline passengers, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and so on. The article makes no mention of these and is written as if readers are a bunch of kindergartners on a tour of the Whitehorse.

These are accounts of the attacks in verifiable sources written by reputable authors. They should be incorporated into the main sections of the article. They should be interspersed through the various sections and subsections of the article Some of these sources provide additional analysis of the nature of the attacks (section 1), allegations and culpability (section 2), reactions (section 3), the response of US government entities (section 4), and the long-term implications of these attacks (section 5). Throwing them into an incited and pejorative subsection entitled "Conspiracy theories" or into another article with the same title advances a particular POV, or as Mongo calls it: it's POV pushing.

I welcome other editors to add to this list above and make comments and criticisms below. Again, we're not arguing whether these accounts are correct or incorrect. We are discussing how these accounts can be included within the article to fix the NPOV violations.

Comments

  • All of these points are secondary. This article summarizes a notable historic event. It is not a random collection of every point that can possibly be connected to it. Not every element of the overall story belongs in this article, and whether something is true, or false, or of unknown status, is highly releveant. It is necessary to discriminate:
    • The acts of the terrorists and their consequences, and
    • Issues that, while an important part of the story, are not direct consequences of the terrorists' actions and typically are addressed in separate articles:
      • Folklore like the conspiracy theories and the controlled demolition hoax.
      • Unpreparedness and the contributory negligence.
      • Obstruction of investigation.
      • Political exploitation of the tragedy.
    • Speculation and innuendo by the general public, which are not encyclopedic content, except where they constitute a notable pop culture phenomenon, and then only where clearly identified as such. Peter Grey 00:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, here are some comments:
  1. Right, tickle me Elmo make no mention of conspiracy theories because there are no notable conspiracy theories about Elmo. When it comes to 9/11, there are TONS of notable conspiracy theories. That's why they are mentioned, yes, even have their own page. They ARE theories of the kind normally called conspiracy theories. I understand that you don't like the word, but unless you can come up with an equally clear word for these kinds of theories, I see no option than to keep it. I don't like that the democrats call themsleves liberal. As a European, that word mean something different to me. But I don't go around claiming that all references on Wikipedia to the democrats being liberal are POV. They aren't. It's just a word usage I am not happy with but have to accept.
  2. All arguments for a controlled demolition has been thoroughly disproved. Nothing indicates a controlled demolition, and in fact, the installation of the explosives would not have gone unnoticed, and therefore a controlled demolition is an impossibility. Therefore we can not take up controlled demolition as a credible alternative event explanation. Stating disproved statements would remove Wikipedias credivility. We can't do that. You say this is not to discuss whether the claims are true or not, and fine, lets then not just discuss it. The fact still is that we can't take up disproven statement and claim them as credible theories when they aren't, adn the controlled demolition theories are not in any way shape or form even remotely credible.
    A neutral point of view would be: "Yes, while there is no proof of government involvement and no "tagants" to indicate typical explosives used, nor any eye witnesses to bombs planted, the way in which WTC's 1, 2 and 7 fell and the numerous eye witness accounts of molten metal by firemen and cleanup crews, indicates that a more thorough investigation of explosives needs to be done." In addition, the NIST has provided absolutely no mathematical or energy transfer results to back up their claims and refuse to issue any sort of detailed computer model to illustrate a "progressive collapse", just a vague explanation. In addition, the NIST offers no explanation to why there was molten metal in the basements of WTC's 1, 2 and 7 and merely dodges it by stating: "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." If that isn't a red flag in the order of "We can't and aren't allowed to explain it... so we won't", I don't know what is. I personally am not going to delve into non-Al Quaeda conspiracy, until all the relevant and unanswered questions are thoroughly answered.IanBallard 23:14, 28 November 2006
    No, that would be giving undue weight to what is sheer speculation, using of illogical statements (explosives do not produce large amounts of molten metal, high-temperature fires does, and therefore teh molten metal SUPPORTS the fire-collapse), and it's pushing and agenda, namely what needs to be done. It is not wikipedias place to talk about what "should be done". If an investigation is done and comes up with proof for CD, then we'll add that to the article. Until this is done, it would be POV to include the speculation about CD. Yet again, the suggested changes would make the article MORE POV, not less. --Regebro 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    This is only your personal POV and it does not represent truth, sorry. Other people like Jones, Hoffman, Griffin, Ryan, who made more research than you have different opinion. So there is no need to shift discussion to this level, really. If your oppinion matters, then mine too. SalvNaut 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    No, that is not a POV. If you read the NPOV article you see that this isn't a quetsion of view or opinion. It doens't even fit into that categorization. It's a question of factual accuracy. --Regebro 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. The eventual failure of defense routines is a valid topic when one discusses how much the government could have done to prevent the events. Blaming the goverment is not a necessary topic when noting the chain of events, as this article does. In fact, it could be construed to be POV. The article is controversial, it needs to be as FACTUAL as possible, nothing else.
  4. Again, the goverments unwillingness to make an investigation is not a valid topic when mentioning the chain of events.
  5. You want to include documents that say that possible the scientific investigations are flawed because of political reasons. That would break NPOV. Scientific research is disproven by other scientific research, not by political intrigues.
Cpan, it is quite evident from your list of things above, that what you find missing from the article are efforts to blame the Bush government, wholly or partially for the event. Adding such bits would break the NPOV policy. We can't do that, which you yourself agree with.
That *should* end the debate, but somehow I suspect it doens't. ;-) --Regebro 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are no notable conspiraqcy theories in the sense that all of us editors here would agree these are alternative views and criticisms are outlandish enought to be disparaged as "conspiracy theories". Your analogy to thee democrats and liberals is a false analogy. The democrats self-identify as liberals so the term is not disparaging in their view. The term "comspiracy theory" as its being used here is only in the disparaging sense. It's a word not to use and unencydlopedic.
  2. Yours starting to try to prove and disprove things again. Take it to a usenet group somewhere else. I would welcome the inclusion of counter-arguments to the controlled demolition evidence. That's a great way to make the article conform to the NPOV policy
  3. I and I would guess many other of the dissenting editors here would argue that the defense failures are very important pieces fot these attacks. Without those, it makes it look like the US was just some emporer with no close and that anybody with a few friends with box-cutters could have succeeded in a major attack at any time.
  4. The issue of avoiding investigation belongs in the article long before the current draft"s overly long disucssion of all the of different investigations that all agree with each other.
  5. you misunderstand. I merely want to include discussion of the views of the public (part of the public reaction) of the attacks and investigations. This is very relevant in a discussion of these attacks.

