Talk:9/11: Press for Truth

Deletion?? NO!
What possible grounds could there be for deleting this article? It provides good information about a film that has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. It's not a great article, or a complete article, but it is an article, and one with more relevance than many hundreds of other WP articles. --Nemonoman 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance Tag
This article contains no information that points to why this documentary is in any way important or relevent. Please add references or additional external links that demonstrate external press coverage this film has received (the current AfD conveniently has a few links that should get you started).--Isotope23 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This film came out in 2006. What do you expect?67.72.98.45 16:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's important as it features important people, namely the Jersey Girls. That in itself gives it importance, as there are plenty of people interested in these women, who will therefore find the article valuable. I'm sure there will be disagreement on this point. Tyrenius 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific contents of the film

 * Since it traces the efforts of the 9/11 family members whose pressure finally helped to convince the administration [government] to create the 9/11 Commission, importance is sufficiently established.
 * There's a real need to have someone that's seen the film tell us precisely what it's about. Checking the references, it seems to be a legitimate documentary, but there isn't an entirely clear sense of whether the film is pursuing conspiracy theory fantasy, or is posing legitimate questions regarding government negligence. Peter Grey 14:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

From someone who actually saw it
Well, I've seen it. It's a documentary that presents reasons for concern that 9/11 investigations have to date been inadequate. This tack appears to represent primarily the concerns of the 9/11 widows' and relatives' lobbying group.

The film traces numerous items of concern using historical news stories published in 'legitimate' press or broadcast outlets.


 * Articles suggesting that defense, security and intelligence agencies had enough advance notice about 9/11 to have taken action
 * Articles suggesting that other countries, notably Pakistan, supported, protected and financed Al-Queda operations, possibly including 9/11
 * Articles suggesting that numerous opportunities to capture Bin Laden and other Al-Queda may have been stymied by political considerations
 * Articles describing Bush Administration attempts to stop, stonewall, and control investigations into 9/11

Further the film traces the efforts, successful and unsuccessful, of 9/11 relatives to increase visibility and public demand for investigations and accountability.

The film presents no new theories, no questionable science, no interpretations of videos, etc...in other words, this is NOT Loose Change. Its focuses on the politics of the investigations. To this end it utilizes evidence from legitmate, publicly available news sources that are reasonably verifiable (in fact most of the evidence appears to be thoroughly documented in the "Timeline of 9/11" book, and the film cribs from that book constantly).

It does NOT suggest evidence of "conspiracy"...other than to suggest that the investigations into 9/11 are woefully incomplete, and that by inaction certain public officials are trying real, real hard to keep their jobs.

It also presents the widows and family of 9/11 victims as noble, concerned, full of righteous indignation, etc., in a very favorable and uncritical light.

The film clearly has a Non-Neutral POV, but it presents its POV with good sourcing and cogent arguments, coupled with lots of emotional appeal. In other words, it's a good example of cinematic rhetoric.

I don't agree that the film's conclusions are necessarily right, by the way: I'm speaking only to describe the film in response to this request for information. I do believe that the film is reasonably notable, however, at least notable enough to be included in the WP.

--Nemonoman 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Watch it on Google video. Tyrenius 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing the IMPORTANCE tag
I believe that the article contains enough information of importance to remove the 'importance' tag.

I include this passage from Non-notability


 * ''Edit the article so that it establishes the importance of the subject. Let's say you come across this stub:


 * ''Eric Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea.


 * ''Verifiable, factual, neutral, but fails to make any assertion of importance. But we know there is more to it than that! How about expanding it to read:


 * ''Eric "The Eel" Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who achieved worldwide fame after finishing in the slowest time ever recorded in the Men's 100m Freestyle finals at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Moussambani had never seen a 50m pool before the competition.


 * ''The subject now asserts importance! The problem is gone.

Please note in the above Wiki Example that no "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are included. Importance is simply asserted.

The "importance" tag references an article Notability, which is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process..." Editors, says the article "...should not describe it as "policy"".

Please also note that this non-policy guideline refers to Notability Criteria for a number of different subjects. Film, documentaries, even 9/11 cruft have NO notability guidelines.

So let's refer to the tag itself for help

"please expand the article"
Since this tag was originally applied see a number of relevant edits have been made. Edits expanding the article and adding information regarding its importance include:
 * Link to Article from The Indianapolis Star
 * Fuller description and reference point related the content of its assertions (stonewalling/coverup)
 * Appearance in Polish Magazine
 * Relationship to other areas of so called Truth Movement (by template addition)

"or discuss its significance on the talk page"
The signficance of the article has been documented on the talk page. Edits include:
 * Content description
 * Reference to unsuccessful AFD where notability was the primary matter of debate (or at least a major matter of debate).
 * Decision to "keep" the article, which suggests that lack of notability has not been the consensus view.

