Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 33

Straw poll
This debate can go on for a long time. But the aim here is to reach a consensus, not merely to agree we have different personal views on the matter. So a straw poll to try and help the debate along: to identify the main arguments and what support each receives.

I've tried to break down views into simple statements of a kind people will mostly support or oppose. There are a lot of them, because there are many views, and it might help to identify with precision, which exact issues we agree on, or disagree on, and how strongly.

Feel free to support or oppose all that apply, or (if necessary) add other non-complex and short extras at the end. Keep it short, and honest. Usual communal approaches for talk page "straw polls" apply in case of doubt.

Please comment or sign below each using #:* VIEW comment ~. I've added mine as an example on the first.


 * Main points and arguments raised - added by FT2:

====Terrorist/terrorism has multiple definitions. But judging by all (or substantively all) mainstream definitions, 9/11 would be considered a "terrorist" incident, and the perpetrators would be considered "terrorists".====


 * 1) Support FT2 (Talk 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Timneu22 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Cberlet 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, but this does not mean that I condone using the term in the article (I am, in fact, rather opposed to it). Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support If this isn't terrorism, what is?  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support · AndonicO Talk 13:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support --PTR 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Stanselmdoc 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Bevinbell 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support--MONGO 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Billbrock 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. If these people weren't terrorists, who were? Their act was designed to terrorize a civilian population. Griot 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 28) Support Deeter063 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Orbitalwow 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Deigo 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The word terrorist in this case is used for a political agenda. We shouldn't use the word without adressing this issue. Geir 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist/ism is a term that carries an emotive meaning as well as being (ideally) a factual term as well.

 * 1) Support Haemo 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Geir 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Billbrock 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support An "emotive meaning." Meaning the word inspired peoples' emotions? That's true. Griot 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support It is factual and if connotation is meant by "emotive meaning", then yes, like most other descriptors, terrorist has an "emotive meaning"  Mr.  Z- man  01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Nearly every word in the English language has both a denotation (factual definition) and connotation (emotive attatchment). Basic English class stuff, people. Sageofwisdom 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Its not a factual term at all Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It does not carry an emotive meaning . &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose It does not carry an emotive meaning . Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose With the exception of extremely basic words (articles, "go", "said", etc.) there are nearly no words without any sort of connotation. It was the goal of al Qaeda to terrorize the United States. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains

Terrorist/ism is a term often used factually, but is also used by one side to gain perceived advantage by casting their opponents as such.

 * 1) Support Haemo 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One side may do this in cases where they feel public opinion needs to be swayed. However, I don't think anyone has argued that such is happening in this case.  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support  Sometimes accurate, but not in this case.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support In this case, terrorism is being used factually. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Geir 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support But is every true statement relevant to this article?  Billbrock 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Griot 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support I support the first part but who's the "one side"? Are we the "one side"? Is it the US gov't and the media? Mr.  Z- man  01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Half of war is propaganda. The United States barely realizes that. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 16) Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Terrorism is never used factually - because the word does not convey facts Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Terrorism is scarcely (never) used factually. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Believes This question Misleading Terrorism has an objective definition, and therefore should be discernible to people when it is used incorrectly. Deeter063 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Believes This Question Misleading The term is used both as a factual word to describe an event designed to terrorize civilians and as a propaganda term to define people or an event. Each individual must decide for him- or herself which one is being used. I aree completely with Deeter in this instance.Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV contemplates that terms used by reliable source consensus should be adopted by Wikipedia - if everyone calls it a duck, so should we.

 * 1) Support Timneu22 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dispite Hameo's point, I think 'we' can overlook a minor gramorical error. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support NPOV is non-negotiable; we must state as fact things which are generally accepted as fact.  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Wikipedia works well when it summarizes and conforms with reliable sources. That can be done objectively. It does not work well when we base what articles say on the arbitrary opinions of whoever happens to be editting the article... that leads straight to bias because Wikipedia's editors are not a very representative sample of the general public, academia, the press, etc. --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support If "everyone" refers to the reliable sources.--PTR 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Stanselmdoc 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)  Linguistically speaking, this is how "language" even exists, because a group of people decide on shared meanings of words.
 * 9) Support --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Strongly Support Wikipedia can only draw from reputable sources.  It is not possible to have completely NPOV.  Overwhelming consensus of opinion has the strength of fact. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support While everyone is a bit of an exaggeration, we can't ignore majority belief. Anything else would be not be NPOV.  Mr.  Z- man  01:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I haven't seen a reliable source that claims this attack was not terrorism. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Bevinbell 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support--MONGO 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support On the one hand, Damburger is right that use of the term goes against a WP guideline, however, the changes he wants go against WP:UNDUE (99% of reliable sources call the events terrorism).  One guideline is going to get violated here, no matter which side wins. Concensus should rule. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Billbrock 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 19) Support Sageofwisdom While I agree that it would be best to take as neutral a view as possible, in this case such a strategy would be nearly impossible. The best course is to report the facts, and in matters that are always matters of opinion to report what the majority of people believe, but in as neutral a way as possible. Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Support We must accept what the mainsteram defines something as here on wikipedia, to do any less is original research Nickjbor 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose The policies and guidelines say differently Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose "everyone" is too subjective Haemo 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose · AndonicO Talk 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose there is no "everyone", and the general consensus among experts etc does not matter; we should at all times remain neutral.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Not 'everyone' is correct Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV contemplates that terms should not be sidestepped or pussyfooted if accurate - a murderer should be described as a murderer if they murdered.

 * 1) Support Timneu22 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Same thing as above. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support if and only if the term has a precise meaning and a neutral connotation. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support in as much as that using an undue ammount of politically correct language is a form of bias. --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)--W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Supoort &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Stanselmdoc 20:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC) the word "murderer" might have been removed from some things, but the word "murder" has certainly not.
 * 7) Support Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support The connotation need not be neutral, but one should use the term descriptively rather than to elicit an emotional response. Billbrock 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 12) Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support [User:Sageofwisdom|Sageofwisdom]] The event fits the dictionary definition of 'terrorism.' If this is not a 'terrorist' even, what is? Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose The word 'murderer' has been removed before for this very reason Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose "pussyfooting" is a subjective call Haemo 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose "Accurate" does not mean the same as accepted by concensus. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

====NPOV contemplates that terms should be used neutrally when there is doubt - a murderer could ideally simply have their victims and manner of death listed to document their acts, and the fact they killed.====


 * 1) Support This is consistent with letting the facts speak for themselves (WP:NPOV) Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Mr.grantevans2 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, although inapplicable in this case.  There is no doubt as to terrorism.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support weakly Stanselmdoc 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Terms should be used neutrally, but here, there is no doubt.
 * 6) Support weakly for the same reasons as Stanselmdoc. Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support on the same basis as Arthur Rubin. Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support on the same basis as Arthur Rubin. Billbrock 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support for the same reasons as Arthur Rubin. This event was meant to terrorize a civilian population, therefore it is terrorism. There is no doubt. Also, while I approve of listing the act and victims, it would be illogical to leave out the fact that this was a terrorist event. Would you list the proceedings of a criminal trial, but not the verdict, because the verdict was not reached by consensus? Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Wikipedia doesn't need reasionable doubt. This isn't a criminal trial. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose weakly... a bit too vaugue and could lead to some bias. Also it's just a bit spacey in general... we would say "FDR was an American President", not "FDR recieved a majority of the electoral vote in 4 national elections during years in which there was a presidential election". Sure people could draw their own conclusions... but come on... --W.marsh 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose weakly I agree with Tarage. If the assertions cannot be supported with facts, then they should be removed. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains


 * 1) Abstain I'm not sure that "murderer" is analogous to "terrorist". Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Abstain I don't think this applies to the current dispute.  Even the opponents of using the term terrorism don't seem to "doubt" that the term itself is accurate.  They only question its use in WP according to WP guidelines. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

====Best NPOV practice would be to avoid possible pejorative terms or avoid applying our labels to them whatever the case might be, even if there is only a question that they might be seen that way, because avoidance of pejoratives in Wikipedia's voice is what counts more.====


 * 1) Support Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support of course. Wikipedia simply cannot use pejorative terms. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Mr.grantevans2 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Geir 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose pejorative is too broad a topic, especially when words can be used accurately, and sourced accurately.Haemo 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not a court. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --PTR 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Stanselmdoc 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Avoidance of pejoratives in WP's voice is not what counts more. WP should not be worried about hurting someone's feelings, but by reporting accurately what the rest of the world reports.
 * 7) Oppose --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose "whatever the case might be" - far too many problems; so if there is a video of a person killing someone and then saying "I'm a murderer" we can't call them a murderer?  Mr.  Z- man  02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose If the term is sourced (especially as widely as this one), it's not being used as a perjorative. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose on the same basis as Haemo Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Avoidance of perjoratives is only one guideline; it cannot be used to trump others unless supported by concensus.  Although I think the phrasing of the question is biased to make "being PC" seem overly tedious.  In most cases, it isn't. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Griot 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. The proposition is framed naively.  There is no way to make language purely denotative.  NPOV is like utopia: worth striving for but unattainable.  Billbrock 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Like I said earlier, there are nearly no words that have no connotations to them, whether good or ill. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 16) Oppose Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose It's not our job to re-write history Nickjbor 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS and if it was, we could do a better job at it then arguing about this.
 * 18) Oppose Strongly If the term is what is true, it should be listed. Period. Sageofwisdom 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

====Best NPOV practice would be to call a spade a spade, if the incidents were terrorist incidents, call them terrorist incidents, because the technical (dictionary, governmental, documentational, etc) meaning is what counts more.====


 * 1) Confused Support if technical means "expert attest to technical use" then yes Haemo 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Stanselmdoc 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC) --Again, linguistically, this is the only way language can survive.  We know a spade to be a spade b/c we as a community decided it was going to be called a spade. If one (or even more, but still a minority) stands up and says, "No I'm going to call it a flute", that does not make "flute" the accepted definition.  Language as it exists would never survive if people were required to make way for everyone's different definitions.
 * 6) Support Damburger, I dispute the definition of a spade.  I guess it's POV on Wikipedia now.  Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Especially since the disputes over the definition are not relevant to this debate. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support if a terrorist is not a terrorist, then what is a spade? Nickjbor 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The definition of a spade isn't disputed. The definition of a terrorist is. Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose WP is not a dictionary.  It doesn't matter whether it is "logical" to call these acts terrorism based on the mere definition of the term.  What matters are the descriptions contained within a concensus of reliable sources. GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Abstain --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains


 * 1) Depends on whether there are agreable definitions of "spades". The line is of course blurry, but in the instance of "terrorism", it is obvious that the definition varies far too much. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment: this assertion assumes, in its statement, things which are disputed.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Comment This is getting rather silly.  I think the reason to call these incidents acts of "terrorism" is to note that their purpose was not so much to destroy the WTC as to elicit a certain response.  Billbrock 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Best NPOV practice would be to call a spade a spade, if the incidents were terrorist incidents, call them terrorist incidents, because the popular usage is what counts more.

 * 1) Support Stanselmdoc 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC) see above.
 * 2) Weak Support We generally shouldn't set our standards by popular opinion, because people in large groups are dumb (as has been mentioned in the archives ad nauseum). But here we have virtually all reliable sources in agreement. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support just as history can change by historians and people changing thier view, so can the present and past events. If we are not to go on popular usage, then we are crossing into original research. Nickjbor 07:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Haemo 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Something we all agree on. Scary. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose yeah, and water boils at 100°C because the average housekeeper knows it from boiling eggs. Right... Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Not popular usage, but all reliable sources.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weakly Oppose Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose as per Arthur Rubin GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose We should not be appealing to the majority in WP. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 11) Oppose Orbitalwow 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Abstain What matters here is not the popular opinion so much as the reliable sources. I would, however, oppose if the popular and official definitions differed. In this case, however, they do not.

====There is a case that Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks and their perpetrators are not universally described throughout the world as "terrorists", and that a notable minority in the world reject this label.====
 * 1) Support You won't likely hear from such people on wikipedia though, as most lack internet connections Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Of course their supporters call them "martyrs", not "terrorists". I don't understand where the "oppose" votes come from, don't you read newspapers ? Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Mr.grantevans2 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support of course, the world doesn't end with Europe/America.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support like Rama -- TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 09:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support weak. Geir 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support weakly al Qaeda calls us the "crusaders" and "imperialists," yet we reject that because of the facts. It is a fact that al Qaeda terrorized us to begin their plan to establish a new Caliphate. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 8) Weak support I agree with most of the statement, but this should not affect the article. Mr.  Z- man  03:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Support and Oppose The statement is dead on, smack dab right. Some people do think that way. However that should have no impact whatsoever on what we here at wikipedia write. "some people" think the moon is made of cheese, but you dont hear arguments over that. Nickjbor 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per Arthur Rubin below. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Mixed There are some people who think that Al Qaeda are not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and possibly that Al Qaeda are not terrorists.  There are no people who think that the 9/11 attacks are not terrorist acts. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Mixed Stanselmdoc 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Concur with Arthur Rubin


 * 1) Abstain This is a completely true statement. However, what a notable minority- chief among them the group that performed the deed, I'm sure- thinks does not change that this is a terrorist event. In fact, I belive that the hijackers themselves, if confronted with the facts, would agree that this was terrorist. They just would believe that their motives were pure.

If a notable minority did disagree, then we should abide by government descriptions and call them that anyhow.

 * 1) Weak support "Notable minority" of reliable sources, yes. The unwashed masses, not so much. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose if we in fact should abide by government descriptions, it wouldn't be because a notable minority disagrees. There is a problem with the logical formulation of the question. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Geir 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Governments are by definition political. We sould not be allowing politics to dictate what we say. Nickjbor 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Abstain --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 2) Abstain Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Confused What do you mean by a 'notable minority'? --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A large enough proportion of people (or some specific group of people) to be a minority worthy of note - neither a majority or near majority, nor a "tiny minority" (in the terms of WP:NPOV). Basically "a minority, but a large enough minority to be notable", by whatever standard of notability you use. Basically the question asks (in simple terms) the stance you have on principle, about, "if enough of a minority did disagree to count as 'notable' by your criteria, then would doing XYZ then be right?" FT2 (Talk 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If a notable minority did disagree, then we should abide by that and avoid using a disputed pejorative even if almost all governments do.

 * 1) Support Haemo 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Mr.grantevans2 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, but not applicable to this case.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support See my answer above. Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support if notable minority.  Geir 18:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Confused Oppose Again, what is 'notable'? But still, typically if the majority of governments say something is something... --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We should call people what it is right to call them, whatever they think. What is right is not pejorative, and is not necessarly sympathetic or washed down either. Rama 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Doing so would be giving undue weight to the minority view.  Mr.  Z- man  01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose This is like bending to the requests of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and naming this document the "official conspiracy theory" page. --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 5) Strongly Oppose This is ridiculous- exactly the same as a government where minorities rule. Namely, a dictatorship. The basic law of a democracy is, "majority rules." On Wikipedia, when a tiny minority and a massive (and representative) majority disagree, we turn to the facts. The facts are that this was a terrorist event. List facts, not opinions. Opinions include, "this was not a terrorist event," "9/11 was performed by the US government," and other statements of the ilk. We have evidence to support what we have now. We have NO substantiated evidence to support anything else. Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Extra questions added in a similar vein
In the intrest of finding out where we stand, without similar questions with slightly different wording, I offer these two questions.

