Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 40

Proposal to unprotect and act
Let's face it &mdash; this protection serves no one. I think I would be willing to unprotect if everyone agreed to avoid making controversial edits and started to watch what they say. So, I'm going to get this started:
 * I promise:
 * To avoid making any controversial changes to 9/11-related articles, except to undo new changes which I feel are controversial (See (2))
 * To limit myself to 1 revert per day, in cases when I feel that changes have been made which are controversial and do not have consensus.
 * To assume good faith on the part of other editors; universally.
 * To treat others with respect and civility, even when I get frustrated.
 * If at any point I fail to live up to these promises, send me a note explaining how you think I violated them. If I have, I understand that I will have become too heated, and recuse myself from all 9/11 articles (excluding ArbCom as necessary) for a week.

Signed

 * 1) Haemo (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sounds good to me. Okiefromokla questions? 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm game. ~ S0CO ( talk 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Sure. RxS (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Not like I make many actual article edits anyway... --Tarage (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Quite :).  --Green-Dragon (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Why not? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Of course. By editing the Wikipedia, one implies that they will follow the Wikipedia policies.  I take it as a contractual obligation. User:Pedant (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Quakers don't make promises, but the numbered points, above, ought to go without saying.  Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I encourage other editors to take this upon themselves as well. --Haemo (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008
 * Just a clarification, these are much more stringent than usual behavioral guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is more stringent than usual guidelines, but doesn't seem unreasonable to use those guidelines as personal policies across the board.


 * Further than that, I apologise for saying the article sucks, which was maybe taken as a disruptive and insulting comment. It wasn't meant that way.  I won't clutter this discussion with further explanation, but if you are interested, read User_talk:Pedant User:Pedant (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My first impulse was to sign this, it sounds so good. But, having 10 or so editors who are (in my opinion) violating WP:NPOV with their interpretation and application of that same policy, a lot of edits I would call "good" will be in fact be controversial among editors. Promising this promise serves to preserve the status quo of a biased and flawed article which violates WP. I do not wish to promise to help that; ofcourse I will do my utmost to avoid edit warring and uncivilty! Hope you can appreciate this... cheers, &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't make anyone sign this, but as Pedant points out this is how Wikipedia is supposed to function and any editor who believes in the Wiki process should be able to follow these guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Haemo, how about this: I have not promised to abide to the above. No suppose I raise a POV flag. Does that mean that you have now promised to not remove that flag? Removing it would be controversial (just as raising it...). I believe your proposal will turn out very difficult to follow. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As it says, "To limit myself to 1 revert per day, in cases when I feel that changes have been made which are controversial and do not have consensus." --Haemo (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject of the ongoing investigation
editprotected

Please change the following sentence: A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m. as a result of debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequent fire.

to

The collapse of the third building, 7 World Trace center (WTC 7), which was not hit by plane, occurred at 5:20 p.m. and it is a subject of ongoing investigation. , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk • contribs)
 * But there's no consensus for this proposal. Discussion is more appropriate than repeated use (which may be considered abuse) of editprotected. Counter-proposal:-
 * Change the sentence A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m. as a result of debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequent fire.
 * to
 * A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) was hit by debris from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m.
 * This states what was observed and does not attribute the collapse to anything. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done There is no consensus for this change. Feel free to re-request when there is consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see the point the anon is making. It currently reads as if it's a proven fact. How about wording it so it covers all bases?: "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) was hit by debris from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. The collapse is the subject of an ongoing investigation." Wayne (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The point seems a bit moot to me, as Sheffield Steel pointed out, "But I note that the word "fire" occurs 91 times in this 56-page document." I don't believe we need to ad undue weight to this. --Tarage (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments
All bright, now please, be kind and be polite and explain to the community why is there a need to paddle through all this further? This is really not the question of anything but --- proper citing.

Please, do examine the summary (or rather) conclusion of the first reference.

L.3.6 Technical Approach for Analysis of the Working Collapse Hypothesis

''There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.''

We all know that we cannot postulate anything; it is not our mission to bend the facts, basically, any person which objects to the proper citation is in violation of our own guidelines.

Sheffield Steel, per your objection, if you wont to observe something go to the observatory, further more, if you wont to implement particular observation, you'll need to reference it in some manner, because current references, which imo are satisfactory, do not, in any way whatsoever, support your – observations?! Honestly… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not suggest a different wording. Both of your revisions are supported by the text; it's just the connotation which remains debated.  --Haemo (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you kindly clarify your statement? I'm not much for guessing games, and I'd have to admit that I fail to recognize any connotations. The proposed revision goes no further from stating the facts. We could go onward, but I'd guess it would just stir the spirits… Must say, I'm curiously expecting some further input, if you please.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm saying both of your revisions are supported by the facts &mdash; it's the explicit mention of things like "was on fire" or "was not hit by plane" which provide connotations for the reader. You might consider thinking about what would be acceptable to everyone. --Haemo (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, thought so, and if that is the case we can simply state:


 * The collapse of the third building, 7 World Trace center (WTC 7) occurred at 5:20 p.m. and it is a subject of ongoing investigation. ,.


 * I'd also suggest we add a third reference.