Finally, I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this, but Regebro please read the NPOV policy. You completely misunderstand it. The relevant facts for this article are what the editors determine through compromise and concesnus are the relevant facts. The relevant facts are no simply what you say they are.. Including criticism of the Bush administration does not violate NPOV. That is rediculous. it balances the article so that it comforsm with the NPOV policy. Should we go change the Iraq war article to say that no one has died in Iraq to ensure we don't cast an unfavorable light on the Bush administration? I'm trying my best to presume good faith in these dicussion, and things seem to be improving, but some of these arguments you're continuing to make are absurd, seem intentionally obtuse and intentionally disruptive. --Cplot 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One could go long way around, but in short, those statements above are crap. Commission report was even greater crap then yours, since you need a blink of a Google to verify why that whole investigation wasn’t an investigation at all, since people involved have been anything but independent ((actually first person which came to Bush's mind was Henry (you damn loon!) Kissinger)). Honestly, I'm tired of all this, and I do expect some decent perspective from you all. It took Bush 411! days to appoint Chairman of that commission, and there is (partially) decent article about it even here on Quikipedia (pardon my sarcasm…), so way don't you look that up? I've proposed a section about government foreknowledge some time ago, and as you see I'm not the only one with such things on mind… 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yours starting to try to prove and disprove things again. Take it to a usenet group - Please learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a chat room. Views of the public have their place (usually a sub-article), but in an encyclopedia they don't supercede what is known to be true or known to be false. Peter Grey 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Truth? How do we know it's true? Also what policy or guideline says that it has to be real or true to have an article? If truth were necessary, then evolution, creation, gravity, etc. would have be deleted because they're all theories. Once again this seems like POV pushing on your part, as well as mongo's. And, lastly, prove to everyone here without a doubt that this article is 100% true. if you can't, your argument is moot--Acebrock 03:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, how DO we know it's true? How do we know ANYTHING is true? Big questions. Luckily, we have answers. See Scientific method and if you want the philosophy behind it, Epistemology. Yes, evolution, creation and gravity are theories. That does not make them "untrue". You seem to think that nothing can be a fact and theory at the same time. That is a common misunderstanding, but nevertheless a misunderstanding. Evolution is a theory. AND a fact. The conspiracy theories with 9/11 are theories. And NOT in any way shape or form based onfacts, but based on misunderstandings, misconceptions and sometimes just plain paranoia. --Regebro 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that truth is subjective, and reality only exists in the mind--Acebrock 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what Jones did, he applied scientific method to Collapse of WTC, he analyzed ALL the data and come to different conclusion. His paper was peer reviewed by 4PhDs, (two physicists) (not by engineering journal, but why it should be? He takes physical approach there, why would engineer know better on this apporoach?). You must be aware of the fact that NIST report hasn't been peer-reviewed and that it has outspoken critics from both (official, inside job) sides? SalvNaut 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
To say that Jones applied proper scientific method is fork bendingly silly. From the scientific method Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community. Pouring molten metal out of a 6 inch sauce pan is just a trick, not science. And yes, engineers need to be involved in these things, applied science is where the rubber meets the road and without their input it's incomplete. Rx StrangeLove 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Jones never claimed his experiments were final, he always urged for another proper investigation. He is "making a case" for controlled demolition hypothesis investigation. And his experiments weren't so stupid if you look at them closely (the pan was red already while aluminium wasn't). Then, why NIST which has millions of $ didn't made those or similiar experiments? What about molten steel in the rubble? Do you really fell satisfied with this one RxStrangelove?: "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."(NIST) SalvNaut 17:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If they are not final, then their use on Wikipedia is of little value. Anyone looking at this with no preconceptions couldn't be very surprised there was molten metal after such a violent series of events. The NIST is under no obligation to spend my money investigating claims made by anyone with an axe to grind. And arguing about whether a sauce pan full of molten metal can give any real insight to such violence is beyond silly. Rx StrangeLove 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It's beyond silly to focus on a sauce pan, and then make a comment about violence. Orange glowing saucepan full of hot, but silver alluminium gives insight exactly into that. "Anyone looking at this with no preconceptions..." - well that's the point... without... but with scientific knowledge? SalvNaut 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not focusing on a sauce pan (full of what could be anything). If you've read my comments, I talked about the NIST's obligations when researching the events of that day, Jones research being of little value as it stands right now, the existence of molten metal after the collapse (and how it shouldn't have come as a surprise), the scientific method and how Jones is playing at it and how applied engineering needs to be involved when researching engineering topics. So, no....I'm not focusing on that sauce pan...though it is pretty funny you have to admit. Rx StrangeLove 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm only guessing what you consider funny here. That's how science works - from small discoveries to big ones. Wasn't that funny when Darwin concluded about affinity between humans and apes from looking at Mockingbirds' beaks? Jones' points are really strong from physicist's point of view - molten metal is barerly explainded by something else than explosives (F. Gordon has some other theory which involves self-inducing thermite reactions - it needs to be investigated, strange isn't it?). NIST was under obligation to gather as much data as possible and provide theory that explains all the data. They failed. They contradicted themselves often (fire temperatures, pancake theory, sagging floors, allegedly dislodged fireproofing). They did bad science. SalvNaut 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's funny, pouring molten whoknowswhat on your desk and calling it science, that's comedy. No documentation, no controls, no reproducibility...no science. Though comparing Jones to Darwin is pretty funny also. Your assertions about the NIST are only that, maybe they didn't do perfect science either but that doesn't mean anything goes, and that we have to track down every lunatic with a video camera and spend a bunch of money investigating the results of their bad science. Jones doesn't have to believe what NIST (or every other mainstream source) says but if we going to take him seriously he has to do better. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and all that. Rx StrangeLove 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The experiment is perfectly reproducible. You would prefer to have some charts and so? Here you go, here it is explained how black body radiation depends on temperature: Black body radiation (check where bright yellow is). Can you come up with better experiment that would show exactly what Jones is trying to say about molten alluminium?(and would not need many 1000$). Extraordinary claims need the same kind of evidence as every other claim. Btw: what about WTC7 - isn't it extraordinary to claim that it collapsed the way it did only due to fires and some damage?SalvNaut 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Can it be? What was the aluminum mixture? How much of it was there? What temp? How large was the pan? What kind of wood and how much of that was added? What kind of plastic? Bad science. Bad reasoning. Jones can keep his rotating charts until he has done some science. Re: your comment on my Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence point, tu quoque is just a logical fallacy. Rx StrangeLove 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Tu quoque is not a fallacy - I just think that NIST did bad science. I hope you are in the same way critical of NIST putting their claim about "organic material glow" in their FAQ and not providing any data about it, not even making any experiments probably, as you are of Jones's experiments. I really hope you are. But to not "tu quoque" anymore (thank you for a new phrase), I won't defend Jones on his paper and presentations and dust analysis etc. as they could be done better (as always). I sustain that they are absolutely enough for what they were intended, that is to make a case for serious investigation of CD hypothesis. Dismissing the paper and hypothesis as you and many others do is inappropriate, unscientific, imho. Jones and Scholars are calling for a release of all evidence about both towers - would you support them? Thanks for the discussion. SalvNaut 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Tu quoque is considered an ad hominem argument, close enough for a fallacy for me...and that's what you are doing. Look at what started this: That's what Jones did, he applied scientific method to Collapse of WTC, he analyzed ALL the data and come to different conclusion. That's you, way up above, and that's what we're talking about here. NIST may have done perfect science, it may have done none at all...it's not relevant here. What is on topic in this thread is that Jones has done nothing at all that would qualify as good science. Later in that paragraph you say that NIST report hasn't been peer-reviewed; defending Jones by attacking NIST....Tu quoque. So, no I don't think that he rises to the level needed to spend a bunch of $$$ on...and I would in a second if I thought he was on to something. All evidence? No, not for the fishing expedition they are on. Rx StrangeLove 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, there is nothing extraordinary with that claim. And if Jones tries to claim that aluminium needs high temperatures to melt, he is correct. The types of temperatures you get in intensive fires like the ones that was in WTC, and just the types of temperatures you do NOT get in a controlled demolition. --Regebro 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Swedish, dutch, structural engineers, demolition experts and many, many people think it is extraordinary. Don't grasp straws, please. And you completely misrepresented/misunderstood Jones's claims and arguments. Please read Jones's paper, presentations. and NIST report before further discussion. Thanks! SalvNaut 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Many may "think" so, but it still isn't. Science is NOT a matter of popular opinion. You don't understand how science works. We won't get further in this debate until you do. --Regebro 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Regebro, you proved that you discuss about theories and you haven't even read most important papers to them. Stop to instruct me about science, will you? When I say they "think", I mean they are academics and they value their words, and their opinions are most probably strengthtened with reasoning, but still are nothing more than opinions. Where did I say otherwise? I could understand your agitation, but instead of arguing here I urge you to read Jones's paper, NIST report and Kevin Ryan's critique of it. Thanks. SalvNaut 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll happily discuss theories, but not in a discussion that is nominally about somethng else. As requested MULTIPLE TIMES, by MULTIPLE PEOPLE. If there is some section or thing you think could be improved, feel free to take that up for discussion, but do NOT do it in a context of "the whole article is POV", because if you do we nee dto concentrate about discussing if the article is POV or not. And I'll continue to instruct you on science when you show misunderstandsings about it. Jones paper for example doesn't even ATTEMPT to prove the controlled demolition hypothesis. Yet you bring it up in a discussion about the controlled demolition hypothesis. That shows that you don't udnerstand how science works. --Regebro 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
One of my proposed edits (already made partially) has just been archived, second one is waiting under section "Proposed edits". Please have a look there. "by MULTIPLE PEOPLE" - that was me there, too, insisting on discussing edits - this discussion is sort of orthogonal to that, it somehow has emerged and is already finished...you know how it is goes when already started. "Jones paper for example doesn't even ATTEMPT to prove the controlled demolition hypothesis." - Wow, if you have read whole paper, that's very good. It does not attempt to prove - it points out very significant data that, according to Jones, makes CD hypothesis a must to be investigated, we agree here, right? Please, stop instructing me on science without a good reason, just to gain (false)advantage in discussion. Ok? :) SalvNaut 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"it points out very significant data that, according to Jones, makes CD hypothesis a must to be investigated, we agree here, right?" We agree that this is what Jones sais. We don't agree that he is right, or that his opinion has any scientific worth. Also, if Jones things the CD hypothesis must be investigated, he is free to investigate it. And if he finds PROOF for it, THEN we can include it on this page. But as of today, there is no proof, or even indications. To be completely and utterly clear on this topic: The CD hypothesis has as much scientific and factual basis as the theory that the towers were eaten by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The logic is the same: "Hey airplanes can't fly into towers! Therefore the theory that the towers was eaten by the flying spaghetti monster must be seriously investigated!" Eh, no, it doesn't. Honestly, it doesn't. --Regebro 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
".., or that his opinion has any scientific worth" - by saing that you show yourself completely ignorant, imo (I doubt that you've read his paper and tried to understand it, am I wrong?). I've never proposed to include CD hypothesis here as a fact. Do you have any academic experience? Your comprehension of what science is is quite different from mine. (comment a bit adjusted)SalvNaut 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This comment violates WP:NPA. --Regebro 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly? I think I used word comprehension in wrong meaning. I mean that not everyone knows how a process of creation of scientific paper looks like. What is considered a scientific paper, what is not, what has scientific meaning, what does not. Nothing wrong with that. There are many papers with great scientific significance that do not prove anything, that do not even try to. Their only purpose is to draw reader attention to a topic, to show a way of thinking, agitate for some proposition, etc. And you should know that very often such papers are the most cited ones. No doubt that you and I have completely different opinions about what is "science" or "scientific". I've changed this comment a bit. SalvNaut 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you have changed it "a bit" to get rid of the personal attacks. [1] That shows quite clearly that you know EXACTLY what I meant. In any case, I hope it's at least an effect of an honest attempt to keep a civil tone in the future. --Regebro 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Cpan, I HAVE read the texts on NPOV. I'm sure you have too. But you allow yourself to get blinded and not see what they are saying. Further comments:
  1. No, not everybody has to agree. If one editor thinks that Tickle me Elmo is a jewish conspiracy from outer space, this does not have to be mentioned in the article. With sex billion people around the world, I'm sure there is at least one evidently incorrect opinion on every wikipedia article. These do NOT have to be included. Wikipedia is NOT a complete listing of humanities ideas an opinions. it is a dictionatry, and the articles should therefore state the truth, not list every idea and opinion that somebody might have. Incorrect opinions and theories should be listed if they are NOTABLE. The 9/11 conspiracy theories ARE notable, and they are therefore listed. They even have their own article. YOU are argiung that we should consciously give known falsehoods equal billing in the article, just because you say so. Do you think that makes sense?
  2. No, I'm not trying to prove and disprove things. I just mention the fact that is is completely and totally disproved. You want to include things we KNOW are completely and utterly false in an article. Counter-arguments to the controlled demolition theory exist where they belong: In the conspircay theory article.
  3. "Without those, it makes it look like the US was just some emporer with no close and that anybody with a few friends with box-cutters could have succeeded in a major attack at any time." Which of course is completely correct. Are we getting to the core of why you feel the need to cling to conspiracy theories? Well, that's not what we are discussing anyway...
  4. No, in an article where the EVENTS are described, it necessary to mention the research of those events. It is NOT necessary to mention the politics behind the research.
  5. "I merely want to include discussion of the views of the public (part of the public reaction) of the attacks and investigations." No, you are evidently NOT trying to merely include this, as your above points are all about including completely different things. In any case, I don't see how that belongs in the article. The article is about the attackes. There is a section about public response. The article is not about the investigations. Why would you want to include a section on public respons to that? Oh, right, because you desperately want to have text in the article that blames Bush for the attacks. Which would be POV, and which we therefore can't have.
Your points here boils down to one simple thing: You want to point the blame wholly or partially on the Bush-administration, something that would inherently be POV. In your quest to do so, you claim that UNLESS the article includes such a blame, the article would be POV. That is false. POV is when you misrepresent opinion as fact, which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. The resolution to this, as the NPOV article sais are to let facts speak for themselves. Therefore, the article tries to be FACTUAL, and not state opinions. Of your five points here, only one is about factual things, the controlled demolition part. But when it is pointed out to you that the controlled demolition theory is proven to be false, you say it's not about being false or not. Yet, that's EXACTLY what it is about. --Regebro 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Where is the controlled demolition hypothesis proven to be false? Isn't an article that only shows the Governments POV, just POV? Slipgrid 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would be POV. That's why this article tries very hard to follow the NPOV rules and be factual. So as to not be POV. The controlled demolition hypothesis is proven to be false in many places including the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, and also earlier in this debate. (although it should be noted that the separate page of the controlled demolition theory is strongly biased FOR the theory by almost leaving out any arguments against controlled demolition. --Regebro 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
According to many notable persons it is not proven to be false. How did you read it from 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Since when articles are proofs for anything? The only thing we know from officcial account about CD is one sentence from NIST report, which says that they didn't found anything to it. Well, where is data? Where are experiments? The data which found its place in NIST report strongly suggests possibility of CD. Steven Jones provided more data. Why do I explain it, anyway? eh... SalvNaut 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"Notability" of persons is irrellevant. Paris Hilton is a notable person. Would you take her opinion on a scientific matter seriously? No, I thought not. This is not about notability or about persons, but about facts and science. You can't claim that a NPOV article is POV just because it doens't have YOUR POV. I think neither you or Cpan has understood what NPOV is, or possibly, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. --Regebro 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not the "government" POV. It's the account that has been presented in media outlets, worldwide such as Al Jazeera, Times of India, the CBC (Canada), and major media outlets in the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and China (list could go on), as well as the United Nations. I've yet to see a reliable source that presents conspiracy theories as facts. We give the theories appropriate due weight. --Aude (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This whole notion of an "official account" is a straw man fallacy. The 9/11 Commission Report is merely one (secondary) source, and by no means the most reliable or informative. Independent accounts which agree with reality are going to agree with each other. Demolition has been disproven, repeatly. If you've been duped by that hoax, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't have anything to do with an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Peter, could you point me to a place where I could probably see that "independent accounts" settled what happened to WTC7? SalvNaut 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have a place for discussions about alternate perspectives on the September 11, 2001 attacks -- it's at 9/11 conspiracy theories, to which this article already references. This page is for the actual account, not the pop-conspiracy theory. Morton DevonshireYo 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the 911 commission report should be lumped in with all the other conspiracy theories, as it has "a low probability" of being an accurate assessment of the cause of the towers' collapse. It's not NPOV to call the so-called "alternate" theories conspiracy theories. All of the theories including the mainstream ones are just theories and all deserve equal treatment. The "actual account" of the events should not include anything but actual verifiable truth: Aircraft hit each tower -- these aircraft are not positively identified. The 'hijackers' are not positively identified, and their presence on the planes has not been reliably confirmed, nor has their connection/affiliation with Al-Quaeda been confirmed. The towers collapsed. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the cause of the collapse, but the cause is not known, and is unlikely to have been 'structural weakening of the steel due to fire', according to every reliable report. The article as it stands is as ridiculously POV as an article stating that Kennedy was killed when a lone assassin acting on his own fired a single bullet, or an article stating that George W. Bush is the most popular president in history. User:Pedant 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question.