Please note that "reliable sources such as newpaper articles" are in no way requirements in affirming the importance of a subject. The elements listed above clearly meet example standards.

As Notability says
 * ''Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on WP:AFD

It appears that the importance tag has been added based on a subjective view of 'unimportance'. I would note that Peephole has from all appearance ONLY edited articles on 9/11, and particularly with with a POV that alternate theories of 9/11 are to be removed or discredited, through a variety of clever means. He or she apparently has the subjective view that this article's notablity is also lacking -- just as he/she feels about many other '9/11cruft' articles.

But the Notability statement quoted above describes notablity as items that might be argued validly in on WP:AFD. That certainly suggests that the OUTCOME of the AFD argument effectively settles the issue of notablity. If the article were not notable, it would have been deleted.

It is redundant and distracting, therefore, to keep the 'importance' tag in place. It suggest that the matter is not settled.

I will go further and suggest that in this case it is clear that the 'importance' tag is being used not as a request for better editing, but as means to assert that the article is somehow unworthy of being read. It is, in effect, an effort to deny the outcome of the AFD decision, or to suggest that the decision was reached in error.

There's probably room for an 'expand this article' tag or for a NPOV tag or some other tag.

Perhaps, as happened in the past, the tag being looked for is yet another AFD tag?

But not the 'importance' tag, IMO.

Therefore I am removing the importance tag. --Nemonoman 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Theories
Does this really fall under the Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks? I'm removing it pending verification. The film documents unanswered (and sometimes dubious) questions about the attacks, but it does not offer any speculative theories. Peter Grey 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the film. All questions, no theories. Therefore I agree with your reasoning. --Nemonoman 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag
Neither importance, nor the question of whether the film is really a documentary, is adequately sourced. (The Indianapolis Star page has expired, so we can't tell if it was commentary, a movie review, or an actual article. Only the latter would be adequate.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered. There are no sources for the accuracy of the statements made, and calling it a documentary may be biased.  We need a third-party reliable source for that statement.  And the importance tag should not have been removed, as there was no consensus in the previous AfD.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See this link. It's a real documentary. Badagnani 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be a quality, professional, or wholly unbiased documentary, but that is the format the film uses. Peter Grey 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have re-written this article providing more detail on what is in the documentary. I am a new editor so please let me know what you think. Corleonebrother 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Too much of the original article was deleted. Can you please re-add those parts? Thanks, Badagnani 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence about the Frankfurt Group marketing the film as I could find no reference for this. If you can find one, please feel free to add it back in.  I also removed the final paragraph saying that the film was given away with a Polish magazine as I think that information is too specific and irrelevant to most people.  All the rest of the original article is still in there I think - most of it expanded upon. Corleonebrother 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Google Video
Is this true? "Google has banned the video from its video section because of U.S. Goverment pressure." Badagnani 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We would certainly need a source to include potentially libelous material should as that. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, that's why I placed it here on "Discussion." Badagnani 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't be true. That would be almost equal to the U.S. Government confirming the conspiracy theories... --Erfa 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mujahadeen
The linked article does not describe the Muhajadeen as a precursor to al-Qaeda, or at least I can't find where it does so. Can an editor quote the relevant text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It also looks briefly at the Soviet-Afghan War and how the Afghan Muhajadeen, a precursor to al-Qaeda, were funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets.