 * Would that be satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have a strong opinion about it, but it might be helpful to mention some of the points SheffieldSteel made. --Haemo (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uf, you've just mentioned connotations? Did you not? Look, I'm afraid that SheffieldSteels revision is a shuffled version of existing sentence and as such it doesn’t lead anywhere, so no improvement would be made. If you'd like such broad take, we'd also have to add the building was not hit by an airplane fact as well as no steel framed building collapsed due to fire fact as well as 9/11 Commission forgot to mention the collapse of WTC7 fact as well as (I'll restrain)… which would in return lead to more connotations… We could seek consensus to give WTC 7 well deserved section, but I'm reluctant to pursue such course if we're failing to reach consensus on the simplest of citations. Again, I'd suggest we take one step at the time and keep things as simple as we can while stating facts and leaving observations and conclusions to the visitors. Please, share your thoughts.


 * It's not a citation issue, which is the point. It's trying to concisely and neutrally summarize the citation used.  Also, please sign your posts to make it easier to follow the discussion.  --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm following what you wrote to the letter; at least I'm hoping so. 78.0.69.70 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my choice of words offended you somehow; rest assured that I am not offended by yours. That aside, you do seem to have missed the point of my proposal, which is that it avoids saying that the collapse was caused by fire and debris impacts - which was, or so I thought, the problem with the original sentence. Hence, those objecting to the current version (and I assume that those objecting to the current version are those who want to see a different version, apologies if I am mistaken) ought to be happier with this. My suggestion was in fact an attempt to find a compromise between those who want to say "there is no doubt, the case is closed" and those who want to say "nobody knows anything for sure" (or whatever).
 * As for sources, this fully supports my proposal. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 03:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really want to talk about the investigation? We could do. This is from L.3.5 Summary of working collapse hypothesis...
 * ''The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
 * ''An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
 * Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse...

Of course, they're being very careful about this, as good engineers should. But I note that the word "fire" occurs 91 times in this 56-page document. We can say as much, or as little, as we want to about the investigation. But let's not kid ourselves that they're going to attribute this collapse to anything other than some combination of fire and debris impact... because they're not considering anything else. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where were we? Yes, an apology if my initial reply was inappropriate. Let me share an opinion on some of the points you've made above while reiterating the fact for which there should be no objection whatsoever.


 * The Collapse of WTC 7 is a subject of ongoing investigation.


 * Having that fact in mind we can conclude that neither of the POV's you've mentioned carries any real weight. These opinions you had used to clarify your point are just that, opinions, one may think that the NIST will somehow manage to solve the unsolvable, other may think it will show integrity and offer evidence for the most probable of the hypotheses. At this point in time, we can only guess what NIST will come out with, and we're not here to play guessing games or turn postulates into evidence or to affect readers opinions with our particular POV's. Would that be correct?


 * To illustrate, you've chosen to point out the Summary of working collapse hypothesis which is fine, but it lacks conclusion (or rather disclaimer) which clearly states:


 * •While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it is evaluating the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
 * •The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.
 * •This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.


 * I'd say that the simplest of the offered solutions, the one without any connotations is currently the fairest solution with regard to our NPOV policy. Please, share your thoughts. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about my proposal there? Your meaning isn't clear. The best solution is to remove material which violates policy, and add material which is notable, reliably sourced, and missing from the article. I think you'll agree that my proposed rewrite of the initial sentence... A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) was hit by debris from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. ... removes the problematic assertion that the collapse was caused by fire and debris. So can we agree on that? The investigation is already covered in its own section. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, do say, why would you think (emphasize) that fire and debris are more (or less) important than the lack of plane or why the sentence wouldn’t take the reference for what it is and state that we are in the middle of the ongoing investigation? Would you like to suggest another reference? 78.0.91.39 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we include anything about it "not being hit by a plane"? It was "not hit" by lots of things. It was hit by debris. We have a reliable source (the NIST report, appendix L) saying so. If you want to say more, then according to WP:PROVEIT the burden of proof is on you, as the editor wishing to include material. Also, of course, there are issues of notability and relevance, which is where obtaining WP:CONSENSUS comes into play. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you implying that I should prove that the building was not hit by the plane? Or are you implying such well known fact is not important with the regard to the issue at stake? Whatever be your point, I'm not proving anything beyond obvious, so I'll repeat it once more, the current construction of that sentence is an open fallacy which is bordering with cover-up! Again, your proposed revision is based on the reference which cannot be presented as anything else but ongoing investigation. Add such variable, and you may yet prove you're willing to seek consensus with NPOV on your mind. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not say something like "struck by falling debris, and neither of the two planes" instead? --Haemo (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be more npov-ish approach, if we state it along with the fact that we're dealing with ongoing investigation. I'm honestly not sure why we can't have a proper citation? I'll listen. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I'm concerned the citation supports all of the revisions proposed so far. --Haemo (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With purpose of timesaving, would you rather endorse longish, fire, debris, plane, investigation revision or trimmed down, subject of ongoing investigation version. I'm certain that there are related articles which deal with the topic in… some manner. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I've missed proposal above, so I'll repeat it here with slight changes.

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which was not hit by the plane, suffered debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. The collapse is the subject of an ongoing investigation."