If 911 was perpetrated or even known about by the government and/or Bush administration so they could gain public support for attacking Iraq, then why ,pray, did they not just say that Saddam Hussein's army did it?--SweetNeo85 17:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given how easily some fall into whatever Bush administration say, they could've probably got away with that, for some time at least. They've got away with non-existent WMD's, no doubt.
My real, speculative answer would be: Firstly, Osama and CIA are/were long-time "friends". Secondly, have you ever played war strategy games? Look, here is Afghanistan, here is Iraq... hmm what's that in the middle? SalvNaut 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So, are you asserting that AlQuaeda and the CIA were working in cooperation? Secondly, are you also asserting that we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for strategic purposes in order to invade Iran? Please, don't give cryptic answers. Be straightforward. Then you will see clearly if there are any fallacies to your arguments.--SweetNeo85 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't sweat it, if history has taught us anything, it's that governments can't keep a secret and this would be a whopper. Any major (or minor) news organization would go wild with it, and anyone who could clue them in (or write a book) would be set for life. Occam's Razor would be of use here, but it's used only selectively on these pages. Wild and convoluted theories make it easier to rave out loud without people thinking you're completely insane. Rx StrangeLove 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Goverments can't keep secrets? Are you a CIA agent to conclude so? :) What about project Manhattan? What about JFK assasination? What about explosion in Moscow in 2000, which was blamed on Chechens and then war begun? What about those things we have completely no idea about? Do you know that Holocaust was considered a conspiracy theory for some time after war (and to this day is by some)? Occam's razor can only be used when there is 100% confidence that all the relevant data was gathered (and this assumption is very often flawed). SalvNaut 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that we don't know anything about those things we don't know anything about. Is there something you know about JFK you're not telling us? Because nothing has been proven so far....just more theories. The Manhattan Project? Lot's of people knew about that, and would have said something if the US wasn't completely united about that war...which it isn't now of course. Apple and oranges. I don't understand how a flawed conspiracy theory about the Holocaust fits into any of this. Rx StrangeLove 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
JFK? Oh, I forgot we all know Oswald did it... and then some freaky businessman killed Oswald... of course... except maybe for special commission which issued a statement that there was some conspiracy involved with high probability... and that all documents are top classified... nothing proven... does that make you right - goverments can't keep secrets??. You might want to read how exactly informations about Holocaust were denied at first. Take a look here, too: List of proven conspiracys. SalvNaut 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it doesn't make anyone right. Just because one conspiracy actually happened doesn't mean they all did. And re:JFK...nothing is proven. That list of proven conspiracys is pretty big huh? Must be hard to keep that stuff a secret when there really is a conspiracy. Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the US government would dare try anything like that. From 9/11 onwards I think it was widely agreed that terrorism was way out of control, however I highly doubt any US official would aid or incite it. They probably decided to take full advantage of the tragedy to do all the things they always wanted to do but would have never got away with under normal circumstances (pass the PATRIOT Act, attack Afghanistan and Iraq etc). If they were behind it, I don't think they would try it on that scale; they probably would have done it in some small town in the USA or abroad.--Rudjek 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Opinions, opinions, do you know what Adolf Hitler used to say on that topic? He use to say: "The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." Lovelight 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for taming the discussion at this page

