Talk:Jersey Girls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2005[edit]

I have removed They have each received millions of dollars in settlement moneys from the 9/11 survivors fund. If someone can cite a valid source for that information, I would be more than happy to reintroduce that sentence into the article. Thanks, Sango123 July 1, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

From a United States Department of Justice press release (11/25/2003):

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/November/03_civ_648.htm

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Claims for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund must be filed by December 22, less than 4 weeks from now, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Fund’s Special Master announced today. Those eligible include family members of the 2,976 who died and those individuals who were injured as a result of the terrorist attacks.

The Fund, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on September 24, 2001, has received to date more than 3,583 claims (including 1,876 claims received from families of deceased victims representing almost two-thirds of eligible claimants) and paid out more than $1.2 billion, Feinberg announced today. The Special Master anticipates that nearly 90% of the families who lost family members will file before December 22 with the Fund.

The average amount of compensation paid to date to the families of those who died on September 11 is $1.7 million. Individual compensation amounts have ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million.

How come 3 of them have an article and 1 doesnt? --*kate 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You (or anyone) are free to start an article if you want, by editing this page: Mindy Kleinberg
George100 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but do the first three have some sort of superiority or signifigance to Kleinberg? I'm just not sure. --*kate 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. --George100 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental claim[edit]

Cut from intro:

They were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

Who says? I found no reference to them in our 9/11 Commission article. --Uncle Ed 21:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question:

  • Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza and Lori Van Auken were widowed by the September 11 terrorist attacks. The four came together as they sought answers and explanations for the tragedy. In their perseverance they helped push for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate 9/11, a request Congress fulfilled last fall. [1]

Okay, we got "helped push for" but does that mean "instrumental"? --Uncle Ed 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lot more information here. Right now the Ann Coulter section is the biggest part of the page! Without the Jersey girls, there likely would have been no 9/11 Commission; certainly not an independent one. They were definitely instrumental in Kissinger's decision not to head the Commission, which did wonders for its credibility. It's on my watchlist now; I'll get around to adding some research at some point soon. But it's pretty embarrassing to have the Coulter section be the main thing on this article.--csloat 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

are there more than four now?

Origin of name?[edit]

I don't know if anyone here was aware, but the term "Jersey Girl" can be considered a derogatory term (it carries connotations of overprivilege and arrogance). Wikipedia must not engage in structural bias by assisting efforts to apply negative terminology. I'm aware that the terminology is in widespread use. What is important is noting, preferably in the intro, that the terminology has been applied by others and is not an original invention of Wikipedia. Kasreyn 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the intro accordingly, to clarify that the terminology is in widespread use by the public, justifying its inclusion in this project. Kasreyn 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Jessn050 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)== I found where the term Jersey Girls came from. I found reference to the orgin of the name in an article titled, "9/11 Widows Skillfully Applied the Power of a Question: Why?" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and it apparently ran in the New York times on April 1, 2004.[reply]

They were originally known as "just four moms from New Jersey". Later their became known as The Jersey girls (the nickname, which distinguishes the women from their New York and Connecticut counterparts, was popularized in song by Bruce Springsteen). And personally, if your going to use quotes from Ann Coulter book, you ought to use it in context or at least in the same order they are stated in the book. I would think that at least then, it wouldn't seem to be against either side of 'political' debate. Just my unprovoked thoughts on that.:) Anyway, thank you for listening. Scranton (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)isnt the song by Tom waits and sung by Bruce Springsteen?[reply]

Not used as an insult?[edit]

Really? Guettarda 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it is not. An article (very sympathetic to them, I might add) on commondreams.org declares the women are referred to by that moniker in Washington, D.C., and uses it to identify them a few times. [2] If you can find any evidence to the contrary, do share. Lawyer2b 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That could be. Or, it could be that commondreams has been suckered into a reframe. Both parties are constantly trying to bias discussion with politicized terminology which have the effect of biasing discussion in their favor. Depending on the origination of the term, it could be simply an innocent reference to the foursome's state of origin, or an attempt at a slur which commondreams either failed to recognize, or went along with in order to get more Google hits. Kasreyn 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response will only be to point to Occam's razor. Lawyer2b 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember, that's merely axiomatic advice for constructing arguments... in the real world, sometimes the more complicated answer is true.  ;) Kasreyn 05:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Coulter?[edit]