As Wayne said it, this would be close to covering all of the bases. Please, share your thoughts. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try this, it's a little more robust:
 * "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which was not struck by either plane, suffered debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. NIST is currently investigating the collapse as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2."
 * Eh? --Haemo (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with it, keep in mind that we (for obvious reasons) also have to change the beginning of section which states that Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure into Two of the three buildings… 78.0.91.39 (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think that to say 7 WTC was not hit by a plane at best looks clumsy - let's give our readers credit for not forgetting which planes hit which buildings so soon in the article - and at worst makes it look like we're pandering to conspiracy theorists, who are the only group I've seen who want to emphasise this fact. Many things could have happened on that day but did not, and we should not write about every one of them. For example, the article doesn't say "a plane did not crash into the White House" - even though that was reportedly one of the alleged targets. I would welcome an explanation of why this fact - this plane that did not hit 7 WTC - should be recorded.
 * As for the investigations by the NIST, they are detailed at length later in the article, and do not need to be covered in this, the first major section, entitled "Attacks", which could easily grow too large if we were to allow such material to be added.
 * As for the last proposal above, editing three buildings collapsed due to structural failure to two: it's not possible for buildings to collapse for other reasons, as far as I know. Of course, I could be wrong on that, so... I suggest that we remove the phrase "due to structural failure" rather than to change 3 to 2. After all, three buildings collapsed, and three buldings are the subject of the paragraph. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, stating that no plane hit WTC7 restates what's already been written elsewhere in the article. Probably more to the point, reliable sources all agree that structural failure caused the collapse (of course), they also all agree that the cause of the structural failure was debris from WTC 1. The only question is the specific mechanism of the collapse (and they are closing in on that as well). That's the only clarification needed, if any is needed at all. I'd be opposed to the proposed changes to this point. RxS (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good morning sailor, do say, have you been following the discussion or are you just parachuting blindly? Which reliable source states that building collapsed due to debris and fire?!!! Wikipedia?! Get a grip and try to control yourselves fellows, honestly! 78.0.91.39 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, you might want to review this the next time you feel the need to snark. The proposed remedies section has some material relevant to the editing style you've shown on this page. Consider this a warning to keep your comments civil while editing this talk page. Thanks. RxS (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All bright, I'll ignore this last spoof for a moment. Sheffield let's remove the structural failure then, take no grudge but I'd deeply appreciate if we could all kindly restrain from the usage of the term conspiracy theory. Where I bode from, that would be description of this article in its current state, which I for one find somewhat confusing. Must say, apart from this conspiratorial argument you've just pulled, I'm not sure what is the reason for such strong objection on plane fact? One of the explanations which you might welcome would be that lack of plain is in direct connection with this long-lasting investigation. If you insist, I'll provide more of the reasons why this fact shouldn’t be neglected, but in my experience it will lead to unnecessary tension. So, please, if you could kindly agree on the revision above, while I'll agree with your suggestion on structural integrity, so we may wrap up this lengthy discussion and move onward with improving of the article. What's your say?78.0.91.39 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the friendly gesture. Let's see what others have to say on the subject. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this instead?:
 * "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), suffered debris damage from 1 WTC, instead of a direct plane impact, and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:20 p.m. NIST is currently investigating the collapse as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC."
 * Eh2? --Haemo (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that will satisfy and calm the spirits, so be it, imo, the word currently is not really needed. I'd also suggest the implementation of that third reference which is a bit fresher than the offered ones. 78.0.91.39 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Change "debris damage" to "serious debris damage" and change "investigating the collapse" to "investigating the collapse mechanism" and I'd be fine with it. RxS (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which was not struck by either plane, suffered serious debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequently caught fire, and collapsed at 5:20 p.m. NIST is currently investigating the collapse mechanism as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2."
 * (built from Haemo's first suggestion) Not that I'm fond of wording it like this, but is certainly an improvement to me. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), while not directly damaged by either aircraft, incurred severe damage from falling 1 WTC debris and subsequently caught fire, collapsing at 5:30 PM. NIST is currently investigating the collapse as a follow-up to their report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2."
 * It's awkward to say that it was "not hit by a plane;" I think we can credit our readers with the ability to remember which buildings were struck. "Direct damage" might be a better descriptor in this case. Thoughts? ~ S0CO ( talk 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it. I'm stealing it. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
So far I've hear no argument (other than plain assertions that it is self evident) that we must include the non-impact of the plane. I'm also unconvinced that the investigation needs to be mentioned in the Attacks section when it is already documented, at length, in its own section. Nevertheless, if there is to be any progress on this article, someone will have to attempt to compromise. With that in mind, I propose this revision. "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7), while not directly damaged by either aircraft, was struck by debris from WTC 1 around 10:30am. The southwest corner was damaged from floors 8 to 18, and there was some damage to the edge of the roof parapet. Between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., fires were observed on many floors, ranging from floor 7 up to floor 30. The building collapsed at 5:21 p.m. that day.