  • Enforce an attribution (citation) only rule.
  • Keep all the discussion of conspiratorial talk / [implied] accusations

to wikipedia articles on alternate theories of 9/11 attacks.Dogru144 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nope, since we don't care about theories, since we work with facts. Warnings of the clear and present danger must be mentioned. Inside trading, and unclaimed options should be noted. Obvious freefall (CD) of building 7 is obvious and it should be described as such. That constant gibberish of US administrators about 911 link to Saddam and Iraq deserves a few lines and (independently speaking) I don't give a rat's ass about patriotic acts and political correctness on that one… anyway, don’t wont to repeat what we all know, but please do restrain from such conspiratorial terminology when addressing to valid and reasonable questions or well known facts. Lovelight 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Dogru144, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing since everything after your first bullet point looks garbeld to me. However, I do support the first point. This is not a usenet newsgroup. We are not trying to convince one another of the facts. We are trying to craft an article that includes relevant positions from verifiable sources. The facts we are concerened with here is whether position X was indeed published in source Y. We are not here to convince one another of our disparate POVs.
Having said that, Its clear from this discussion that those proposing the so-called comspiracy theories are citing particular sources (Jones, Griffin, etc). while those opposing these so-called conspiracy theories are not: instead saying tthings like: "it has been disproven again and again" or "they're silly". These sorts of rebuttals do not belong on Wikipedia. Dogu144's first bullet would require citing specifically who says "Jones is silly" in a verifiable source? This is the material that can then be used in the redraft of this NPOV violating artricle. --Cplot 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We are advised to leave our emotions outside, but as we all know such things r easier said then done;). Anyway, those garbled issues were already discussed in the past.., however there was this hard and impenetrable line here. If things have changed, I'll state each and every case again… there is nothing to refute there, just facts… Well then, should we acknowledge foreknowledge and warnings of imminent attacks? We can start appropriate section below… Lovelight 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You are trying to make this into a discussion of what is true or not. That's fine with me, but you have so far claimed that this isn't what it's about. You have up to now claimed that this is about the article being POV, not that it's incorrect. Have you changed your mind? Because now you require verifiable sources to the claims. That makes no sense, unless you are contensting the correctness of the claims. So, what is it? Is this about the articlebeing POV, or the article being factually incorrect? --Regebro 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regebro, this gives me an opportunity to cite the NPOV policy once again. NPOV requires we not do oritinal research (decide what's true) and instead focus on an article that cites verifiable sources (sources that we can verify exist and in that sense is atruth).

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

Actually I meant this wiki policy quotation but the prior one is relevant too:

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. (highlighed portions to underscore the misunderstaniding about NPOV represented in the discussion thus far)


So as I'm sure you understand, there is not a contradiction in my position. But thanks for asking the faux question it helps ensure that every disruuptive editor here (including each disruptive admin) has no plausiable denial on not understanding what they're doing wrong. --Cplot 21:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This does contradict your position. You want to put in opinions, and conclusions that are disproven. This is:
  1. Not competing version of what the facts are. It's conclusions and opinions. Thus you want to MAKE the article POV from being NPOV.
  2. The quotes you have from the NPOV page are about opinions, not facts. You need to understand the difference between these. --Regebro 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first step of "taming the discussion at this page" is posting a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" on this page. Slipgrid 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also in WP:NPOV

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.

--PTR 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One can look at any part of this article and find POV problems. Here's a quick example.

In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks.

This section cites | this CNN story. It does not reflect the POV in | this CNN story from the same day, or | this Guardian Unlimited story from the next day. That is a conflict of two different POV, and both should be reflected in this article. And, every section of this article contains the same bias POV. Again, the one and only one way to start "taming the discussion at this page" is posting a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" on this page. --Slipgrid 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The neutrality of this article is NOT disputed, except by a small group of conspiracy theoriests who do not understand or accept what the word "neutrality" means. They think it means that we have to present all theories as equal, even of they are proven to be wrong. That is NOT what it means. NPOV means that you keep the article FACTUAL. Most suggestions of how to make the article NPOV involves going AWAY from factuality and putting in MORE opinions. That would make the article LESS NPOV, not more so. --Regebro 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In reference to the post I made above, that paragraph is point of view. It is widely believed that the video is a fake. Two mainstream articles point this out (see above) the day of, and the day after, the tapes release. I have not seen any further evidence to support that the tape is not a fake. Where is this proven? The day that the tape was released, there were millions of people saying it was a fake. That's not my POV, that's theirs. Watch the tape yourself. The guy doesn't look like UBL! UBL is left handed, but the guy in the tape if right handed. But, for get that. Here's a third mainstream article that shows that the world has a great deal of doubt about the POV expressed in this article. You can say that the tape is valid, but all the evidence is to the contrary. Where's your evidence? Where's your support? You have one CNN story, and I have a CNN story from the same day that reports on the doubt of the tape. And people are still expressing doubt. If you like, forget what the tapes shows, though it clearly shows a farce. What are the major views that this article fails to address. It's not opinion; it's major doubt on the factuality of this article.—Slipgrid 09:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to discuss certain details of the page, you are welcome to do so. Start a new section on the talk page and discuss it. But do not claim that one problem with one detail of the page is a NPOV dispute or makes the whole article POV, because that is simply not true. --Regebro 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How about this. You chose a section of the page, and I'll show you how it is POV. The whole article is the same way. I've tried creating new sections on the talk page, and taking it one sentence at a time, but all I get is Tom and Mogo saying that they are not interested, or the article reflects the facts, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. It's to late for that. This article is disputed, and this is one of the many disputes. You go through the talk history, find all the disputes, and address them, the way they should of been addressed a long time ago. The burden's not on me. Those disputes were not addressed, and by your response here, I have no faith that they will be address, so a disputed tag needs to go up.—Slipgrid 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How about this: YOU support the things YOU say, instead of requiring of me that I do your job. OK? --Regebro 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I did. I support this one change, and no one has said anything against it. Now, someone should make the change, or tell me why that section is not POV.—Slipgrid 12:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No you did not. The discussion now is whether the article as a whole is NPOV or not. Pointing out *one* detail where you don't agree with a afactual statement does not make the article as a whole POV (it's doubtful whether is even makes that DETAIL POV, as most factual disputes are not POV in any normal sense). Now we are discussing whether the article as a whole is POV. This is evidently not so, and you have evidently no arguments for this. As I mentioned, if you want to discuss details, do so, but not under the general heading of claiming that the article is POV. You also say that you HAVE discussed the details, but that you failed to convince people to change. Well, what does that tell you? --Regebro 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the first thing people need to do right now is archive this talk page and restart the discussion. The discussion also need to be extremely focused. Otherwise it becomes incomprehensible to outside readers (and that's exactly the way it is right now). Taxico 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that's a bad idea. Maybe we should make all the archive pages into one page, so we can see in one glance just how disputed this article is.—Slipgrid 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was being gentle.