Should the words Terrorism and Terrorist be totally removed from this article?

 * 1) Support Mr.grantevans2 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) No --Tarage 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No. FT2 (Talk 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Timneu22 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Haemo 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely not.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No ATren 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) No Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) No Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) No Bevinbell 13:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) No Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) No --W.marsh 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) No not if we have to refer to them as "bad men" or some other less then accurate title.--MONGO 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) No --PTR 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Nope if everyone reliable source it a terrorist attack then... Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) No GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) No--GillesV 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) No --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 21) No Nickjbor 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Mixed  Geir 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) No The term "terrorist"  is used for a reason, which has been confirmed to fit those responsible, therefore, the word(s) should remainDeeter063 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) No The word terrorist applies to the event. Facts, people. Sageofwisdom 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the words Terrorism and Terrorist be partially removed from this article?

 * 1) Yes  Geir 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm not allowed to answer my own polls. --Tarage 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Tarage 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Timneu22 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. but I'm not clear with what a "partial" removal would mean.  --Haemo 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely not.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No ATren 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No --Aude (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No Scetoaux 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No Dchall1 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) NO Bevinbell 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) No Dougz1 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) No--MONGO 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) No GreyWyvern 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) No --PTR 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) No --GillesV 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No --Rockymountains 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
 * 2) No Nickjbor 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls
Please remember Polls are Evil"In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. ..In some cases, editors use straw polls during discussions of what material to include in various Wikipedia articles. Although such polls are occasionally used and sometimes helpful, their use is controversial. Where used, article straw polls should be developed in a way to assist in reaching true consensus, rather than in an attempt to silence an opposing opinion." Mr.grantevans2 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes no consensus can be reached. Picking up a blue pen and asking 100 people if it is a blue pen will get you the correct result. However somebody might say it's a red pen. You can't "compromise" on purple, it's blue. In cases where it's fact that's being disputed, consensus is very difficult to reach, and sometimes a majority has to come out on top.Nickjbor 07:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and comments
My apologies if any of these aren't perfectly worded (as haemo seems to feel). The spirit of them is probably what counts more, I accept some wordings used generalizations such as "everyone" that may be not exactly ideal. Feel free to propose better variations below! FT2 (Talk 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, I get what what you're going for with most of them. --Haemo 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i found the exercise rather confusing ... Peterhoneyman 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the reason for dividing it up like this is. There seems to be some framing going on here. I still think that my question in the above section deserves a proper answer. Damburger 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that a format fix that actually makes the poll easier to read, and tabulates the votes, is part of a manipulative conspiracy? Perhaps a conspiracy run by Cheney...or the Mossad cabal behind 9/11? Framing? How about the perceptual frame that this entire discussion is absurd on its face? Reality check time. Several of the vote questions are almost incomprehensible, and the vote serves no useful purpose since there will be contradictory votes and vote counts. How will results be tabulated? A mainframe for the billions of possible interpretations? If this is a discussion about text (as it should be), then there is only one question: should we use the word "terrorist" to describe one of the most significant acts of terrorism in many decades? This entire "vote" is fatally flawed. Anyone who has ever tabulated questionnaire results can see this problem.--Cberlet 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the editors on this debate have had roughly 6 years from December 2001 (the date of creation of the article page) to reach a consensus, and as yet has failed to do so, that suggests whatever kind of discussion has gone on, is not doing the job. The reason it's not doing the job is that the simple question you posit contains aspects that different people have issues with. In other words the question seems to be one question, but if unpacked would read something like: "should we use the term 'terrorists' and if so what definition, and making appropriate assumptions about minority views and pejoratives, and what wikipedia consensus feels is right in this case..." Its a mess of a question which is partly why nearly 4 years of talk page wordage have failed to answer it. The above questions are intended to help unpack it a bit, to examine what aspects we agree and disagree on, within that question, so we can gain a bit better understanding of the specific views and how representative they are -- in order to help editors here to focus in on the areas of disagreement. That's in part why some may seem duplicated - so that editors can show support or opposition to the different specific assumptions and wordings in the debate. FT2 (Talk 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow... I doubt this strawpoll is going to silence any of us, reguardless of the outcome. --Tarage 07:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I might give up soon. Mr.grantevans2 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus isn't about "shutting people up". Nor - the other extreme - is it about having a right to make unilateral expectations. It's about working collaboratively and respecting that a consensus may emerge which we will partly like, and partly not, and in some cases completely like, or completely not, or even think is mistaken... and if it's a genuine consensus, to at times say "no can compromise even if everyone else does" and at other times to say "yeah, okay, I can see the majority thinks X, for reasons I disagree with but they don't". FT2 (Talk 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, some people, myself included, probably aren't going to give up so easly if their viewpoints aren't accepted. That is why I worry this will drag on and on without end. Unless, of course, we get a definant vote on something, and that can be enforced. But sadly, I don't think Wikipedia has anything like that. --Tarage 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can believe some would wish to. Everyone has a little part of them that goes "I want it my way!" But that's just not an adult way to get stuff done. We have processes if that situation did arise, to resolve it in many non-childlike ways, using many other resources in the community -- whichever way it may be. To avoid using them, and instead try to tangle up discussion fruitlessly beyond a point of reason comes fairly firmly under WP:POINT -- no matter who does it... you, me, Jimbo Wales, or Santa Claus. That policy is there to say nobody has the right to disrupt reasonable Wikipedia process to make their point. But so far that hasn't happened. What has happened is much unfocussed discussion in circles. We hear many views but we don't actually have a solid basis to see what we think on it... it's all wordage. The above poll is intended to help us see where we agree, and where we differ. Its a tool that should be able, with luck, to help us in this well-meaning debate. FT2 (Talk 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the core tenets of writing a legitimate questionnaire is no complex sentences, and no ambiguity. I do not doubt your sincerity, FT2, but the above poll is totally without value in terms of finding a solution to editing actual text here on Wikipedia. This is not about polling the attitudes of Wiki editors. It is supposed to be about editing text. 99% of the recent discussion has been a total waste of time, energy, and bandwidth. It establishes nothing. And it violates the Wiki guidelines about the purpose and nature of discussion pages.--Cberlet 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oddly I was just adding a comment above on a very similar point at the same time as you wrote the above. Hopefully you'll find an answer in that comment. FT2 (Talk 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * *1+2 does not =4.
 * *1:The definition of terrorist referenced often above is "an intent to cause fear".
 * *2: The section on motive in this article mentions punishment,Lebanon,Palestine,bankrupting America("'restore freedom to our nation','punish the aggressor in kind,' and to inflict economic damage on America") but does not mention even once the "intent to cause fear".
 * *4: By adding 1 with 2 we can not logically come up with 4 (that 9/11 was an act of terrorism). Mr.grantevans2 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the motive section:


 * Bin Laden said, "We swore that America would not live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America will not get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." --PTR 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that some of us don't believe that intent to cause fear is the only part of the definition of terrorism, or that it's the make-or-break issue. Stanselmdoc 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr.grantevans2, are you saying that because you think 2 sections in a Wikipedia article (might) conflict with each other billions of people all over the world, the UN and every reputable news outlet are wrong about it being a terrorist attack? If all those people are right, we should call it what it is. If they are not, there's a bigger issue than internal consistency in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps it would be better to fix the section? RxS 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To RxS; I'm saying the word "terrorists" does not fit with this article's explanation of motive; I'm saying there is a widespread compulsion (likely as a result of repetitive usage)to insert the "T" words where they don't fit,including into this article, just like the words "evil" and "suspicious" are being used inappropriately in many venues. Last generation, words like "Communist sympathizer", "outside agitators" and "socialism" were mis-applied so this is nothing new, just different terms. I'm also saying the "T" word(s) add nothing to the substance of the article. I'm also saying it is classic Orwellian doublethink to propose the "T" words are NPOV. Mr.grantevans2 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To bring up evil as an example is a strawman. To plagiarize myself, terrorism has a much more specific definition that can be used factually, where evil is a much more general term. I think you might misunderstand what doublethink is if you want to apply it to a term used all around the world...it's not Orwellian to use a term in common use everywhere in this exact context. Though it absolutely is Orwellian not use a term in common usage in order to advance a political point/agenda if that's what's going on here. RxS 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Doublethink is the act of simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs while fervently believing both" Wikipedia. Mr.grantevans2 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The NPOV guideline doesn't mean to rephrase so as not to offend, it says: "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."  It would not be NPOV to write the article without using terrorism or terrorist since that is what the reliable sources use.  What is a contradictory belief in writing what the reliable sources have reported? --PTR 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To follow my example, many reliable sources in the 50s referred to civil rights workers as outside agitators at that time and could justify the term literally since most were from outside the community and they did, in fact, agitate. I suppose if Wikipedia had existed then, some here would have been insisting that the same terminology be used. I am saying that an encyclopedia should rise above the pejorative terminology of the day. But to answer your specific question, when the reliable sources are using the wrong word in the context of their own articles, it becomes a (sic) situation whereby that term should only be repeated when it's a quote. Mr.grantevans2 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you don't want it removed entirely, just in X says Y format? --PTR 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * X says Y is fine with me. Mr.grantevans2 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "X says Y" is very incomlete; it's A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, and a few more say "Te". &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether it's accurate to call the 11 September a terrorist act, but whether Wikipedia should use the term. Which comes down to asking whether the term "terrorist" can be considered to have one univocal, consensual meaning. And it is not absurd to say that this is not the case.


 * Your "If all those people are right, we should call it what it is" point is moot because it's off topic, and equivalent to "let's go say that Hitler was a bad person". Rama 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the 1 + 2 bit above where he says that because the sections ("an intent to cause fear") don't match up we shouldn't use the term. That's a little disingenuous I think. In general I don't buy that "bad" and "terrorist" are equivalent. Terrorism has a much more specific definition that can be used factually, where bad is a much more general term. RxS 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, again, the crux of this "argument" is that some people don't appear to believe that the word "terrorism" has any factual meaning; that is, it is just another term like "bad", "mean", or "evil" which cannot have basis in fact, and which cannot be anything other than a subjective moral judgment. Look at the "opposes" in the section above, for examples of this thinking.  I, and every expert in the world would disagree most strenuously with this interpretation.  Because something can be used as a pejorative doesn't make it impossible to apply it properly.  There are people who can be called Nazis or terrorists without simply meaning "they're bad men".  --Haemo 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not it at all. I accept this meaning given in Wikipedia: "Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror",..." Since the element of intent is included, I think it's just plain obvious that nobody knows anybody else's intent and since the hijackers were all killed, the only way the word can be appropriately used in this case is if there were authenticated statements(pre-attack) from the hijackers themselves as to what their intentions were. For example, "fraud" is usually described as the "intent to deceive". The only way we could call someone a "fraudster" here without getting Wikipedia sued would be if there was a court conviction or an admission by the perpetrators. The hijackers have not been convicted of terrorism and never admitted to be motivated by an intent to scare Americans. The only reason,really,that this and other accounts of the event are so anxious to call the hijackers by this term is because the people accused are dead and can not defend themselves plus individuals who insist on using the term are largely expressing their own quite natural human bias and anger towards the killers and by calling them names, it provides a little bit of a feeling of revenge. It's kind of like the victim impact statements at a murder sentencing where the family can call the killer terrible names; perhaps it makes the family feel a little better. Or maybe it's more like spitting on somebody's grave if that person hurt you in some way when alive. That's the way it seems to me. It's actually kind of disappointing (to me) to see the support for the term in 2007 on Wikipedia, especially since people at Wikipedia went to so much trouble to analyze and reject the use of the term some time ago. Mr.grantevans2 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking for revenge or to spit on anyone's grave or indulge in name calling. Wikipedia has not rejected the use of the word.  I am here to assist in writing an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources.  Wikipedia could call someone a "fraudster" if they were citing reliable sources.  We are not here to parse the sources and decide they were wrong to term the act terrorism and the ones who carried it out, terrorists.  We are here to present what the reliable sources say as WP:NPOV states, "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."  Remember, comment on the edit and not the editors. --PTR 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what's your principle here? You "opposed" the statement that "terrorism has both an emotive meaning, and (indeally) a factual one".  Which part of that do you oppose?  You don't believe terrorism is emotive &mdash; if so, then how can you claim that labelling them is out of "revenge"?  Every expert on the subject says this was terrorism -- we know what their motives were from the men who trained them and sent them on their mission.  We know what they were doing, and why.  No one here is out for blood, and the fact that because the world no longer holds cadaver synods does not mean we should neglect labeling these men, or their actions, accurately because "they can't defend themselves".    --Haemo 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think terrorism has or is meant to have a factual meaning; only a pejorative meaning..I think it's similar to "outside agitator" and, in fact, since it is so blatantly in the realm of bias, it's quite easy to stretch the pejorativity even further with obvious police statish add-ons like "could be inspired by terrorists", "suspected of facilitating terrorism", "terrorist sympathizer","associated with terrorist facilitators" or, the best I've seen so far on CNN: "the group is suspected of being associated with people linked to terrorism." Mr.grantevans2 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, quite frankly, you'd be wrong. There are entire careers of study devoted to terrorism,  and the conditions which foster it.  In fact, the UN explicitly explains that academia has a consensus version which is distinctly non-pejorative.  You'd do well to look at any of the 109 different definitions of terrorism and find even one that has "only a pejorative meaning".  --Haemo 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * X says Y is fine with me; and I think that's reasonable. Mr.grantevans2 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I don't think any change is necessary. I think it is easy if you have only a few sources that say something is terrorism and a few that say it's something else but in this case we don't have that.  We have a huge volume of sources saying it's terrorism.  Why don't you give an example of how to write the first two sentences in the X says Y format?  That would give a better point to debate.  --PTR 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the multi-faceted definition of terrorism on the terrorism page? 1. Violence.  Sept. 11 was certainly violent. 2. Psychological impact or fear - "The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to."  I think this fits precisely w/ Sept. 11.  And even if you disagree, it's only ONE factor that doesn't apply out of many.  3. Perpetrated for a political goal. 4. Deliberate targeting of noncombatants. 5. Unlawfulness or illegitimacy.  I would say Sept. 11 fits 5 out of 5, and even if it only fir 4 out of 5, that's 80%!  Also on that page: "In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." I would say this fits.  There's even a picture of the WTC with smoke billowing out of it on the page.


 * And I don't think it's fair to say that use of the term gives people "revenge", nor do I think that if they were still alive, any defense they could offer would make me think "oh yeah, you had a legitimate reason to fly planes into building and kill masses of people. totally okay with it now.  no WAY you're a terrorist.  you just wanted the world to understand your cause."  Normal people who can think rationally do not think that flying planes into buildings is a good or appropriate action. Stanselmdoc 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The only reason,really,that this and other accounts of the event are so anxious to call the hijackers by this term is because the people accused are dead and can not defend themselves plus individuals who insist on using the term are largely expressing their own quite natural human bias and anger towards the killers and by calling them names, it provides a little bit of a feeling of revenge."