The NIST launched investigations into the cause of collapse of the three buildings, subsequently expanding the investigation to include prevention of progressive collapse, and fire resistance design and retrofit in structural steel. The report into WTC 1 and WTC 2 was concluded in October 2005 and the investigation into WTC 7 is ongoing." So there you have it. Non-plane-impact, ongoing investigation... any problems? Sheffield Steel talkstalk 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. --Haemo (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually just made a minor change of the wording for clarification (not changing the meaning, I hope). There was also a problem with ref 16. Feel free to revert if there's a problem, but keep the fix to ref 16 :) Okiefromokla questions? 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, that second paragraph shouldn't even be in that section. It should be in Investigations, shouldn't it? The ongoing investigation of the WT7 collapse isn't mentioned there, but the rest is pretty much covered. Okiefromokla questions? 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Structural failure
While I'm glad to see this improved, I'll have to ask why we are stuck with the claim that:

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack.

If we had acknowledged the ongoing investigation then we had acknowledged that we don't know what caused the collapse of third building. Although I don't think passionately about the issue, I'd have to note we have a notable flaw, in purely logical sense. 89.172.60.72 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't know what caused the structural failure &mdash; fire, structural damage, thermite, laser beams, etc. However, it's basically uncontentious that it collapsed due to a structural failure and not, say, some other form of failure that can affect tall buildings. --Haemo (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just like a bullet, poison, myocardial infarction can all cause heart failure, so can faulty structure, weakened structure, overloaded structure, thermite, thermate or explosives can all cause structural failure. By saying the buildings collapsed, we are saying the structure failed, since the structure was presumably built to not collapse.  But saying that 3 buildings collapsed due to structural failure seems to me that we are saying that the 3 buildings failed for the same reason, while investigations into the collapse mechanism continue.  I don't like the sentence any more than "I live in a house building with my dog animal and my mother." because it seems redundant, and because it synthesises a link between buildings which each suffered separate architectural insults, and which may have all collapsed through different mechanisms and for different reasons. User:Pedant (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush
Where was Bush when the attacks happened? I'm asking because someone told me he was reading a book to little kids, and somebody went to him and told him what happened and he answered very nonchalantly.--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was covered well on TV. "Nonchalantly" is the wrong word, because it suggests couldn't care less. The look of alarm on his face suggested otherwise. Bush didn't want to alarm the kids, so he carried on for a few minutes before leaving the classroom. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reply is not accurate and it is misleading; those who are interested in Bush's response may find extremely detailed (wiki) timeline here, from where anyone can draw conclusions on their own.


 * Not alarming the kids? It was nation's most desperate hour, simple excuse me kids, would do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.70 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, this isn't the place for this kind of discussion. Talk pages are to discuss improvements to the article, not the subject of the article.  If you have questions like this, the appropriate forum is the Reference Desk. --Haemo (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to see Bush' reaction, commented on by Barrie Zwicker, you could watch this video, starting at 38:38 &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Stucture and clarity re: "Responsibilty"
The "Responsibility" section must change. The title is too vague. I suggest, since we understand the terrorists listed in the introduction flew the planes into the towers, that we retitle that section, "The hijackers," so those people can be defined with greater depth. Also, the section concerning Memorials should be tied in with the Victims section. Lastly, I propose the addition of Noam Chomsky's text, 9/11, be added to the reading section as it is a scholarly work. GuamIsGood (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so sure about the first one. While they were "Hijackers", changing it from "Responsibility" seems like an attempt at removing blame... pardon me if I'm assuming bad faith, I've just seen a lot of tricks lately. Your second sugestion seems like a good idea. The third, however, if I'm not mistaken, has been shot down already. Perhaps you could look into the archives? --Tarage (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, Noam Chomsky is a reliable source, and not only is acceptable in the reading section, it is good for use as a reference. If this was shot down before, and prematurely archived, maybe you can point that out. User:Pedant (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the more important issue is that we don't just discuss the hijackers in that section, so changing the name to merely "The hijackers" is incorrect. --Haemo (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Haemo: more than the hijackers is discussed. In the conventional view, there are 4 types of responsibility: a) the hijackers (19-20); b) the people behind them (bin Laden); c) those that failed to warn or ignored warnings or failed to prevent; d) those that failed to intervene. In other views there are other actors: a) those within American government that organized the attacks; b) (optional) the hijackers and the people behind them (c); d) those that found out and decided it was no use to try and tell anyone. Even if we ignore the latter four, I think it is confusing to mix all four a,b,c,d in one section under one caption. I suggest to rewrite the entire paragraph. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not aware that 9/11 by Noam Chomsky was ever "shot down," Tarage. In fact, I was the one who brought up its relevency, which was refuted about as convincingly as you have above. You can find the transcript in the previous archive. As for my suggestion to replace the "Responsibility" section title, it should be taken under consideration (also reviewable in the previous archive) because many people understand that the numerable documented history of United States military and political intervention in that region was the only reason why the hijackers attacked. Unless we are willing to agree that U.S. government policy is also responsible, the title should be changed. Also, there is a "Motive" sub section attached, so for clarity's sake this article needs to be fixed. As an addendum, I still suggest that the "Memorials" section be tied into the "Fatalities" section. GuamIsGood (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I completly dissagree with your asertion that Wikipedia must say something about the motive of the hijackers outside of the motive section. Doing so connects dots that should not be forcibly connected. It would put far too strong of a bias into play. --Tarage (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and further... I don't think we can say anything about motive yet, how can we know the motive? We don't connect dots. WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL, etc. User:Pedant (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
There's a recent suggestion to delete/merge/keep Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks.