Basically, the bulk of the edits in the current impending edit war are involving conspiratorial accusations or conspiracy-toned analyses. Yes, we should deal explicitly with facts, particularly verifiable facts.

Secondly, yes, we should hew to a NPOV orientation. Much of the contributions material should have been directed to the talk page. Dogru144 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with Dogu144 again (I think). I've proposed the elimination of the "conspiracy theory" section entirely. I don't believe the issue of conspiracy theories si any more notable for the 9/11 attacks than for most any other event. I'd be happy if the phrase never appeared in the article. Common beliefs that Sadaam Hussein or the Taliban were behind this should be mentioned (and the ways those ideas were spread), but I would be opposed to calling those conspiracy theories. --Cplot 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are in agreement with Dogu144, then you are in agreement with me, as he says pretty much exactly what I have been trying to say. And as has been said here several times before: If there is some bit or detail you are not hapy with, take that up for discussion. But do not use that detail to claim that the article as a whole is POV, or as an excuse to mangle up the article, or to rewrite it, or as an excuse to put your OWN POV into the article. I have also asked for better words that "conspiracy theory" to describe a theory that has in it's center a conspiracy, but you haven't come up with one yet. I hardly think you want to remove all menton of the conspiracy theories, right? I think that would make the article rather less NPOV. ;) --Regebro 11:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure that I cover the essential points: "verifiable claims" means writing things that are supported by references, and reputable references, such as professional media outfits --such as newspapers, television stations or public radio stations, not blogs.

This procedure will help us to keep this article in a NPOV format.Dogru144 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The discussion has more than demonstrated there are serious doubts about the article’s adherence to the NPOV policy. Could we get an administrator to add the {{POV}} template to the top of the article.

After that we should try to focus on specific edits to the article to bring it into compliance. This means we stop trying to convince one-another about what we think is factual or credible in the article and work on including verifiable sources and what they have to say about these attacks. Again, it doesn't matter if I think the NIST report is wrong, I'm not going to try to convince anyone of that. Rather the proper way to proceed is to include cited criticisms of the NIST report and other cited count-criticisms. --Cplot 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including criticism of the NIST report so long as they are as credible as the NIST. Anything from a reviewed Civil or Structural engineering peer reviewed journal is acceptable. Anything less is undue weight. --Tbeatty 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all this was only an example. And you're already moving the debate in the wrong direction. It's not up to only you to decide what sources are credible. A significant number of editors here find Jones paper credible (for many editors more credible because of it's independence from the Bush Whitehouse), so it belongs in a NPOV article. Besides the NIST report does not even meet your criterion, so we'd have to throw out all mention of that. Again, we need to end the stone-walling. Too many editors have expressed their interest in fixing these NPOV problems. Just because a minority of editors have the time to spend here guarding a NPOV violating article, doesn't make it OK to violate the policies of Wikipedia. For those disruptive editors still have trouble understanding how to work towards a NPOV compliant article, I'd suggest you also take a look at the Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.. --Cplot 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is never going to happen, so save yourself the frustration. The 9/11 Truth Movement has ZERO credibility, and you have no credible sources to cite to support these incredible claims. Morton DevonshireYo 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

it has to happen to conform to Wikipedia policy. It's unfortunate that you disagree with the policies, but you should take it up with the board and not here on an article discussion page. We need to all try to be diligent to use this talk page for it's purpose. And that purpose is to discuss ways of improving the article. Right now the most pressing matter is crafting a NPOV redraft of this entire article. This page is not here for stonewalling. It's not here for unilateral declarions — against a significant number of editors — that one or another source is not credible.. It's not for convincing other editors that they're stupid or misguided, or that you have somehow found divine truth. There are other venues for those discussions and this page has already been sidetracked into those discussion way too much. Cplot 06:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The sources you might cite to to support 9/11 Truth Movement/LIHOP/MIHOP/Controlled Demolition claims do not meet the reputable sources requirements of our policy WP:RS. I'm talking about Wikipedia rules here, which prevent citation to blogs and self-published web sources. Incredible claims require extraordinary citation. Morton DevonshireYo 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jones’ paper is in Griffin, David Ray; Scott, Peter Dale (2006), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Olive Branch Press, ISBN 1566566592 which unquestionably meets Wikpedia's guideline for reliable sources. In entering this collected volume, the paper was also reviewed by four PhDs (including 2 physicists). The 9/11 Truth movement website likewise publishes sources that meet Wikipedia's guideline. It is not a blog and it certainly doesn't fall under self-published. There are many web only (non-print) publications out there like the 9/11 truth movement that meet the guidelines for a reliable source. Cplot 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


There are always some exclusive (or eccentric) tags looming over main article, administrators would you be so kind to remove full protection, or recognize the nature of this dispute at the entrance point. Lovelight 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The discussion has NOT proven that there is dispute about the article beiong NPOV. All your siggestions about chamnging it is about going AWAY from a NPOV fact-based article, and put in MORE POVs. That would make the article LESS NPOV. You have not been able to point out what in the article is not NPOV, and you have constantly confused opinions and facts. The discussion has, if anything, proven that the article IS POV, thanks to your unability to point to how the articles would be NPOV. You need to accept that the article as a whole is NPOV and factual. If there is some details you find POV, you can discuss them,. but the article as a whole is clearly NOT POV. A neutrality dispute is not you saying "It's not neutral" over and over. Or, to quote some mor notable sources on this issue:

"An argument is not just contradiction". http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm. --Regebro 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There seems to be a lot of theoretical talk about what is potentially wrong with the article, but it's not bringing anything to a resolution. The major issue appears to be: how to apply the NPOV policy, particularly the undue weight rule, to sources with various degrees of reliability. This disagreement is not what views exist, or what is notable, but whether certain opinions should be given 'equal time' in this, the summary article, or should be restricted to matters of folklore.
    • One argument is that Wikipedia editors should consider every source as equally authoritative, because every judgment call is potential for NPOV violation, or absolute truth is unknowable, or some such.
    • The other is that clearly unreliable and misleading sources should be limited to support of conspiracy theory folklore. Consider the popular example of Steven Jones' paper. Building collapse is a question of structural engineering. It is not a political or philosophical question, nor is it a matter of popularity. Most importantly, it is not subject to appeals to intuition or analysis by amateurs. Steven Jones is not a demolition export or a structural engineer - he is an amateur, and has no more authority on the subject than any other amateur, and furthermore his findings are known to be incorrect. (This has been demonstrated a few times in the archives of this talk page.)
    • So we have this question: In an area which requires engineering expertise, how are non-professional opinions, even ones that, tragically, are popular, to be treated under the rule of undue weight? Peter Grey 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

Unprotection of this article has been requested at WP:RfPP; however, the talk page still seems rather hostile to me, and I'm a little hesitant to unprotect. Is there a general consensus for unprotection of this article? AmiDaniel (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree... Remove Protection.--y23 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on, there must be a way to sort this out. After all, the murderous events of 911 happened in a particular fashion, the fact that how they are happened is disputed does mean that there is considerable differences in perception. One is not cynical to assume that there was an intentional deception, (war ALL start with a deception), one can however be accused of total naivite believing the 'official version'. Wikipedia should reflect this, wikipedia often sets examples in other fields, too.. the official version of Henry Kissinger's entry would look different, too.