This article has a LOT of words on Ann Coulter's criticism of the Jersey Girls. Many if not most of them are repeated in the article on Ann Coulter. IMHO, this article, the one on the Jersey Girls, should mention Coulter's criticism and possibly quote it, then refer people to the Ann Coulter article for more detail. Lou Sander 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that there is too much Coulter. Almost half the article is made up of comments (and criticism of those comments) from one person outside the group that is the subject of the article. Rob Banzai 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we let a few days pass to see if there are any more comments. Then, if nobody has disagreed, let's make the Coulter section a lot smaller. Lou Sander 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's going to be removed, it needs a "see also" section header to direct to the Godless page. Note that the book signing incident is no longer in wikipedia. --George100 05:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without Coulter, there would be no "Jersey Girls". Leave her words intact. --Kurrgo master of planet x 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that. She would seem to be peripheral to the subject. Rob Banzai 15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That leads us to an even more important question: who first called them that, anyway? I think it would be very notable to mention whoever it was that gave birth to this gem of wit. *sarcasm* Was it a TV pundit, a newspaper, Coulter's Godless book, or what? Does anyone know? Kasreyn 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were called that long before that attention whore said a word about them. And they were well known by people following post 9/11 events closely. Anyone who thinks Coulter invented the Jersey Girls has not been paying attention. We definitely need more informaiton here, and if Coulter's comments are going to be here they should not be like this, with no discussion or critique. Her comments were by far the stupidest things ever said about the Jersey Girls yet there is not a single critique of her comments here; as if they were simple truths. Pretty wretched. As I said above, I'll do some research and try to address this in the coming weeks.--csloat 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be hard to imagine for some, but the name Ann Coulter hardly rings a bell to me -- but then, I'm Dutch. I wonder why her criticism should be part of the article at all, as it seems to consist solely of below-the-belt attacks and insinuations without a shred of evidence. Shouting down these widows just because they ask questions -- it's not a pretty sight. "She would seem to be peripheral to the subject," wrote Rob Banzai two months ago. This has not been seriously challenged, yet the Coulter section is still there. Why? GdB 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the name "Ann Coulter" doesn't mean much to you, there's not much I can say, except this: I'm not going to determine which Dutch public figures are important, and which are not, since I'm not familiar with them. You might do likewise.
The fact is, the Coulter section has been cut down in size significantly, and should definitely stay where it is. -George100 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about the Jersey Girls, not about Coulter. She has her own page and we can put that stuff there. I think a sentence mentioning that the Jersey Girls were attacked by Coulter and that some controversy resulted is fine, but an entire section? Come on. Especially the way it was stated as if Coulter's comments were true! The ensuing controversy was not about the Jersey Girls - who pretty much emerged unscathed by the attention - but rather about Coulter and how mean-spirited and sensationalistic she is. No question about it that her publicist played up that passage in the book in order to sell more of them. Anyway, I deleted the section; someone can replace it with a sentence that simply states that Coulter made unprecedented attacks on their character in her book and some controversy ensued.--csloat 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, Coulter's remarks are extremely pertinent to the Jersey Girls' notability. If I ever heard of the se people before by that name, I had totally forgotten before they were mentioned by Coulter. I just vaguely remember that there was a small vocal group of people using their victimhood to make political points. I don't want to get involved in editing this controversial article, but IMHO it's whitewashing their story to remove Coulter's bombastic but mostly accurate criticism of them. Maybe take out the bombast, but retain the criticisms. Lou Sander 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you weren't paying attention; they have been in the news long before coulter got to them. They were not "using their victimhood to make political points"; they were instrumental in getting the 9/11 Commission off the ground. Because of them, Henry Kissinger was not the head of that Commission. There is nothing at all "accurate" about Coulter's criticism; it is a hysterical personal attack. But that is neither here nor there - I am fine keeping a line about Coulter in here, but an entire section, with the full quote, and stated as if it were truth, is absolutely ludicrous and POV-pushing.--csloat 18:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say they were trying to score political points? Because the evidence that some, possibly very important, information was not addressed by either the administration or the 9/11 commision. (The fact that it did not even mention, in 571 pages, building 7) This has, of course, been rectified in the eyes of some by the release of the NIST report. But that is an opinion issue, with regard to an individuals belief or disbelief of the contents therein. However, to say that 4 women are essentially fame seeking, politically motivated "harpies" because they doubt a man who essentially told the American public to "trust" him on it should be beyond the pale of human conduct (particularly one who calls the left "godless", I feel that her attacks violate, on many levels, the very idea of christianity and relegion, but that is, of course, an opinion. What if we had taken Nixon at his word that he was "not a crook"? I fail to see how exercising the right to free speech and difference of opinion/dissent can be seen as politically motivated. It, IMHO, was truth motivated. If Ann Coulter had merely stated that she, "disapproved of them using the crisis for political gain" that would be one thing. I would not be inclined to agree, having followed their story quite closely, but that his HER right to her opinion. However, calling names, insinuating a motivation of greed and "bush bashing" seems a blatant attempt, by Coulter, to do the very thing she accuses the widows of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.27.43 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Hey George, can we hear your comments on the Coulter edits here? I have explained my position above and you have not responded. It was removed because it is an unnecessary diatribe. Please see WP:BLP regarding the items that belong on this page. Coulter's comments are a vicious personal attack. I don't have a problem with it being mentioned here, as I have said, so please do not continue to accuse me of "censorship" (how one can "censor" comments that have already so much airplay is beyond me). I don't have a problem with a couple sentences noting that Coulter launched a hysterical attack on the Jersey Girls because her publicist thought it might sell more books. But we need not quote every single word she has uttered about them here, especially not without some response. As it is, the section seems to have been inserted purely to turn this article into a hit piece against its subject. That is specifically disallowed under WP:BLP, even when the comments are properly sourced. So, you think Coulter should be mentioned here, no problem; take a few minutes and write a couple sentences indicating that Coulter made these comments and mentioning the controversy the comments drew. Another sentence quoting someone responding to the comments would help the NPOV issue as well.--csloat 06:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the NPOV tag on the section about the political swiftboating of the Jersey Girls. It might balance the article to bring in information about the Republican Congressman who helped the Jersey Girls force the administration to conduct the 9/11 investigation. I can't remember his name, he was the one who had his office raided by feds investigating 4 year old charges just days before the election, which he lost.