 * See AfD NOM here.

Personally, I haven't decided on my preferred action, but I figured that the general public of September 11, 2001 attacks contributors might be interested.

Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I've indefinitely move-protected this page, since it attracts a lot of stupid vandalism &mdash; esp. page-move stuff. I reckon we'll need to go back to indefinite semi-protection, since within 1 hour of being unprotected it was vandalized, but we'll wait and see. If anyone objects, I'll undo. --Haemo (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection. Moving would be a great idea, though. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving it where? --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) There's been more IP vandalism. I think it makes sense to consider semi-protection - after the Arbcom decision, no one with any sense is going to risk getting their user account banned. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration decision
Now that the arbitration case has closed, would it be appropriate for someone with better wiki-fu than I to make a warning template? Something akin to Template:Uw-balkans? //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 22:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Case in point: diff
 * I'll whip something up. --Haemo (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Danger, danger Will Robinson &mdash; [[Image:Symbol note.png|20px]] In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice  is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision.  --Haemo (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * More danger Will Robinson!!! &mdash; [[Image:Symbol note.png|20px]] In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. --Haemo (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The desired templates are Uw-9/11 and Uw-9/112. --Haemo (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks a lot! //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this can be really useful to warn off NPOV violating editors ! &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The death count math is wrong...
I quote: "2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks",... "one person from lung disease",... and "Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead, bringing the total number of victims to 2,998"

2974+1+24=2999

Either exclude the mention of the person with lung problems, or revise the death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.67.142 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the second number only refers to direct victims of the attacks; so it doesn't include the lung disease person. --Haemo (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten this section to clarify this point. --Haemo (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