I have come across very few people in this debate advocating actually calling the hijackers "terrorists". I thought the majority of the debate was about whether the act itself was to be called "terrorist". Which doesn't seem too difficult a decision to make really. Does it? Maybe it is. I would be curious to know, though, how much of this debate is still there because people are still confused as to the above distinction. Wireless99 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I dissagree. I advocate calling the hijackers terrorists. I advocate calling all of the responcible parties terrorists. And I do believe my two polls above this prove that I am not alone. Infact, it would appear that I am in the vast majority. I'll wait a while longer, but if things stay the way they are in those polls, I'm going to move that we end this debate because consensus has been reached. And no, this is not a call for both sides to go randomly call on people to vote. --Tarage 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please. Let's move forward. This has been a painful example of intellectual pointillism and postmodernism on crack.--Cberlet 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to PTR my suggestion would be;

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated attacks by 19 airplane hijackers (15 of them being Saudi nationals) upon the United States of America. The United Nations Security Council and many other authorities label the event as "terrorist" attacks. Mr.grantevans2 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many other authorities" is inadequate WP:WEASEL wording. How about "all authorities". &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with this, but why so wordy? We already source the terrorist claim with a footnote; no one is going to get confused by it.  If we want to be super pedantic, we could do something like:
 * The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America, and are regarded by all authorities as an example of terrorism.
 * Seems silly though. --Haemo 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Arthur Rubin on the WP:WEASEL wording since it is all authorities. Have you read the reference from the UN?   I also agree with --Haemo and wouldn't remove suicide or Islamic extremists or you could replace Islamic extremist with "members of the terrorist group al-Qeada".


 * It does seem kind of silly since we source the terrorist claim immediately with a footnote which should suffice for "these people say" in the X says Y format. --PTR 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't think this is neccary or advisable. Concidering how many people oppose removing all, or some, of the 'terrorist' words, consensus was reached long ago. Lets leave the wording as it is. --Tarage 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to that. I just got here, and don't consider the wording honest. It certainly isn't neutral. It says: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[2] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States.... ... How about: The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of the alleged hijacking and destruction of four airliners, apparently resulting in the deaths of everyone on board, coordinated with the destruction of a group of buildings in New York City and damage to the Pentagon. According to the Bush regime, these were suicide attacks conducted by nineteen auspiciously fortunate Islamist freedom fighters. Wowest 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to take this seriously, then please leave the talk page. Jesus, why do we put up with these children? --Golbez 09:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I believe he is being serious. What he, and the rest of the minority of disidents need to understand is that consensus has been reached. I only have to look at my two poll questions to see that all but a handfull of people oppose changing the wording at all. Therefor, I am requesting that the page be taken off of protection, and all edits that remove terrorist/terrorism be reguarded as vandalism and be treated as such. Enough is enough, lets move on. editprotected --Tarage 09:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Might as well leave it on protection until the end of next week. --PTR 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what does this mean? "leave it on protection"? Also, to Tarage I don't like my comments being conflated with the comments of Wowest into an other of so-called "disidents"(sic); as I am trying to move towards the consensus which you claim already exists. In fact the concepts of consensus and other might even be mutually exclusive. Please don't do that again. Mr.grantevans2 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus has been reached in my mind. All I have to do is look at my two poll questions to see that in each case, only one person supported removing Terrorist completly/partially, when everyone else who voted opposes it. That seems like consensus to me. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it means the vast majority agrees. And we have that. --Tarage 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to FT2 and Tarrage for trying to identify our meanings and consensus!! Though for me this discussion is a little strange. Yes, we should look into how our leaders and we use the word "terrorist". But I'll call these acts for terrorist-attacks, though maybe not use the word terrorist. Geir 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll call them unsolved mysteries along with the murder of JFK and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident"attack", and the level of involvement of American politicians, Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman in financing and supplying the Nazis; and,as with those events, more facts seem to come out as much time goes by (Bush/Harriman info kept classified for 50 years). Mr.grantevans2 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm ba-ack. I'd appreciate it if my comments were not combined with anyone else's as well. That isn't fair to them. What I'm pointing out is that even the first sentence of this article is straight-up Bush regime propaganda. Something hideous happened on 9/11. I think we can all agree on that one. We -- well, at least *I* -- saw people jumping out of windows to their death to avoid the pain and possible fatal effects of the fire. Then we all saw explosions propelling some sort of dust high above each tower. After that, we all saw each tower collapse, while commentators from news organizations stated that it looked just like controlled demolition. After that, we all heard some government propaganda about what happened, and most of us, including me, bought it.
 * "post hoc ergo propter hoc." That's a logic error. "After this, therefore, because of this." We believe that aircraft impact followed by fire caused the towers to collapse. More and more evidence, every day, indicates that isn't true. Dozens of witnesses have stated that there were tons of molten metal under each of the three buildings five or six weeks after 9/11. How did aircraft impacts and kerosene fires cause that?

We seem to have a certain kind of consensus here. However, the majority of Americans (51%) according to a recent poll, believe that we need a new investigation of 9/11. Hopefully, it will be one in which there are at least a few commissioners who don't have a conflict of interest. Wowest 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from general comments about the subject of the article. This isn't a forum for general discussion.  If you want to talk about specific changes to the article, then cite your sources and explain what you want to change in detail &mdash; don't just engage in general discussion, soapboxing, or questions without some specific  sources and a change in mind.  If you want to discuss general 9/11 theories, there are innumerable forums for just that.   --Haemo 18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection
editprotected

Regarding the edit protected request. Is there a continuing need for protection of this page? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct place is WP:RFPP, rather than here or an editprotected request. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that; the template explicitly says that; but nevertheless the person who placed the template was asking for unprotection. I'll disable the template, and a request can be made at RFPP if unprotection is desired. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry... I must admit I'm not very wiki savvy when it comes to the code more experenced users throw around to make everything look fancy. I just saw "request unprotected, put this here", so I did. My appologies. --Tarage 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just requsted unprotection. (hopefully it's agreeable). Mr.grantevans2 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Recation ?
Iranians React To 9/11 With Vigil, Prayers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biontenagent2008 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral_point_of_view demands both stories side by side
That means both the terror terror story and that what actually happened. This also means there is no need to continue the debate about terror, as it is much more important to get the whole secondary explanation on the page. (Gaby de wilde 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

(See Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Gaby de wilde. It's easier to move to a subpage then to refactor most lines, as the formatting made replies appear wierd. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Again, this is frivilous soap-boxing. Please desist in making general comments about the topic of the article and instead talk about the article itself.  The only actionable part of your suggestion is an aggregious violation of neutral point of view.  --Haemo 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but soap boxing is appropriate as you have not addressed any of the content suggestions presented. How can you just ignore the secondary account? It's well documented, there is even an attempt to take the Bush administration to court. There are professors who claim the official story is bunk and they do so in Guardian. The FBI says Osama was NOT INVOLVED.

This means the current article is one big lie. And my questions about it go ignored. Every instance of the word Muslim does not belong on the page. I'm terribly upset by all this dishonesty. How do you justify this? By complaining about the format of my writing 100 times? I will then take the soap box, I have every right to. I'm sure you have the best of intentions here Haemo but who is not talking about the article it self here? You or me?

This sub topic is where I say the page is weasel wording, and you say I'm soap boxing huh? I'm talking about the article justifying the war on terror here? I'm not sure how I became the subject there. Could you please clarify that leap of logic? And how do you relate it to weasle wording?