However, I do not agree that the NPOV tag applies in this case. The section describes a bitter partisan attack. NPOV means depicting events neutrally, in this case the event is a coordinated partisan smear campaign, and it is an important part of the role of the subject of the article in historical context. It is important to make the distinction between whether the article depicts the subject without bias, as opposed to whether the subject is a historical event of a coordinated partisan smear campaign. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coulter is not an expert, nor even particularly informed, nor influential with respect to the subject matter. Peter Grey 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from Coulter were not included because Coulter is a reliable source, they were included because the political attacks by Coulter and others were an important aspect of the historical significance of the subject of this article. - Michael J Swassing 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So all we need is a reliable source supporting that conclusion and we be set. Peter Grey 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will the NY Times do? Consider this sentence, from a hostile source: "...the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us."[3] Andyvphil 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't Coulter's remarks be seen as "speaking truth to Power?" Lou Sander 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the context of the article at hand. - Michael J Swassing 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your user page that you regard yourself as a "gentleman and scholar." There are damned few of us left! ;-) Lou Sander 09:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy over Coulter's attacks should be mentioned and the Jersey Girls' response mentioned, that's pretty much it. This is not the place to debate which of them was right, and we don't need extended soapboxing from Coulter on this topic. The notion that Coulter is "speaking truth to power" is utterly laughable but also irrelevant; that characterization does not make her comments notable. csloat 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion about "utterly laughable." IMHO, it's not the sort of opinion that should be seen very often on these pages. I'm almost offended, but I have a thick skin, and I assume that you advanced it in good faith.
The whole point of Coulter's comments is that the Jersey Girls used their position as grieving widows to advance a political agenda, claiming or implying immunity from criticism because of their grieving. She was very open and explicit about this. The article's discussion seems to omit that all-important point, presenting only her inflammatory ironic comments about the girls. One wonders why Wikipedia quotes Coulter's fire but omits the all-important context. Better would be to paraphrase her and include it. The context is, after all, the thing that underlies the controversy. "Ann says these broads are hiding behind their hubbys' deaths." Lou Sander 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be insulting, but it is utterly laughable to me to even suggest that a woman who commands massive amounts of media attention every time she opens her mouth no matter how often she puts her foot into it is somehow without power, or that she is somehow "speaking truth" to power when she makes inflammatory insults against people and their families. I realize you admire her and I don't mean to insult you for doing so, but I don't see how comments speculating about divorce, about enjoying your husband's death, or about posing in Playboy have anything to do with "truth" or rational discourse at all. It doesn't matter what I think, however; all that matters is what reliable sources have said about this controversy. csloat 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We reproduce an attack on Coulter as a "disturbed person". Fairness to her requires that we reproduce her explanation of her hostility to the JG as an alternative to explanation: dementia. Andyvphil 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about Coulter (or her alleged dementia). See WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. In my opinion this section could be cut down to a couple sentences. There is no need to belabor a minor controversy in this way, and certainly no need to portray it as a debate in which Coulter must have the final say. csloat 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the additional coulter quote. More should be removed from this section, methinks -- even without that quote we still have just under one half of the article devoted to the Coulter insults. csloat 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrary break[edit]