No conspiracies
Please stop adding the "9/11 conspiracies" tag. As mentioned earlier in "Discussion," the film is full of questions, with no conspiracies or answers given. Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article states that among the "questions' are these :
 * Why had NORAD failed to protect the known terrorist targets, the World Trade Center and The Pentagon?
 * Why did the World Trade Center Towers, as well as Building 7, completely collapse when no other steel-framed skyscraper had ever previously totally collapsed due to fire?
 * Unless someone made a mistake and this isn't the actual content of the film then the article should be changed. If this is the content of the film, it's clearly advancing conspiracy theories and there's nothing wrong with tagging it appropriately.--Sloane (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some other 9/11-themed films, no conspiracy is proposed in this film. The film is full of questions, with no conspiracies or answers given. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just silly. There's something as a rhetorical question. I just watched some excerpts and the film is clearly pushing conspiracy theories about the collapses of the towers and the air defenses of the U.S., which at Wikipedia we both classify under conspiracy theories (9/11_conspiracy_theories, 9/11_conspiracy_theories). Reliable, outside sources classify these ideas under conspiracy theories as well (,, , , , , ,...). --Sloane (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The film is about the Jersey Girls, who are conpiracy theorists. Even if Badagnani were correct that the film was not about conspiracy theories (which I do not believe), it's about conspiracy theorists, so still fits.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained why the "conspiracy theory" category should remain. Please, Mr. IP6, don't delete it without obtaining a new consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Changes
Please, User:Badagnani, share your concerns here. So that you can stop the constant reverts.--Sloane (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Peep, I don't understand this edit. Isn't it nice to provide a wikilink to the Jersey girls? And if you wanted to name them all why not leave the wikilink at least in parenthesis? Also there seem to be other instances of changes that remove details from dates and links. I don't get it. Can you explain? I'm probably missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still a wikilink to the Jersey Girls, look at the "Development and Release" section. If you're wondering about the September 11, 2001 Attacks to September 11 Attacks change, that's how those articles are called now. They were all renamed about half a year ago. --Sloane (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The White House was removed, and many other things. If removing text, please suggest such removals at Discussion prior to removing it, rather than using repeated reversion as a means of trying to make "possession 90% of the law." Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits looked okay. The only question I had was whether the titles were helpful in breaking up the sections (whether or not they were in the movie...). I'm not sure which part Badagnani is referring to so maybe he can put it back in? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The White House was removed. Badagnani (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was one mention of The White House and it's still in there.--Sloane (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this film notable?
I followed the referenced cites used in the article and not one is actually about this film. Is this specific film notable? Are there reliable sources about this specific film? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you manage to find mentions, let alone significant coverage, of the film in any of the references given? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not so far.
 * The first cite is to PBS which is a reliable source but it's not about the film. It's about the 9/11 Commisson begining its open hearings .  The article is dated March 26, 2004, more than 2 years before the film was even released.
 * The second cite appears to be dead. There's no longer a hyperlink so I don't know what it's referencing.
 * The third cite is about molten steel being stolen . It's dated Sept 28, 2001, 5 years before the film was released.
 * The fourth and final cite is to the 9/11 Commission Report.


 * None of the cites even mention this particular film.


 * I found some specific guidelines regarding the notability of films and it states that a film "is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."


 * Should we wait a week or two to see if anyone can find some reliable sources giving this film significant coverage and if not, nominate it for deletion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Give it a week, if there really are no real sources then AFD is an option for sure...I see what you mean though, the refs are about the events themselves and not the film. RxS (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a decent-sized review of it here (I have got the full text and not just the summary there). Hut 8.5 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability for this movie is indeed questionable. In fact, it was nominated for deletion back in 2006, but the discussion didn't end in any consensus.--Sloane (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for the notability of films are outlined in WP:FICT:


 * 1) The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * 2) The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * 3) *Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * 4) *The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
 * 5) *The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * 6) *The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * 7) The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
 * 8) The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * 9) The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.


 * Was this film widely distributed? No.
 * Did this film receive full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? No, not that I can tell.
 * Have at least two non-trivial articles been published at least five years after the film's initial release? No, the film was released in 2006.
 * Has the film been deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release? No, the film was released in 2006.
 * Has the film been given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release? No.
 * Was the film been featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema? No, not that I'm aware of.
 * Did the film receive a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking? No.
 * Was the film was selected for preservation in a national archive? No.
 * Is the film "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program? Not that I am aware of.

I'm not sure how this film can possibly be considered notable given the above. Perhaps the criteria for the notability of films has changed since 2006? Someone should nominate this article for deletion. I would do it myself but I am not familiar enough with the process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Article changes - rewind
User:Badagnani seems to have issues with edits made to the article again. He can share them here. --Sloane (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As before, it would be best if discussion first be engaged in prior to, rather than after massive blanking of text (and hyperaggressive reversion thereof). Badagnani (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three sentences were removed, this is not massive blanking. Your blind reversals are borderline vandalism. This is all what was removed:
 * The total collapse of Building 7 was not mentioned.
 * The World Trade Center steel, which may have proved beyond doubt how the total collapses occurred, was destroyed before it could be forensically examined. 
 * There was no mention of the money that was wired to lead hijacker Mohammad Atta on September 10, allegedly by order of the Head of the Pakistani ISI (which is funded in part by the CIA). The Report stated that the issue of who funded the attacks is "of little practical significance."
 * I removed the third point because the information is already included, later in the summary. The first two points, I simple could not find this in the movie. Please, tell met what specific time these show up and I'll try and add them in a neutral way.--Sloane (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He seems to be still vandalising the article. The film might not promote conspiracy theories, but it's certainly about conspiracy theories.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin, please do not refer to User:Badagnani's edits as vandalism, but assume good faith instead, unless you have proof that User:Badagnani is trying to damage Wikipedia deliberately. Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have said, deliberate edits against a clear consensus, rather than vandalism. I don't think he's trying to harm Wikipedia, per se.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with adding budget data
Please, help me to add this data about budget http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm2209801/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.19.99 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)