I beg of you to explain, what part of Osama was NOT INVOLVED is so hard for you to understand? (Gaby de wilde 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC))


 * None of your facts are correct. However, even if they were, we could only use them if they were reported by a reliable source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"I will then take the soap box, I have every right to." Wrong. Wikipedia is not a right. The internet is not a right. You do not in any way pay for this webpage. Sorry, but you have no rights here. Everything is at the whim of the owners. --Tarage 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If you persist in soapboxing, you will be blocked for disruption.  --Haemo 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but soap boxing is appropriate... Wrong. Peter Grey 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters the article would not be a lie it would be false -there is a difference. We go on the best and most reliable sources to hand and construct the best coherent NPOV article we can from those. Alternative accounts can be found at the 9/11 conspiracies page. We are not being dishonest, and in fact if your accusations continue you may upset some people here. Yes, the article has some problems, but as can be seen from the extensive discussions above we are doing our best to fix them. Please join in constructively. The article's problems do not have a root in the motives of its authors. Wireless99 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless, it appears that Mr/Mrs Gaby de wilde is going to be blocked indefinatly, so I think we can move on. --Tarage 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am wondering whether we can salvage this 1 source from de wilde as a possible reliable source specifying something other than terrorism? Mr.grantevans2 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already an entire article which talks about this at 9/11 conspiracies. "Something other than terrorism" is not the same as "these attacks were a government conspiracy"; these people don't believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with them, and therefore have no strong opinion what they call something that didn't happen. They're not disagreeing with the terrorism label, they're disagreeing that they occurred at all as described in the article. --Haemo 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just read it carefully and I see what you mean and I agree. Mr.grantevans2 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You all don't understand... Osama WAS INVOLVED.

Pankuro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.252.192 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this page a vital article?
In the History, Renaissance to present section, I think it'd fit.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's on the expanded vital articles list...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Article is in dispute," because it is clearly known that the 'official story' is a complete set of lies. Side, by side, or delete any future mention of 'neutrality.'

70.232.46.165 10:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Tom-Scott Gordon, WTC -demo participant

How about no. We've been over this so many times, I won't repeat myself. However, your POV pushing is not welcome here. --Tarage 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD FYI BTW
Some editors here may wish to contribute to this deletion debate. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers

Article Title is Mispunctuated
I've reconsidered the position I took above where I said it was "not worth fighting over" the fact that this article is incorrectly punctuated. (It is missing a comma after the year; it should read, "September 11, 2001, attacks.") Consensus was recently reached on that point in the talk pages of the WP Manual of Style. .

There I cited dozens of authoritative sources for the general proposition that the year in the American month-day-year style is parenthetical and should be set off by commas (unless the year is followed by some other punctuation). I also provided dozens of authoritative sources for the specific usage, "September 11, 2001, attacks."

This point has been discussed before in the archives, and, although many editors are uncomfortable with the correct usage---in my opinion, merely because they have become so used to the incorrect usage---no one has ever cited an authoritative source (or even any rationale) to support the way the article is currently punctuated.

Although we cannot fix every instance of this error on Wikipedia due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia's autoformatting discussed on the Manual of Style talk page, we should fix it wherever we can, including the title of this article. In it's current form, this article is reinforcing a common, but clearly wrong, punctuation error for a whole new generation of writers. It's kind of embarrasing. Let's fix it. Thanks! Lowell33 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no objections. Even the 9/11 Commission Report uses the proposed punctuation.  --Haemo 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No objections here. I think it is kinda trivial, but whatever. Atleast it isn't as bad as the debate we've had for the past few months... --Tarage 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The valid forms are "11 Semptember 2001 attacks" and "September 11, 2001, attacks" if they are identified entirely by date, "11 Semptember 2001 attacks" and "September 11, 2001 attacks" if the date is taken as a proper name in its own right, but the most common name is actually "September 11th attacks", with the ordinal number, but since that's ambiguous the form for an article title would be "2001 September 11th attacks". Fun, isn't it? Peter Grey 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter, I do not understand the distinction between (1) a scenario in which the attacks "are identified entirely by date" (in which case "September 11, 2001, attacks" is correct) and (2) a scenario in which "the date is taken as a proper name in its own right" (in which case, for some reason, "September 11, 2001 attacks" is correct). What's the difference between "identif[ying]" something "entirely by date" and using a date "as a proper name in its own right"? Assuming there is a meaningful distinction there, do you have any authority for "September 11, 2001 attacks"? I've never seen any, and believe me I've looked. Thanks Lowell33 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Brittanica uses "11 September Attacks", just FYI. --Haemo


 * So, is there a way to edit the title in a "global" manner so that links to this article elsewhere on Wikipedia are automatically changed? I don't know enough about it, and I don't want to mess it up. Thanks Lowell33 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you'd have to either manually or use a bot to change them. --Golbez 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you'd have to file a request with one of the redirect-fixing bots, or something. Which would be a pain.  --Haemo 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured?
This article was once a featured article. Can't we just revert to that version to eliminate all these discussions? Timneu22 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. When it became a FA it wasn't even called a FA so I think it should be obvious our requirements have changed significantly since then. If you don't believe me, take a look at the version when it was kept in January 19th for refreshing brillant prose . It isn't even properly referenced! (Indeed I'm not sure why it was kept given that only 1 person appears to have supported keeping it but that's a different matter). Other then that, given that it was a FA in 2004 and it's been 3 years since then and given the nature of the subject matter there have been enough changes that even if our requirements were the same it still wouldn't be a FA since it would be rather outdated. Nil Einne 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. FA standards are much higher than they used to be, and the old version of the article would miss a lot of material which we really need to include.  --Haemo 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead in of the FA version takes a far more neutral tone, and that is probably why the article is no longer a FA. Damburger 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this article move on yet?
How about the introduction of this article starting with the following:


 * ''This article discusses the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 events. For other theories, see Alternate theories for the 9/11 events

It's just ridiculous that the CT's are dominating this article. They have their own article. This is the mainstream account and it should be noted as such. Timneu22 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't give them first say. They have their own article, linked where it belongs, in the conspiracy theory section. This is the mainstream account and it is noted by the fact that it is presented as the fact it is. --Golbez 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I agree with you 100%, I'm just trying to throw them a bone. :-) LET'S MOVE ON, PEOPLE! Timneu22 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No kidding. The concept that there is no "true" account of what happened on 9/11 is ridiculous.  The one which experts on the subject and reliable sources have accepted as accurate is presented here.  Alternative conspiracy theories are presented elsewhere.  If consensus in these experts and reliable sources changes, then so will this argument.  We don't need to compromise it by pretending there are two competing versions of reality, and we are somehow unable to tell which one is judged as accurate by experts.  It's the same as putting a disclaimer on evolution saying "This is the mainstream view of evolution; for alternative views, see creationism." No disclaimers is a guideline. --Haemo 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess it does say:  on the evolution page. Sorta similar... Timneu22 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really; that's a redirect clarification to point to a similarly named article. You don't see "Alternative 9/11 theories" redirecting here.  --Haemo 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent)What could a disclaimer say? "This article covers the mainstream view, and that article covers the alternative views" creates the impression that a WP:POVFORK exists. The 911CT article is not, and should not be, a POV fork of the main article. It's there to document a sizeable chunk of information which was broken out of this article for reasons of space, not in order to present a different POV. All articles are supposed to present all notable views, neutrally and giving them due weight.