Can one of you people edit warring over this silliness please explain clearly what the additional Coulter quote adds to the article other than undue weight treating this as a debate in which Coulter must have the final say? Andyvphil, your edit summary mentions BLP -- how does BLP even get involved here? I really don't understand your point. We now have about half the article devoted not to the Jersey girls but to Coulter's vitriol. Why is this necessary? csloat 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add too that the quote in question is not from a WP:RS. "Newsmax"? How is this quote even notable? Have any RS's published about Coulter saying it? If it makes Andy feel better, we should remove the line calling Coulter "disturbed." But let's not pretend this is some sort of debate. By the way I take note that the other editor pushing for this nonsense started this discussion on this page by saying that we should shorten the Coulter section, not lengthen it. csloat 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:RS as it applies to partisan sources. The main concern is with hostile derogatory material. The quote you and you alone keep removing (it takes a lot of chutzpah to say "you people edit warring") contains no derogatory material, and it is uncontroversial that Coulter said it. Video of her saying it is readily available and I can almost cerainly find it transcribed elsewhere, but there is no need to as there are no reasonable grounds for challenging it.
My edit summary, on undoing one of your reverts, read "...The POV that the JG are misrepresented as representing the'widows'must be given due weight,and just because this is not AC's article doesn't negate BLP concerns." Which first of all, answered beforehand one of your requests ("...please explain clearly what the additional Coulter quote adds to the article..."). As to the BLP concern, I cannot begin to comprehend your question "how does BLP even get involved here?" or your comment that I merely think the "disturbed" claim might be objectionable. The fact is that her words, according to words in the article that I did not write, "created a firestorm of controversy" and "received national attention" (establishing notability of subject). It then reports that she was widely criticized (true) and quotes JG responses. She was also defended and defended herself. This you want to leave out, despite is relevance to not only the Coulter brouhaha but to the phenomenon displayed in the first quote of the paragraph where the NY Times uses "the 9/11 families" as a synonym for "those 9/11 families who are hostile to the Bush administration", a phenomenon about which this article is inexcusably silent. Andyvphil (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is no evidence this is something notable said by Coulter. If the only outlet who saw fit to quote it is Newsmax, it doesn't belong here. (2) See WP:SOAP. This is not the place to have a he-said/she-said debate between Coulter and the Jersey girls. Coulter can get a blog for that purpose. In fact, I am sure she already has one. This is an encyclopedia, and this article is about the Jersey Girls, not about recording everything Coulter ever said about the Jersey Girls. (3) See WP:UNDUE. We have about half of the article now devoted to Coulter. That really seems ridiculous in an article that is not actually about Coulter. (4) What BLP concerns are there? There are none at all. The closest you could come was the comment about Coulter being "disturbed," which I tried to remove to deal with that "problem." (It's nonsense, of course, but I'm trying to compromise here). If you have evidence of another BLP violation let's please hear it. (5) You say that since Coulter defended herself we should print that too. That is utter nonsense. This is not a dissertation about Coulter's position. This is a BLP about the Jersey Girls. Coulter's original comments caused a firestorm and are thus notable. Her subsequent repetition of the same personal attacks did not cause another firestorm and are not notable. It's really that simple. (6) If the NYT already mentions something that you have newsmax also mentioning, the newsmax quote is redundant and does not improve this article at all. It should be removed. (7) Please take yet another look at WP:UNDUE. You have yet to actually present a single justification for spending half of this article talking about Coulter. csloat (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(8) Sorry I forgot this one point -- your comment that "The POV that the JG are misrepresented as representing the'widows'must be given due weight,and just because this is not AC's article doesn't negate BLP concerns" is completely irrelevant here. That "point" is already made by the NYT quote as you yourself point out. We don't need Coulter saying it. The fact that Coulter may have said something that the NYT agrees with is not notable here. Coulter's comments were notable because they were abusive and vitriolic, not because you were able to find a shred of an argument buried beneath the abuse. If your claim is that Coulter had a good reason to spew these venomous attacks on grieving widows, you are certainly welcome to that opinion, but her "good reasons" have not been reported on as notable in the subsequent coverage and are not encyclopedic. What was reported on (and rightly so, in my opinion) was that Coulter, an intelligent and savvy media commentator with an incredible amount of power in the mainstream media given her extremist views, viciously attacked a group of grieving widows because they had the gall to pressure the government to investigate their husbands' deaths in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. That is what is notable, not the thin veneer of "argument" that her vitriol rested on. csloat (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1)WP:NOTE has no application to the content of articles. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article." Specifically, there is no requirement that any content element be the subject of multiple reliable sources. However, since you didn't like NewsMax I"ve sourced the quote to Fox News coverage of its own interview.