Agree... Remove Protection.--Slipgrid 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Slipgrid has made it clear above that he will, against consensus and against wikipedia rules, start adding POV to the article if it gets unprotected. --Regebro 11:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not true. I'm not the one in the edit war. I do my work on th talk pages. But, why would it be a bad idea to put up the disputed tag? 20+ Pages of talk history show dispute.—Slipgrid 12:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We are not discussing whether we are discussing. Evidently we are discussing. The discussion is about whether the article deserves a disputed tag or not. It doesn't, but it's evidently clear from the discussion about that neither you nor Cplot will accept this. Therefore, the article needs to be protected until you guys agree :
  1. that the article does NOT need a general NPOV tag,
  2. to stop trying to push YOUR agenda and YOUR POV into the articles and
  3. to instead try to discuss each issue separately.
--Regebro 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. This article is disputed by many.
  2. The truth has no agenda.
  3. We have twenty pages of discussion, with it being ignored by people like you.
—Slipgrid 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. So please stop pushing YOUR agenda. --Regebro 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My only agenda is the truth. What's yours?—Slipgrid 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, so stop pushing AN agenda then. I don't really care who's it is, just stop pushing it, please. --Regebro 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you stop pushing your agenda. I'll fight any day for the truth and Wikipedia against trolls like you.—Slipgrid 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment violates WP:NPA. Please keep a civil tone. --Regebro 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Regrettably, there does not seem to be any consensus. Peter Grey 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree-It appears this article will be attacked and reverted ad nauseum. --Tbeatty 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree - Discussions are still too heated. --PTR 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree There is no consensus to give undue weight to conspiracy theories. I don't think User:Cplot and the few others will respect consensus. Cplot has created a POV fork at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1 that severely violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree I was the one who requested unprotection, but for completelness I'll add my name here. There are many others who I know would support it too. The sampling of opinions you see here are just those editors who have a lot of time on their hands (including myself here) and not a real sense of the concensus of all editors in volved in this dicussion. No where in Wikipedia's policies does it say that a minority of editors (who just happend to have a lot of time on their handds) can decide what the truth and the facts are for an article. I am convinced the disruptive editors here are only pretending to be obtuse and know full well how to interpret Wikipedia policy. There responses to one editor after another have beeen disruptive and often playful yet insulting. At the very least the article should indicate at the top that a significant number of editors feels this article does not reflect the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. --Cplot 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree - From some of the comments, there appears to still be too much disagreement to unprotect the article. I feel there will need to be a full RfC to get it settled on if enough editors believe the conspiracy theories (or alternate theories) deserve more space in the root article. --StuffOfInterest 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I did that at the beginning of the debate. anyone for an RFM?--Acebrock 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It couldn't hurt to get some uninvolved eyes into it. I fear that this may end up all the way at ArbCom before it is done. Although I don't edit on the article beyond vandalism repair, I'm tainted as I have too much personal experience with the Pentagon attack. --StuffOfInterest 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Still far too much conflict. I'm filing an RFM right now--Acebrock 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that was pretty much what I expected--no consensus for unprotection. We'll leave it protected for a while longer. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to leave protection, be decent, place appropriate tag at the top of article… Lovelight 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Unprotect no amount of mediation or further discussion is going to result in anything other than further efforts by the conspiracy theory supporters to try and get their way here. We may as well unprotect the article and resume reporting them for 3RR as we have already done on 3 editors in the last week. Misusing Wikipedia to promote nonsense is going to be the end for any chance this project has of gaining credibility.--MONGO 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How are you sure mediation isn't going to work MONGO? Has it been tried in the past? Is it that you have some sort of my way or the highway mentality (not an intentional personal attack)? Mediation will help smooth out the issues and tell us if we need an RFAr. I also noticed that, though you were the first I sent the message to, you still haven't accepted. Why? And If Iseem angry or edgy, this whole affair is stressing me out and I need a break ASAP, but I'm far too involved in this to take one (IE I'm involved in mediation, and if it goes far enough I may end up in arbitration.

I can't imagine there's ever been amore obvious neutrality dispute in the history of Wikipedia (though if there is I bet these editors know about it). I second Lovelight's suggestion to add the template to the article. --Cplot 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

unprotect and add the npov dispute template as there is a clear dispute about whether this article is neutral according to the policy and guidelines. As it stands the article is crushingly embarrassing in it's POV, and it's quite clear there is a dispute and that the article contains much nonfactual and inappropriately-referenced (worse than unreferenced) material. User:Pedant 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Redraft to comply with NPOV

As has been pointed out above, I have established a new talk space for editors who do not want to deal with the disruptive editors standing guard over this article and talk page. Here you'll find a draft rewrite of the article that is meant o conform with Wikipedia's policies. I ask that the disruptive editors here to please leave this spacea alone for the other editors to craft a more encylopedic article conforming to the NPOV policy. All others are welcome to join in the drafting and associated discussion. If the disruptive editors comply, discussion should be much lesss disruptive, frustrating, intimidating and abusive. --Cplot 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I nominated that for deletion as it is a POV fork of this article. You have already been blocked twice in the least week for 3RR on this article and would likely have been blocked agin on the rtelated Steven E. Jones article had I not protected it on your preferred version just today. If anyone is being disruptive, it's most definitely you.--MONGO 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, you know full well that the disciplinary actions taken against me are part of a vindictive approach, by a small group of relentless editors, to punish editors they disagree with. The admin who blocked me was involved in these debates and so did so inappropriately. This is not a POV push, this redraft is to make the article comply with NPOV policy All civil editors are invited to join intio the discussion and redraft. My position is that the conspiracy theories have no place in the article or even to have their own artilce. They're not notable enough around 9/11 attacks. Finally, I was the one who requested the protection on the Steven Jones article to avoid a potentially libelous editor to the article. Disruption does not mean disagreement as you seem to think it does. --Cplot 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Your answer assumes that the article as it stands is POV, something that you and many others in several long discussions now and earlier has completely failed to show. Thus, the consensus is that the article IS NPOV, and therefore it does NOT need a rewrite to become POV. If you make a fork of an article that consensus agrees is NPOV, to change it's POV, that must reasonably be because you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed sources are more reliable than reports produced by Whitehouse

Two things I want to stress here. First to quote from the NPOV dispute guielines again:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether [an NPOV] dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

And second. The sources being insisted upon as reliable are no more reliaable than the one's proposed above. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines suggest more caution or even suspiscion for the sorts of sources blessed by the disruptive editors. I quote:

Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public.