lead sentence
I still object to the opening sentence, as stated before and for the same reasons, which I feel were not adequately addressed, and which were in my opinion, hastily archived. Just for the record, and I'm not trying to open a can of worms, just want to be clear that I do not consent to that wording, and in my opinion consensus does not exist for the sentence as it presently reads. You cannot have a reliable source for a 'fact' which it is impossible for anyone to know. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is "impossible to for anyone to know"? --Haemo (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."
 * O.K. (1) it is impossible for anyone to know that they were suicide attacks. Everything about the motives or intentions of the alleged hijackers is speculation. All such speculation originates with the Executive Branch of the US government, which is (at least) one of the parties to the dispute, along with "Al Qaeda," which may or may not have had anything to do with the attacks with or without the cooperation of the Executive Branch. (2) It is impossible for anyone to know that Al Qaeda did it. The biggest smoking gun indication that Al Qaeda did NOT do it is the obviously phony "Osama confession video."
 * Unfortunately, it is of the nature of the national debate on these issues that criticism of the Official Conspiracy Theory is "not falsifiable" by any methods likely to occur. Logically, the OTC has already been disproven because parts of it have been disproven. That's the nature of the debate, although it isn't fair to supporters of the OTC. To disprove "conspiracy theories," you have to disprove every single one of them, which nobody has competently attempted. Responsible academic supporters and critics of the OTC agree upon this fact.
 * So, you're starting the article with a statement which cannot be proven, but which is merely an accusation, based, if at all, upon extremely questionable evidence, against presumably innocent people, who were never even convicted of a crime. Some of this confusion could be alleviated by attributing the various accusations to their sources. Wowest (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... yeah... got any RS to back up this soapboxing? --Tarage (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarage, do you actually have something meaningful to contribute or are you just muddying the waters? The whole point Wowest is making is that there are not going to be any reliable sources.  Maybe not ever.  But the statements are there in the article.  Why are the statements there if there is not a reliable source?  Do you not understand what is being discussed?  If so, perhaps you might refrain from making your usual personal attacks and accusations, and just think harder. User:Pedant (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There ARE reliable sources that give a best guess as to the intent. Just because we don't have 100% factual proof that X was intending to do Y doesn't mean that if the vast majority of RS make this assertion that we should ignore it. Wowest made a claim that the Osama video was 'obviously phony', but backed it up with nothing. That, in my book, is soapboxing. Unless we are suddenly allowed to make wild claims with nothing to back them up... Am I not understanding what soapboxing is? --Tarage (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to be in a very generous mood to allow the possibility that you are unfamiliar with soapboxing. But still, a 'best guess' does not sound to me like a reliable source.  Please stick to the subject of this discussion or start a new section and discuss what you wish to in that section, not here.  The subject here is the lead sentence of the article, and whether a reliable source is a source that uses 'best guesses' or uses facts.  Who judges what the 'best' guess is? Facts are facts and guesses and assumptions are not.  If we are to use 'best guesses' we should attribute them as such, hmmm? User:Pedant (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not about to start an argument with you about what is and is not a reliable source. We have plenty of guides for that, which you can look up in your free time. The fact remains that the reliable sources say this, and that is what we put. I don't understand why that concept is so hard to grasp. And again, you claim to want me to stop with the persional attacks, yet continue to make these snide jabs at my editing record. Which way do you want it? --Tarage (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. My best example I have found is that an accepted textbook which was recently in widespread use said something to the effect that, when he was a young boy Christopher Columbus dreamed of being a famous explorer. But when he was a young boy, he wasn't famous, didn't keep a diary, etc, and even if he did, actually, "dream of" something, nobody can know his dreams... someone might know that he said he dreamt such and such.  Like I said before, "suicide" attacks/by al-quaeda/upon the united states.  The first and third items hinge on INTENT and to make any statement as to the truth or falsity of some dead person intending something is to make a statement about something which cannot be known. And "by al-quaeda":  if a certain air force General crashed his plane into the Ottawa Parliament building, and died on impact, would it be proper to say that the USA attacked Canada?  Or more accurate to say that the plane hit the Parliament Building?  The whole article is riddled with similar unverifiable assertions, which are duly cited with references... but for which it is not possible for there to be a reliable source.  Wikpedia should make statements that are true, not just mostly true or almost true or possibly true or we hope it is true. User:Pedant (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, while we may not be able to say with 100% accuracy, and such a thing is impossible, the vast majority of RS point to this being the most probable answer. Unless you have RS to dispute this, then the whole argument is moot. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By what reasoning do you call a source 'reliable' when they make claims that are neither verifiable or falsifiable, for which there is no real evidence? User:Pedant (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, you don't need absolute proof that X indended to do Y if you have RS that come to this conclusion. RS are allowed to do synthesis. We are not. --Tarage (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, I do not support the claim that the Osama video is 'obviously phony'. Unless you have RS to back up that accusation, this has been OR at best, and soapboxing at worst. --Tarage (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarage, your entire list of contributions appears to me to be soapboxing. It is sweet of you to put parameters on what sort of thing you are willing to call this discussion, but you have not contributed any content to this discussion, and perhaps you might think of refraining from joining in a discussion when you have nothing meaningful to say.  Let's say I am asking that as a favor. User:Pedant (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you wish for me to stop 'persional attacks', yet you are right at home using them against me. Can we archive this redundency yet? --Tarage (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you have already insisted that you have the privelege of calling me a troll, even when asked politely to stop, I feel somewhat at home pointing out that you maintain a single-purpose account as evidenced by your contributions. This is not a personal attack but a complaint about your intent, which I am using a 'best guess' to ascertain.  QED, it is true that you maintain your account with the intent to disrupt discussion.  No do not archive this discussion.  That is just another way to disrupt the discussion, to 'archive' it. It is quite important that the lead sentence's lack of sources is addressed, before we can move on to the rest of the article.  The lead sets the tone of the article, and as soon as someone reads the sentence, they will know that it is not going to tell the truth, but just assert 'best guesses' as if they were actual facts. User:Pedant (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Privelage nothing. And, as I recall, I asked you to continue that line of discussion on my talk page, which you have not. But since you are hell bent on attacking my editing record, what can I do? You've questioned what is and isn't an RS, when there are clearly guidelines that are in place, and have been met. You, nor Wowest have provided a single RS to back up your claims. The most that has been said is "I don't like the way the article looks. Change it because I say so." Again, I may not have the firmest grasp on what soapboxing is, and I will be the first to admit that, but I don't know what else to call this. I'm not sure what else I, or anyone else can say. EDIT: And I do appologize for again dredging up User:Pedant's and my dispute on this talk page. If an admin feels it fit to strike these messages from the talk page, I would have no objections. It is never my intent to bring persional issues to places where they don't belong. --Tarage (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject here, as I have already reminded you is this:
 * I still object to the opening sentence, as stated before and for the same reasons, which I feel were not adequately addressed, and which were in my opinion, hastily archived. Just for the record, and I'm not trying to open a can of worms, just want to be clear that I do not consent to that wording, and in my opinion consensus does not exist for the sentence as it presently reads. You cannot have a reliable source for a 'fact' which it is impossible for anyone to know. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any claims except for "You cannot have a reliable source for a 'fact' which it is impossible for anyone to know". Please discuss elsewhere, all other subjects. Let someone who has something to say about 'facts which cannot be known' discuss this, and since you have nothing to say, please do so. User:Pedant (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That I have not responded much does not imply that this issue is unimportant to me. It's just that I've been catching up on Real Life issues a but. Pedant is correct: the lead is making assertions as if they were certain when they are in fact not certain at all. They need to be sourced and attributed, since there exists no accepted authority which can state which is and is not true. I propose we either provide sources and attribute or delete the lead. Let's borrow some inspiration from other language wikipedia's to see how it can be done better. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Solicitor General Lies about Phone Call
In The Attacks paragraph we state>

During the hijacking of the airplanes, some passengers and crew members were able to make phone calls using the cabin GTE airphone service and mobile phones.[20][21] They reported that several hijackers were aboard each plane.