(2)You also misinterpret WP:SOAP, which states -- in a nutshell -- that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for its editors. Wikipedia content is not to be propaganda or advocacy, but, "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view."
(3) The Coulter incident isn't half the article. Before I re-added the second quote it was 11.4%, consisting solely of the quote itself and what was (mis)represented as entirely negative reaction to it. Again, you turn WP:UNDUE on its head. The first sentence of that section of the official NPOV policy (not guideline, or essay) reads "Undue weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints..." The Coulter viewpoint that the JG were left wing partisans unfairly presented as representative representatives of the victims of 9-11 is a significant viewpoint([4],[5], etc., etc.) and its slighting in this article is a NPOV violation.
(4)It wasn't "close". It was a straightforward BLP violation, plain and simple.
(5)You misrepresent the second quote. It is not a "subsequent repetition of the same personal attacks". The first "quote" is a selected compilation of the parts of Coulter's book ("pp. 100-112") that were objected to, which you wish to follow solely by a recitation of objections. The second quote is Coulter stating why she found the JG so objectionable, a context which is in her book but is omitted from the first "quote". Why this is a NPOV violation I've already addressed in (3).
(6)Actually, the Wikipedia JG article does not quote the NYT mentioning the take on the JG that NewsMax later seconded. It ought to mention the Rabinowitz piece, but it doesn't. And mentioning the NYT/Rabinowitz does not mean you shouldn't mention that NewsMax, etc., agree. The statement that Coulter was criticized gets six refs, after all.
(7)"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
(8)What NYT quote? The only one I see is Frank Rich serving as a perfect example of what Coulter, etc., are complaining about. "...the White House...tried to discredit the 9/11 families..." The ones that NewsMax says applauded Rice? I think not. Andyvphil (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Non-notable content does not belong in articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of everything in the world. I think you're aware of this. Shall we include information about what size shoes Coulter wears here as well?
(2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Ann Coulter either. This is an article about the Jersey girls, not a debate match between Coulter and her interlocutors. I can't believe I have to explain this one to you either.
(3) Count again. Of 1632 words devoted to the Jersey Girls, 564 are about Ann Coulter. You're right it's not quite a half, but it is just over one third -- still far too much. See WP:UNDUE, if you haven't already. As for Coulter being significant, what is significant about her view is that she viciously attacked grieving widows. That is what the press commented on, that is what people saw on TV, that is what even Bill O'Reilly felt the need to distance himself from, that is what the Jersey Girls responded to, and that is what should be reported in the encyclopedia. The fact that Michelle Malkin found some argument buried in the vitriol is just not part of the discourse about this topic.
(4) You can assert this until you turn blue but you haven't yet given a reason. I have explained carefully why you are wrong. You may admire Ms. Coulter, but if you imitate her style of "argument," you will find that you are very unconvincing.
(5) I have not misrepresented anything. The second quote does not add anything notable to this article; it is just a chance for Coulter to soapbox on this issue. We don't need that here. And you have not at all explained how this has any impact on NPOV.
(6) I don't mind if you add refs but I do have a problem with extending the content of this section without end. If the Coulter soapboxing stays, we must include responses to the soapboxing. Then we ought to include responses to the responses, and so forth. This was a pretty minor controversy in the grand scheme of things -- do you really think this article should be longer than, say, History of the world?
(7) Umm, you're not saying anything here. Again, I think you would benefit greatly from reading WP:UNDUE.
(8) I thought the Frank Rich quote was the one you were referring to. Was there another you had in mind? If you want to make some kind of point about the 9/11 families that isn't made in any of the quotes here, please be sure your quote is sourced and that it is a notable part of the so-called "controversy" here. So far I don't see it. The only thing notable about Coulter's attacks on the families is her vitriol, not that you were able to find some weird point buried beneath it all. You may wish to check out WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYN, if you have trouble understanding this. Cheers, csloat (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...what is significant about her view is that she viciously attacked grieving widows." Not so. What is significant about her view is that she is objecting those who use "grieving widow" status to claim immunity from criticism. Lou Sander (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true in your opinion, but this article is not about your opinion. What should be here is what the mainstream media and most public commentators consider significant, not what one Wikipedia editor considers significant. csloat (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion vote / film featuring Jersey Girls[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth. Badagnani 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth" Movement template[edit]