If there were a disclaimer, it should say that this article fairly presents all notable views on its subject - in other words, that it is written according to wikipedia policies and guidelines, just like every other article should be. If it isn't, that should be fixed. But a disclaimer should not be necessary, either way. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I support a disclaimer saying something to the effect of "Before making an edit, please understand that due to the importance of this article, most if not all of the contentions with it have been discussed in detail on the talk page." And then on the talk page, something like "Before starting a new point of contention, please review the archives to make sure your point hasn't already been argued." That way there would be no excuse for people like WikiStenson and Gaby de wilde to soapbox. And in the unfortionate event that someone did soapbox, there would be consensus of trolling, and the instigator could be delt with post haste. That is my solution anyway. --Tarage 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we move on yet? Not quite, I think. Ignoring the trolls for a moment (which feels good, and is recommended), the issue which led to this page being protected was edit-warring over the use of "terrorism/ist" in the lead. I might be able to drum up a compromise solution that would work for everyone. First, let's see what people think... Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection Template
Is this article really protected or did someone just decide to put a protection template on the page. It didn't look protected to me.... Illinois2011 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Stupid mistake, glancing over stuff. Illinois2011 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While this article IS protected (and has been for some time) constructive collaboration is still encouraged here on the talk page. —  xaosflux  Talk  04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We've just about come to consensus(though I think we reached it a long time ago), so it should be removed soon. --Tarage 04:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I lifted it, in any case. If someone decides to start edit-warring before the aforementioned consensus is reached, I'd rather impose restrictions or direct censure on that person, than reprotect. Keep me posted. El_C 06:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The media isn't "all" using the word terrorst
So perhaps its time this page rediscovered objectivity? 

Of course, the mob (and their possibly sock puppets) are no more likely to be swayed by me demolishing this argument, than they were when I demolished their previous ones. Seems logic simply doesn't work around here. Damburger 16:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/sept_11/changing_faces_01.shtml
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3919613.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5335506.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540158.stm

--PTR 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also remind you to avoid personal attacks, and be civil &mdash; especially not to accuse other users of having sockpuppets without any evidence. I would also request that you cease edit-warring over the article, now that it's unprotected.  --Haemo 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"See Also" link?
What is the reason for not having a "See Also" link to 9/11 truth movement in the conspiracy theories section? Corleonebrother 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are many 9/11 conspiracy theories and we don't talk about the 9/11 truth movement here at all? They are mentioned on the linked subpage extensively.  --Haemo 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 conspiracy theories page discusses the theories themselves. The 9/11 truth movement page discusses the people and organizations involved.  People may want to read about one topic without reading about the other.  Corleonebrother 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. The 9/11 truth movement is one specific movement; there are other groups which question the account, but do not identify as part of this movement.  --Haemo 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Does 'questioning the account' mean the same as a conspiracy theory? Corleonebrother 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even the "official account" is a conspiracy theory, so I would suppose yes. --Haemo 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even that seems to be a matter of opinion - see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Corleonebrother 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about the attacks. The 9/11 truth movement is about people who support the conspiracies.  The link should go on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. --PTR 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the section is titled 'Reaction'. Reading it now, it could be that a few 'nutters' came up with a conspiracy theory, then it was debunked, and that was that.  It gives no impression as to the number of people involved or the fact that it is still debated now, six years on, maybe more than ever.  A whole industry has developed out of the 'Reaction' - we should at least have a wikilink to the page on it.  Corleonebrother 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should we give this one "industry" privilege over all the other groups which don't identify with them? They're supporters of a set of 9/11 conspiracy theories; they're not all supporters, and it's inappropriate to depict them as representing everyone.  We can't give them context here, hence they are not linked -- that's what the currently linked article does.  --Haemo 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have any articles about groups that support neither the mainstream account nor the 9/11 truth movement? And if we need context even for a 'See Also' then we should alter the sentence slightly and put in an inline link.  Corleonebrother 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to my knowledge; but my point was that the context is inappropriate. We mention conspiracy theories every generally.  It's inappropriate to choose one particular conspiracy umbrella movement and then include it &mdash; why not just link the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which discusses the theories and their supporters in general.  --Haemo 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No revert warring, please
Note that I am dead serious about there being no revert warring for, at least, a few days following my unprotection. I have blocked User:Damburger‎ for 24 hrs on that account and I urge everyone else to tread lightly. Thanks. El_C 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Carry the big stick, brother. --Golbez 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood, and thank you for the quick responce. Those who do not wish to participate in a civil manner don't belong here. Showing no intrest in taking votes, then suddenly attacking when the protection was removed is very malicious. --Tarage 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey; calling somebody malicious IS malicious and I don't think name calling belongs here. Mr.grantevans2 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me understand: according to your words you blocked him because he "reverted" when you "specifically warned against doing so immediately upon unprotecting". So why user:PTR was not blocked for the same reason for reverting him just a minute before his revert?--Pokipsy76 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually agree with the block either but it wasn't my call. I think his reverts were more of a point issue.  Since he knew consensus was against him, he knew they would be reverted.  I assume the reason I wasn't blocked was because he made a change and I reverted once to the verbiage agreed by consensus.    --PTR 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Because his edits were malicous and against consensus. We had just had months long debate on removal of words like 'terror' and 'terrorist', and found consensus that they should not be removed. Protection was removed, and he instantly started removing 'terror' and 'terrorist' against consensus. user:PTR simply reverted the vandalism. --Tarage 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not speak for other people. It was not you to block the user. See here for the motivation for the block. To make an edit without consensus is not a reason for a block and is not the reason that was given.--Pokipsy76 08:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am speaking for myself. I am allowed to give my oppinion. He did not simply make one edit without consensus, he repeated the same edit over and over again, which is clearly Edit Warring, and a violation of the 3rr. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who dissagrees with this finding. --Tarage 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But what you say is false. Your "over and over again" are actually 2 reverts. In fact he was not blocked for WP:3RR which was not violated.--Pokipsy76 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for starting a revert war. In essence, he violated the WP:3RR. It doesn't really matter what you think about it, because it was upheld. Let's drop it and move on. --Tarage 08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't violated WP:3RR, it's not just "what I think", it's a fact anyone can realize reading the rule.--Pokipsy76 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the following sentences taken from WP:3RR are exactly what happened here:
 * Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.