That second reference above contains proven fallacy and it should not be presented or true facts should be implemented. If we need to mention the phone calls, then we should state it as it is, and as unfortunate as this whole nightmare is U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson lied to the public. It should be well known today that alleged call of his wife never happened. Undisputable evidence which refutes Solicitor General shameful claim was introduced as part of Prosecution Exhibits presented during United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Trial which are available for download and public scrutiny at this location. If you'd be so kind to share some thoughts on how are we to present this unfortunate, but well known lie? 89.172.60.72 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, apparently you are objecting to the statement that Barbara Olson, the wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, called her husband from American Airlines Flight 77 to describe how the passengers and crew had been forced into the back of the plane by hijackers in this 2001 CNN story. First of all, could you provide a reliable source stating that Mr Olson lied about these phone calls?  Secondly, could you point out what it is in this second document that is "undisputable" evidence demonstrating that he lied?  --Haemo (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uf, uf, uf! Had to take a quick look, as it seems, if reliable sources would be mainstream sources which after first day never mentioned the collapse of WTC 7, then finding reliable source which will explicitly state that Mr. Olson is a liar might be difficult. On the other hand, if we are to accept the undisputable evidence provided by U.S.D.C. while accepting it as a reliable source we'll have no need to start painful discussion about need for a new section with working title Mainstream media and 9/11.
 * To answer your second question, once exhibits are downloaded one may place query on call allegedly made by Barbara Olson which will give return information that connection couldn't be established and that call lasted zero seconds. 78.1.107.142 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there were also a number of calls which did not have a source determined &mdash; her second call could have been one of those. After all, Mr Olson mentions that he lost contact when the plane crashed &mdash; which coincides with one of the "unknown" calls that had a substantial duration.  Without reliable sources making the claim that none of the other calls was the one Mr Olson mentioned, and thus he was lying, we can't change the article to reflect what is essentially original research &mdash; or at best a fringe claim. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haemo, I'd say that you're doing what you say I'm doing. To clarify, hearings showed that government never connected four calls to Barbara Olson, those calls were made, and I'll quote, by unknown caller. You may assert what you wish, but officially and as we heard in the Court of Law, only call attributed to Mrs. Olson was unconnected call to the Department of Justice. If you have a complaint about these facts you should forward them to FBI who, as far as I can tell, had done the original research on that subject. As per our work here, we should at least state that there are serious doubts concerning this and other allegedly made phone calls. Any thoughts? 78.1.112.245 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But, you haven't shown any evidence that there are "serious doubts" about Mr Olson's claim. At best, you've shown that the Government never was able to positively identify a call from Mrs Olson's phone with the properties that he claims it had.  I don't have a complaint about these facts, because they don't show anything &mdash; there were a bunch of unidentified calls from that flight, and one of them could be Mrs Olson.  I'm not pushing original research here &mdash; the claim you're making is that Mr Olson lied about receiving the phone call in question.  However, you have not presented any evidence that this is the case, nor have you presented any reliable sources making this claim &mdash; instead, you've pointed to much evidence which supports a much, much weaker claim and doesn't support the "Mr Olson lied" argument at all.  --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the issue here is not what that document says &mdash; what we need is a reliable source saying that Mr Olson lied. Otherwise, this is just novel synthesis. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How to heck had we come to this synthesized synthesis policy? I've presented the clear evidence, which you choose to disregarded while implying all sorts of thingies which have nothing to do with the topic. The fact is, hearings showed that government never related four calls to Barbara Olson, those calls were made, and I'll quote, by unknown caller. You may assert what you wish, but officially and as we heard in the Court of Law, only call attributed to Mrs. Olson was unconnected call to the Department of Justice. If you don't want to call Mr. Olson a liar, then say that he was confused while we notice that US Government itself showed clear evidence of his confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.112.245 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to call him anything. The point being made here is that Wikipedia, as a project, does not state things without a reliable sourcing saying them first.  A revision in which Mr Olson is called a liar, or "confused", without a sourcing is contrary to the stated goal of this encyclopedia.  The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.  Frankly, I think he has a history of opportunistically lying and it's really sketchy that there was no record of his call &mdash; but that's not what we're here to do, and that's not the kind of project I'm here to work on. --Haemo (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Please accept an apology for those, somewhat itchy and scratchy responses. One would think that hundreds of thousands of editors would participate in making this article as free as it should be. So few voices… I find it disturbing… Tell you what, imo, this lack of reliable sources is the shame of us all, along with our policies it often leads to the dead-end where we all know there shouldn’t be one. In any case, thank you, although we made no improvements today, I'd say it was insightful exchange. While we may pursue this further, it will lead us where we've been before, therefore I'll ditch the efforts. Hopefully, such visits into past may be changed by future. 78.1.112.245 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, hundreds of thousands of editors, across several million articles ;) Fair enough, though. --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with that source? Or do you object to calling him a liar based on the evidence presented? Or do you believe the evidence does not show that he lied, but only that what he said was not the truth... or something else? I'm not sure what the objection is. User:Pedant (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to speak for Haemo, but the source does not make a claim one way or the other. To do so seems like synthesis to me... --Tarage (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer to know what Haemo's answer is, since he appears to have the intent of writing an accurate article. Your intent seems at odds with collaborative efforts to do so. I am dubious about you even having read the material. User:Pedant (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was never my intention to speak for him, and you have every right to hear him out. I was just attempting to stave off another repetative argument the likes of which we seem to be stuck in these days. However, since you refuse to show even the smallest amount of respect for me, there is little I can do. I can just forsee that no matter what he says, you intend to drag this on and on and on, as I have seen done before... --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, how can you say what my intent is? If you want no more repetition, then just don't involve yourself in discussions which you cannot or will not add anything meaningful to. Of course I don't show you respect, I deal with facts and it is a fact that I do not respect non-productive editors who maintain single-purpose accounts, blithely flout wikipedia policies, and disrupt potentially productive discussion with irrelevant interjections, false accusations and name-calling. I have however, at all times attempted to be civil and courteous in my interactions with you, and have several times pointed out that we would do best to work collaboratively rather than argue. We can still do that, whether or not we have respect for each other. 'Out of respect for other'' editors at least, all editors should follow all policies, all the time. User:Pedant (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, what I said was that the source given does not support the contention that he lied. You can interpret it to say that he lied, but that original research &mdash; it's not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to be looking around for documents and saying "Aha!  This documents contradicts this statement he made, ergo he is a liar".  That's what the issue was here &mdash; we don't discuss something unless reliable sources do first.  No reliable source says Mr Olson lied about the phone call, thus we're not going to say he did. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling a living person a liar is a very bad idea. We should, however, point our readers to the evidence presented in this court case.. How about this sentence? :
 * Phone records as presented in (such and such) court case do not positively confirm these calls as having been authentically made. Doubts exist whether the 2001 cellphone network could have provided calls of such duration from that plane.