As this shows, the article is currently slanted towards these government sources even though Wikipedia provides guidance that the books listed above may be more reliable. In my estimation, the US has never had a government more notorious for its outright deception of the public than the present administration. And yet the article solely relies on those sources (or secondary sources reporting on government sources). --Cplot 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your perception of the current administration is your perception and has nothing to do with the fact that all news media has confirmed the "official story". There are no reliable sources that support a conspiracy theory of the events of 9/11.--MONGO 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite on this one, but as an administrator, this really isn't appropriate behavior. The media hasn't confirmed what the administration says. The media reported what the administration said. Sometime the media launches independent investigations, and then that would be valuable material for the article. Griffin's book ".The New Peral Harbo..." is one such investigation from the media (the book pubslhsing media). However, I don't see how you conclude from Griffin's book that he has confirmed the administrations story. It's quite the opposite. You should take a look at it if that's what you thought. The point is Wikipedia's guidelines tell us that a book like Griffin's is a more reliable source than any of the government reports used for this article. You've uncovered another splendid example of why there are such seirious NPOV problems here. Wikipedia doesn't deal with "official stories" that's something for Pravda. Wikipedia is for enyclopedia articles that need to reflect the relevant stories: not just the Whitehouse. --Cplot 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, shameful consent (and complicity) of mainstream media when it comes to forging of our post-911 actuality should certainly be noted in the article. However, that doesn’t mean that "associated media" is useless, as a matter of fact, apart from those jumbo sized issues, we have verifiable and notable sources there… We are working on encyclopedia and we should deal with facts, why should we care if streamed media lost its freedom, compass or knowledge how to perform investigative journalism? Are we here to confirm official story in spite ridiculous amount of inconsistencies in it? Anyway, we both know that administrators and editors in mainstream enjoy exactly the same.., vast and immeasurable freedoms we have here. Those sources are as reliable as this one is, they are questioned as this one is… your point is pointless… Lovelight 09:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are some big misunderstandings here, that goes through the whole discussion. Cplot and others think that "reliability" is the only concern for sources, and that reliability is in itself a matter of POV. They therefore think that ANYTHING you say and ANY part of science is POV, and therefore they demand equal billing for all theories, no matter how nutty they are. But first of all, reliability is only a matter of concern for factual claims, and also only for factual claims that are not easily independantly verifiable. This includes things as eye-witness accounts. They have to come from reliable sources. As an example, claims that have to do with say...(trying to find a neutral subject)... the making of Tibetan prayer books, have to be made by somebody that is an acknowledged expert on prayer books. A person who is an acknowledged export on pasta machines, is NOT reliable source on Tibetan prayer books, even though he is an honest and good man.
Secondly, there are things that do NOT need reliable sources, and that are things that are easily and evidently wrong. More importantly, the do not get helped by reliable resources. Or, in other words, a "reliable" source does not make an incorrect claim correct. It doesn't matter how notable the person doing the claim is, or even if the person is supposed to be a reliable authority on the subject. No amount of authority makes a false statement correct, and if a statement can be easily show to be false by anyone, no amount of authority makes that statement worthy of inclusion. So if the expert on Tibetan prayer books say that a 200 year old Tibetan prayer book are made by lizard-headed martians from the skin of George W Bushs face, this claim should NOT be included in the article on tibetan prayer books, because the persons authority on the subject does not override the evident and overwhelming impossibility of the claim. If the expert on pasta machines makes that claim, it should be included even less. :)
So what are then these reliable sources that we CAN include? Well, here comes the next mistake: Cplot above tries to claim that government sources are not realiable. I agree. But he includes in "government sources" independent research that have been done on the governments request, or in any other way contradicts his POV. That is an incorrect standpoint based on the fact that HE doesn't like what they say. Again he thinks that reliability is nothing but a POV. But it isn't. It CAN be POV, but it is not always so. In fact, in most cases it is not. Sources that are biased are not reliable, but thise sources must then be SHOWN to be biased. For example, a source should be seen as biased, if the researcher only get payed if he reaches the desired conclusion. But a resarcher that gets payed no matter what conclusion he gets is not necessarily biased.
In short, the talk about government sources are in itself a red herring. Very few of the sources in the article are can be seen as "government" sources. If there are sources in the article that are not reliable, again, please take them up one by one. The sources that has been mentioned in this article as missing (that is Steven Jones) can not in any way be construed as being authorative on the subjects which they try to make claims, and should therefore not be included.
Again, I have to ask the critics to stop talking in generalities and start making specific claims of what they percieve as problems with the article so we can discuss these specifics, instead of discussing vague generalities for which you have no arguments. --Regebro 13:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, why don't you go a bit back into the history of this talk page? You'll notice cycle after cycle of reoccurring "specific claims" with all appropriate references. You'll also notice that all discussions, no matter how far from conspiracy talk they were (foreknowledge, 911/Iraq link, building 7…) ended with reverts (if we would get that far) in spite the fact there are no valid reasons or arguments for such actions. The sort of "consensus" (or quorum if you prefer) we have here is our foremost problem. POV tag at the top of the article is necessity. Such action would recognize dispute and show that there is some good will among all editors. I'm certainly not in mood to spend a fine day on drafting draft, just so that Aude would come with such puzzling reply: "as maybe later…?" Or to hear Mongos infamously elaborated, yet rather simple and apparently irresistible veto… Lovelight 15:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Cycle after cycle, you say. So, you say that you have constantly and repeatedly failed to point out any errors or POV parts of the article. Not one of your attempts to point out sections that may be POV has succeeded. If every single specific claim you have of bits and pieces being POV is rejected, what does that tell us about the article? Does it tell us that it's POV, or NPOV? --Regebro 15:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be silly, look at the history of the talk page and learn where you are… I'm saying that administrators such as MONGO are force checking article to reflect official story, and that this is done against consensus. Are you aware that we had government warnings (tags) here? Are you aware that decent and valid suggestions to improve article are stopped without arguments with simple: "No, thanks"… Here, read this… Saying that there is no POV dispute here is like Rice saying that there were no warnings about attacks while she held one in her hands… Lovelight 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If what you claim is true, and I was the only person doing the reverts to this article, I would have been blocked dozens of times for violating 3RR. Your attempts to introduce misinformation in this article has been repeatedly overturned by a large number of editors...clear indication that the consensus is not in favor of your alterations. My arbcom case here has nothing to do with this article...zero. Yes, when people come along and try and force feed us a bunch of nonsense like you have been doing for a long time now, we can waste our time rebutting your comments, say nothing at all (probably the best option), or just provide a simple...No thanks.--MONGO 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you know the answer to this question. Considering the accusations in the village pump discussion that US Bush administration officials are involved in this page, then of course Lovelight's edits were "repeatedly overturned by a large number of editors". Of course the repeition of the mantra "clear concesnsus" is unwarranted and I know you know that too. Come on Mongo, stand up for what you know is right. This is conduct unbecoming an administrator. --Cplot 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What? What conduct are you talking about? I stated that had I been the only one that had been doing all the reverts as Lovelight claims, then I would have been repeatedly blocked...much as you have already. Your edit warring as of late is conduct unbecoming an contributor.--MONGO 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested Edit

After reading the discussion at the village pump I arrived over here to look through this discussion. I can't believe that this NPOV disputes has been going on for so long and this is the first request I've seen for an NPOV template. Don't any of you understand how to work towards comprommise and NPOV. I would recommend reading the NPOV tutorial. And by all means someone add a the template. --67.37.179.61 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but all this was pointed earlier, we had requests like these before… Here, let me quote Lovelight on that one: "And I won't that false flag about reasons for dispute to be removed immediately, there is no vandalism here but from your side, the lack of accuracy and outrageous bias of this article is obvious and appropriate warning should be clearly stated at the entrance point." You know, all this repeating tends to bore after a while… Perhaps we can protest, and tag all our posts with appropriate reminder for everyone? Lovelight 08:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I read the discussion and came to the complete opposite conclusion. It seems odd that your first contribution to Wikipedia is to the Village Pump. What account do you normally use? --Tbeatty 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not my first contribution, I've been contributing for years (and reading even longer): just anonymously. Tbeatty, I think you might be one of the ones they village pump is talking about. So I'm not surprised you would not read it the same way. --67.37.179.61 04:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's considered good form to identify your previous editing IP/Usernames lest someone consider you a sockpuppet. --Tbeatty 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taken elsewhere. (or at least start a new heading). --Cplot 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • We could also discuss those government issued tags we had here around memorial. Would you care to share a sample of those Mongo?;P Lovelight 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


How about it? Lovelight 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the issues mentioned in that RFM are issues that are debated or need to be mediated. The RFM as it stands is ridicolous. That said, I don't oppose mediation in any way, but I hope that the list of issues needing mediation can be improved to something at least remotely resembling what we are actually discussing, which is whether the article is POV or not. --Regebro 12:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Foreknowledge is one thing often discussed here, and it should be part of the mediation.—Slipgrid 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No. You guys are now trying to suddenly jump from the dispute that we ARE having, to completely other things. That is <lots of words I can't use according to WP>. The thing you, Cplot and Lovelight has been try to push so far is whether the article as a whole is POV or not. This is not even mentioned in the RFM. I don't oppose mediation, but I can not support that RFM. Sorry. You have to redo that, and as issues to be mediated list the things we actually discuss, and not completely different issues. --Regebro 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm reading up on how mediation works. Most notably it sais Note: Only members of the Mediation Committee may remove material from the RfM page or otherwise edit comments, but on the other hand it sais Do not, under any circumstances, edit the "Issues to mediate" section unless you are the party who filed the request I don't know if this means that the requestor (Acebrock?) can change it or if he can ask the Mediation Committee to change it. If it doesn't get changed I will have to disagree to this mediation, since it's a request to mediate issues that isn't in conflict, in an abvious attempt to misrepresent the dispute. The fact that the RfM was files with such an attempt to misrepresent the dispute also gives me little hope that Acebrock really wants mediation. --Regebro 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn’t aware of such concept until today, but I did ask recently if there are other ways to break this hula hoping and looping. I'm grateful to see that exclamation at top, thanks Ace... Lovelight 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the list of issues to be mediated now include not only such patent nonsense as "Whether clear and well documented facts should be called conspiracy", "Whether article should only draw sources approved by the Bush administration", but it now also includes argumentation: Because of sensitive and evergreen nature of article which is probably the most disputed, vandalized and abused entry in Wikipedia brief summary of all "double think" issues is impossible. However good willing mediators should quick-scan related talk page archive and recognize seriousness of discussions as well as misbehaving of administrators. This inclusion of argumentation in the statement probably would have made the RfM rejected anyway, but I though I would speed up the process, and add my disagreement immeditely. I'm all for a mediation, but it is clear from the edits made by Lovelight and Cplot that you are not interested in it. If you want a mediation, do it *seriously*, and stop misrepresenting the dispute. This discussion is so far about, and only about, whether the article should be marked as POV or not, and why.
(I'll better point out here that Acebrocks original point was "Whether including conspiracy theories in detail is POV" which I think is not a misrepresentation. Acebrock: Thanks, and I'm sorry Lovelight and Cplot messed up your RfM).--Regebro 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted those edits since they were done hastily and without knowledge of due process… RfM is now in original form, apologies for any inconvenience as for my unintentionally damaging edits… Lovelight 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Where Cplots edits also done without knowledge of due process? ;) How dow you know, are sock puppets? (just kidding ;)). OK, as the RfM stands now I have no quarrel with it. I still think mediation is pointless and that you guys are not interested in listening to reason, but that's the mediators problem. --Regebro 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I too apologize for my edits to the RfM. I tryied to find an explnation of the process but did not. --Cplot 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion/RFM/NPOV