 * I'm sorry, but User:Damburger's behavior was definitely disruptive, especially since he has consistently disregarded the compromises and discussions on this talk page. But User:Tarage is also correct that this discussion should be dropped, because it's not about improving this article. Stanselmdoc 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry too but you quotation absolutely has nothing to do with this case where we have an editor who made just 1 edit, 2 reverts and no other edits before. People who think this discussion should stop should think better about the relevance of their contribution before posting.--Pokipsy76 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No other edits before? Damburger has made lots of edits to the article removing the words "terrorist" and "terror", starting August 13, from what I can tell. This last time was just one out of many. And the reason I didn't think this discussion should go on was for Damburger's sake - since he isn't here. (I agree with Mr.grantevans2 below that it's not right) I was merely trying to explain to you why I thought El C chose to block him. But I understand that you want El C to respond and not someone else, so I apologize and will take a step back to let him respond. Stanselmdoc 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent)This quotation from the above quotation of WP:3RR exactly applies to the situation:Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Damburger has been blocked before, we were all asked not to revert, and he reverted more than once. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable answer but I disagree that leniency was in play as leniency only applies when an infraction has been committed. You also state as fact that the edits were disruptive and I don't see that at all. This is exactly why El_C is the person who needs to answer the question. It's also inefficient for someone to answer on someone else's behalf unless that person is unable to answer for him/herself. I've noticed that whenever it happens that the discussion unnecessarily expands and the original question is rarely answered by the person to whom it was intended, which seems rather non-constructive to me. Mr.grantevans2 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Admins typically have many demands on their time. Luckily, any editor can discuss (and attempt to explain) wikipedia policies, principles or guidelines, and I chose to do so because, apparently, WP:3RR is being misinterpreted by various editors on this page, and a better understanding of it benefits us all. 3RR gives an admin discretion to block an editor, even if the editor has made 3 or fewer reverts in a day. Not blocking a disruptive editor is the "leniency" referred to above. It's clear from El_C's comment above, and the block announcement on Damburger's talk page, that the block is for edit-warring, which is by definition disruptive. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Irregardless of the validity of the block; I am finding Tarage's behavior extremely disruptive as he has for some time been making personal and aggressive comments about User:Damburger and anyone else he disagrees with and to do that when someone can not respond is especially annoying to me. I think he should stop it and those here who agree with Tarage on the actual article discussion should try to persuade him to stop with the highly charged and personally directed attacks. I am still interested to see El_C's response to Pokipsy76's question which is a reasonable question I think and was answered quite insufficiently yet deflected quite well by Tarage to whom the question wasn't even asked.Mr.grantevans2 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If the editors of this page really think that my behavior is extremely disruptive and annoying, then by all means I will stop. Concidering that you and Damburger seem to be the only ones complaining, however, I am less inclined to believe you. Pokipsy76 asked a question, and I answered it. It is hardly a crime. However, if you have a problem with me directly, you really should take it up on my talk page, and not here. Or, start a petition or whatever they are called against me. Either or. --Tarage 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about if we all just play nice? Edit warring on this page is unacceptable. You can, and will, be blocked for repeatedly making changes which you know are controversial and you don't have consensus for. The three revert rule is just a tool; users are routinely blocked for 2RR when it is apparent they show no willingness to avoid edit wars. I say this as an admin who routinely deals with three revert related issues.

In any case, this is not the forum for this discussion &mdash; if Damburger thought his block was unjust, he can request an unblock via the standard channels. If any users here think it was invalid, you can ask for a review on WP:ANI. This dicussion has nothing to with the article, and needs to end.

I also urge you all to be civil, avoid name-calling and don't edit war. If you have issues with a specific editor, bring them up that user's talk page privately. Airing your dirty laundry in public is unacceptable, unless you're willing to take it to the next level and start talking about some action &mdash; either bringing it to the attention of the admins, or filing a request for comment. This should be the end of this discussion. --Haemo 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mr.grantevans2 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section should be removed per WP:Fringe Theories
The well documented conspiracy theories on Obama's eligibility are being removed from the article about him despite front page news on the story from mainstream media sources including AOL, keith olbermann, and others. The reason cited for removal is the policy on fringe theories. If this is done, it is only fair to remove the conspiracy theory section here also. It is a double standard to be inconsistent on where and when to enforce the Fringe Theories rule--Rsjmsb (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because Obama is a WP:BLP, so extra discretion must be used. There is a double standard, and for very good reason. And because the so-called Obama "birthers" are really on the fringe, whereas 9/11 "truthers" (or at least those who believe that the Bush administration is in some way culpable) are relatively large in number--a point that I have sourced before and would be happy to source again. WP:DUE distinguishes between significant and insignificant minorities. And because, last but not least, accusing Wikipedia of "double standards" is not a highly recommended tactic (cf. WP:POINT and WP:WL). There are times when it is reasonable to compare one article to another; for example, the content of Article A might already be covered by Article B, or Article A might contradict Article B. It may even be good to point out editorial inconsistencies among articles and suggest that a standard protocol be followed. But arguments along the lines of "Article A sucks, so Article B should be able to suck too," or "Wikipedia censors conspiracy theories about a liberal president but not ones about a (neo)conservative one" are, to say the least, something less than penetrating. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what Wikidemon said here. Different people work on different articles, and different people come to different interpretations of policies and guidelines. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "No, because Obama is a WP:BLP, so extra discretion must be used. There is a double standard, and for very good reason....9/11 truthers (or at least those who believe that the Bush administration is in some way culpable)"


 * Aren't the people in the Bush administration, well, people? How can WP:BLP not apply?  I'm not saying this article is in violation I don't think that this article is in violation, but it certainly applies.


 * "9/11 "truthers" ... are relatively large in number--a point that I have sourced before and would be happy to source again. WP:DUE distinguishes between significant and insignificant minorities"


 * I think that you've misunderstood Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. It states "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" (emphasis mine). The number of people who believe in a particular conspiracy theory is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say on the matter and there are very few (if any) reliable sources that say that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course the people in the Bush administration are people, but the Bush administration was not a person. It might contravene BLP a bit to point out in this article that alternative theories implicate Bush or Cheney (or, for that matter, Marvin P. Bush or Larry Silverstein) in particular, but this is precisely why I'm wording things more generally. And the reliable source, in case you have forgotten, is Time magazine (I'm sure I could find others), which points out that a third of the population has subscribed to these theories, even if the magazine doesn't ultimately subscribe to them itself. Indeed, WP:DUE says that the views have to be published by a reliable source, not advocated by that source. And for good reason, I think. If views had to be advocated by the publisher, then an inordinate amount of information would have to be excluded from the encyclopedia. For instance, most people throughout most of history (now if that isn't a majority, then I don't know what is) have been illiterate (or if not illiterate, then relatively inarticulate). The subjective experiences of these people have had to be documented by outsiders who may find their customs unusual or downright immoral. Also, if sources had to advocate the information they contain, then much scientific data would have to be omitted. Scientists will simply document their findings without making claims about their truth or goodness; really good scientists will even conclude their reports by pointing out potential flaws in their approach that could lead to the falsification of all the data they collected. Here, the "conspiracy" view has been published by a reliable source that attributes this view to the significant minority that holds this view. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course the people in the Bush administration are people I believe that we are both in agreement that the article doesn't violate this policy, so let's move on.


 * Time magazine (I'm sure I could find others), which points out that a third of the population has subscribed to these theories Per WP:FRINGE, the number of people who believe in a fringe theory is irrelevent. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans believe that aliens crash-landed outside of Roswell, but you won't find Roswell mentioned in our article on astrobiology because Roswell conspiracy theories aren't a serious topic except perhaps as a social phenomon.


 * most people throughout most of history (now if that isn't a majority, then I don't know what is) have been illiterate (or if not illiterate, then relatively inarticulate) You completely lost me on this one.


 * Scientists will simply document their findings without making claims about their truth or goodness; really good scientists will even conclude their reports by pointing out potential flaws in their approach that could lead to the falsification of all the data they collected. That terrorists are responsible for 9/11 is well-established.  There is no serious debate on this issue.  You're probably thinking about scientific research into cutting edge areas of science.  NASA may issue a report including qualifiers about how the Phoenix probe measured the amount of salt perchlorate in Martian soil, but when explaining the path that the Phoenix probe took to Mars, they won't include qualifiers about Mars orbitting the Sun (and not the Earth).  That the Sun is the center of the Solar System is well-established.  There is no serious debate on issue.  Just like 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of the September 11th attacks, the conspiracy theories are a notable pop culture phenomenon, but they really don't belong in this article since they are at best only indirectly connected to the actual events. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Our guidelines on Summary Style say that this article should contain a summary of the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories as long as the 911CT article exists. If you think it shouldn't, nominate it at Articles for Deletion. If you do, be prepared for an uphill struggle. The problem with deletion is that the subject is inherently verifiable and notable, because numerous reliable sources have documented these conspiracy theories, and stated that a significant minority have some belief in them. (Whether or not such beliefs are correct is of course irrelevant.) I hope this clarifies the situation.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)