The {{911tm}} template seems inappropriate. I'm personally not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but the article strongly implies they were pursuing the actual truth, not the conspiracy theory misinformation. Peter Grey 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - that template is bogus. The "truth movement" should not be collapsed with the conspiracy theories like that; this has nothing to do with controlled demolition of bldg 7 or with "in plane sight" or any of that other crap. I'll remove the template for now; someone should separate it into different templates and then it might perhaps be relevant.--csloat 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been brought up on the Template:911tm talk page; if a connection cannot be verified the template will be amended, and excluded from this article. Peter Grey 04:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rodriguez... and "Instrumental in the 9/11 Commission"[edit]

The current article states that "Together with William Rodriguez, the Jersey Girls were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission." The footnote given to this seems like a rather minor source -- an article in a minor publication about Rodriguez. The claim about the Jersey Girls is supported in the next sentence in the article, however.

I only began reading about Rodriguez today, but frankly, he seems like something of self-publicizing con-man. I am frankly wondering whether his mention in this article is actually accurate and -- if so -- is his role so notable that he is worth singling out for mention in this article (there were many families of victims who were calling for investigation in the months and years following the 9-11).

So my questions here are two-fold:

1) Is the claim that the "Jersey Girls" were "instrumental" in the formation of the 9/11 Commission truly accurate, or is this an exaggeration of their role? "Instrumental" is a strong word, esp. in the context of the current article, and implies that they set the process in motion in a way more significant than other parties... [Later note: Ok, I'm seeing a lot sources supporting the significant role they played, but I'll let this question stand anyway. More important is #2 below...]

2) Even if #1 above is accurate, does the mention of William Rodriguez belong in the same sentence? Is he truly an "instrumental" figure in this regard? Can someone verify this from more mainstream sources? The claim seems highly spurious to me, and suspicious as being a merely self-serving insertion into the article.

It is worth noting that even in the main Wikipedia article on William Rodriguez, there is no mention of a specific role in the formation of the 9/11 Commission, but only his lawsuit against the United States and his role in the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement."

StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the part about condi not being under oath[edit]

The Commission website has a transcript of her testimony :

"MR. KEAN: Thank you.

Dr. Rice, would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MS. RICE: I do. " Source : http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing9/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-08.htm

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm deleting the part where it says she was not under oath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.204.221 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it before I read this; after clicking your link and doing some more reading I'm not sure what to think. Every media outlet reported her as refusing to testify under oath -- see [6] or [7] ... I'm not sure if that bit you quote was added later but we need a media outlet confirming that she changed her mind or whatever. The one you cite is from 4/8; the CNN article is from 5/6. Here's an article from 3/24 asking her to reconsider her refusal; it's possible she changed her mind after the media flurry at the end of March? csloat (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself - it looks like that's exactly what happened: [8]. I'll rewrite that sentence. csloat (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Redirect[edit]

Kristen Breitweiser appears to lack any real notability outside of being a member of the Jersey Girls, for which the article is now quite extensive. Dedicated articles for the other 3 members have already been converted to redirects to "Jersey Girls" and Breitweiser's probably should be too. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There is media coverage on Breitweiser that does not mention the "Jersey Girls", so her position is somewhat different compared to the other members of the group.  Cs32en  00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is sourced in the article is extemely flimsy: a piece from a local paper in 2005 and a small mention from a recent CNN piece ("But Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband was killed on 9/11, said she welcomed the trial..."). Is there substantially more? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 families being blocked from the VSST[edit]

The senate was written to and meetings were held when legislation 42 usc10609 sec 3d blocked the 911 families who has eligible judgements from collecting from the VSST if they collected funds from VCF1. When asked for a revision the senate solidified it in recent legislation Mzlaady123 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jersey Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jersey Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jersey_Girls&oldid=1202449355"