Does anyone want to start discussions on the areas of the article that they believe are POV - one at a time - or do we just want to argue in general terms? This is degenerating into, "It's POV.", "No, it's not.", "Yes, it is."--PTR 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one actually wants to discuss the article then. --PTR 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have brought up specifics before. See:

However, as the RfM stands now, I cannot support it. My view is that conspiracy theories have not been significant enough nor notable enough surrounding the 9/11 attacks to be included in the article at all. My NPOV problems mostly relate to the slanted state of this article where a minority of editors camping out here insist that only sources casting the Bush administration in the most favorable light can be included here. Is there any way for the RfM to simply list NPOV dispute, or does it have to characterize the dispute? --Cplot 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't want the conspiracy section in the article but you do want to put the alternate theories throughout the article? Is that right? If so, can you start with one item, start a discussion and work from there? --PTR 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there can be appropriate section called [2] "Additional issues to be mediated" where involved parties can refine their concerns? There is also some mentioning of it on chairman's talk page. Lovelight 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Requested Edit Inappropriately Deleted

Please add the {{POV}} template to the top of the article. The preceding discussion demontrates a clear dispute over NPOV problems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplot (talk • contribs)

Mongo, you put your name into this situation. Not me. This is conduct very unbecoming an administrator. --Cplot 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.8.159.158 (talk • contribs) .

Why not just provide an explanation for removing the edit request? That seems like that would solve the problem. Since Cplot is talking about behaviour it's definitely not a personal attack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.8.159.158 (talk • contribs) .
Cplot should not have violated the 3rr. However, there's something wrong when the feds are forcing Wikipedia editors to violate the 3RR just for an editor to keep his or her opinions on a discussion page. --70.8.159.158 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have apologized to Mongo for including his name in this heading. I can see how it was inappropriate. Please everyone stop trying to restore it. We all know what Mongo did was wrong. It doesn't help the situation to play these silly reverrts wars. --Cplot 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't get your way so you attack others? I repeat...there is no NPOV tag on this article and won't be until you can demonstrate what the problems are with the neutrality of the article.--MONGO 20:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, please. I said I was sorry. I wrote you on your talk page now twice. Let's kiss and makup on this. We don't want to degrade into incivility and personal attacks. That would be conduct unbecoming and I know I would never want to do that (not that I'm an admin. I wouldn't want to shoulder that responsibility. I admire those who can do it well) . --Cplot 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that your apology contained the words, "we all know what Mongo did was wrong," I can understand his reluctance to accept, kiss, and makeup. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Federal authorities should not be editing this article

That's all I wanted to say. --70.8.159.158 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To cite a famous quote, "And when did you stop beating your wife". Can you provide any evidence that federal authorities are editing this article? Any ipwhois or checkuser reports to backup the claim? That's the nice thing about conspiracy theories, people can throw them out there with little or contrived evidence and then let lots of other people spin their wheels documenting that they are false. Won't work with this claim. --StuffOfInterest 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said federal authorities, were editing this article. I just said I thought they shuldn't. Someone's got their defensive guard up. --70.8.159.158 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Since it flows around.., those "memorial and memorable" tags were a bit outlandish weren’t they? Look there was a discussion about it once, those tag's warned that there should be "no discussion of government ineptitude". It would be really nice if MONGO would provide a sample, sort of a reminder for us all? Lovelight 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion about federal authorities inappropriately editing Wikipedia articles should be ekpt over at the village pump. Likewise, the discussion of this article should remain here at this discussion page and not on the village pump discussion about these clowns. --Cplot 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree but also note that your use of the word "clowns" is disparaging towards other editors. --StuffOfInterest 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, anyone can edit as long as they follow the rules. Tom Harrison Talk 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not an administrator (I think I've said before I wouldn't want to should that much responsibility). But I think if federal authorities were editin this article in an official capacity that would be a violation of the rules. --Cplot 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Which rules would it violate? And what does it mean to edit 'in an official capacity?' Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not an administrator. I think it involves an enormous amount or responsibility. However, I would say that it raises the same policy and guideline issues as contributing to an article about yourself. And since this article reads like a press release from the Bush administration, if federal authorities acting in an official capacity were paid to maintain it in that situation, that look to me like serious violations of Wikipedia rules. I'm just saying is all. --Cplot 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
User:StuffOfInterest writes: 'the word "clowns" is disparaging towards other editors'. Really? Which ones? --Cplot 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Article

The preceding is just way over the top. Please focus on the article, not editors. Morton devonshire 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt. I have yet to see one argument why an NPOV tag needs to be put on htis article.--MONGO 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And I have yet to see anything that makes me think that this article is not POV--Acebrock 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Then demonstrate what you think needs to be fixed to make it neutral. The editors here will decide if you have a valid argument. So far, I have seen no valid argument.--MONGO 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, we are the eidtors here. And we have decided the article is a Bush administration puff piece with no place on Wikipedia. --Cplot 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence..do you have some evidence, or are we forced to take your opinion as fact?--MONGO 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Then please clarify as the POV tag requires by starting a new section ont he talk page, which is here, and stating your points that you feel need addressing to remove the POV slant of the article. Name specific sections and paragraphs/sentences etc. Be as specific as possible to allow for a colaborative effort to tackle what you may feel is POV. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Cplot, you are one of the editors here. There appears to be many more who disagree with you. I see this very likely turning into an ArbCom case before too long. --StuffOfInterest 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make passive Arbcom threats, it only serves to make a bad situation worse. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making threats, and I won't be one to file an ArbCom case. Today there has been an edit war over what the request for mediation will represent. If the parties can't settle on what is being discussed what are the chances of it actually being settled? When the RFM failes to materialize it seems likely that Cplot, MONGO, or one of the other involved editors (perhaps even one of the anons) will file a request as the next step in dispute resolution. --StuffOfInterest 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a RfC, not RfA --NuclearZer0 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems as if this might have been the reason for this approach in the first place. There has been no real discussion about changing the article just a lot of pushing buttons. No parts of the article have been presented with suggested changes and reasons why, no open discussion, no attempt to reason. Perhaps it's just people without a talent for dealing with others but there has been a lot of off topic discussion here and I've tried a couple of times to open a reasoned discussion with no response. --PTR 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know of their worth, but these RFM and Arbitration committees are somewhat interesting concepts. Perhaps everyone invited/involved would be so kind and incline to agreement? If I understood correctly, it is non obligatory moderation, and it would certainly be refreshing to have a few refreshing perspectives about all this... Lovelight 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

More button pushing and still no discussion of this article. Strange. --PTR 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PTR there is no need to constantly readdress same ever burning issues, we are all well aware of them. How many summaries do you need? Lovelight 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Summaries are not quite enough. A task list is an easy thing to write but then you need to address each bullet point. If you pull one item out to focus on it becomes much easier to discuss it with others. --PTR 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Since there are only two of us amateurs logged on right now, I want to be sure that I second what LoveLight says. This is becoming a ridiclous sham. Why don't you all just admit you've b een beat and go play shuffl board or something more appropriate like that. --Cplot 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Muslim?

This article seems pro-Muslim. For one, the article goes out of its way to tell the reader groups associated with Islam condemned the attacks. Yeah, and so did about every major organization, government, and person in the United States.

Also, we are barraged with the typical "hate crime" lunacy. Is this noteworthy? The major response by the American public was not hate but sadness. Most people urged restraint toward Muslims within the United States. If the "hate crime" section is to be kept we should atleast qualify it by stating a small minority of people acted this way. Mr2b (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a new one. I'm used to getting arguments that this article is anti-Muslim because we refer to the attackers as terrorists and point out the religion involved. I'm not sure there needs to be a change, as we've gone through many iterations to get to this point. However, I suppose since this is something new we could talk about it. --Tarage (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The few hate crimes got all the attention. This is due to one factor of Mainstream Corporate Media. They know that scary news will keep the viewers hypnotized through the subsequent commercials, probably too stunned to mute the TV, so we get a LOT of scary news and very FEW cute little warm fuzzy stories. Wowest (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The explanation and the counter-points are a litte US-centric, but hate crimes were a notable part of the hysteria. Peter Grey (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition, more than one book states that several hundreds of civilians were rounded up in the US, most presumed Muslim, most jailed without clear cause. My colleague says Rove and Kristol got concerned on hearing this, but how can we or they know which of the published reports are best? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_24&oldid=1050848077"