Or something like that. Maybe attribute the doubts to some one. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Maybe"? The court case provided no such evidence, and the only "evidence" out there is a study by conspiracy theorists to argue that the calls were faked.  No reliable source could possibly be found which would support this revision. --Haemo (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Revising the Lead
This article has been subject to numerous presumably good-faith revisions by apparent newbies, characterized by the "A Gang" as vandalism. I think we can all recognize real vandalism. We have been through a ridiculously prolonged series of debates based upon an effort to prevent certain widely-held beliefs to be documented here, and based upon repeated name-calling and general disparagement of the people who hold these opinions. It is not necessary to promote any particular viewpoint in order to achieve balance, but if 20% of the population believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, that's 60 million potential new editors, some of whom will be greatly offended by assumptions.


 * "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."

O.K. Let's see what we can use without offending anyone.
 * The September 11, 2001 tragedies in the United States are often referred to as 9/11 (pronounced nine-eleven).
 * I don't think anyone is going to object to that.


 * On that date, four commercial passenger aircraft were reportedly hijacked, after which their identification transponders were disabled. None of the pilots entered the four-digit code indicating that a hijacking was underway, however.


 * Subsequently, two aircraft tentatively identified as AA flight ___ and UA flight ___ crashed into buildings 1 and 2 at the World Trade Center in New York City.


 * According to the U.S. government, an additional aircraft, ___ flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth aircraft, identified as flight 93 crashed into an abandoned coal mine in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.


 * O.K. -- The only problems I see are that some of the early witnesses to the crashes at the WTC identified the aircraft involved as being smaller than commercial passenger aircraft and as being white in color, with circular blue logos near the front of the aircraft.


 * According to the U.S. government, the hijackings were a suicide attack carried out by a previously unnamed organization now identified as "Al Qaeda.


 * It takes a few more sentences, but everything controversial is sourced, and no unsourced theories have been introduced. However, I think we need one more point to avoid vandalism.


 * In the confusion following these events, several contradictory assertions were made and several facts were unreported, giving rise to numerous conspiracy theories alleging wrongdoing by various individuals and governmental agencies.


 * There. Nobody is actually blamed. Nothing controversial is alleged to be factual. No actual facts are omitted. The controversy is acknowledged and nobody is called a wing-nut. That's my proposal for the lead. Anyone have a way to make it better? Wowest (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could condense it without omitting anything, I think that this would be an excellent start to fixing the article, and achieving a stable, consensus-based factual article. I don't have any objection (I support this proposal) to moving forward along these lines. Thanks for taking the effort to write and format that all so it is very readable too. User:Pedant (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks, the existing lead is fine.--MONGO 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is exactly what reliable sources say, and it's referenced. That's what we do here, we don't report facts so much as we report what reliable sources report. And as far as any controversy about this, there is none to report. There's a lot of You Tube videos and web sites but no controversy in the academic community or among reliable sources. RxS (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly: what reliable sources say about what happened is described in all the details in the article 9/11 timeline. This can obviously be summarized in several ways and we are not forced to choose the way of a certain reliable source if we have a better and less problematic way to summarize the same informations.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted the lead needs improving but that is not it. Your suggestion is so NPOV that it has become POV if you understand what I mean. Wayne (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, where are your RS to back this change up? --Tarage (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse Wowest initial revision and suggest we work on its improvement. Tarage, please point at the points you'd like to see sourced? 78.0.65.205 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets start with his accusation that the Osama video was 'clearly phony'. I'd like to see a RS say that. Or rather, enough RS that say that to trump all those that support it. --Tarage (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, where did he make such statement? 78.0.65.205 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. He says it up a ways in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#lead_sentence
 * To quote his own words: The biggest smoking gun indication that Al Qaeda did NOT do it is the obviously phony "Osama confession video."
 * I wish to see reliable sources to back up this claim. Otherwise, it is an oppinion, and thus can't be used as an argument here. Unless I am mistaken? --Tarage (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus attempt re: lead sentence
I believe there is a consensus developing: "The lead sentence needs some work of some sort"

Without discussing exactly what needs to be changed, do other editors agree that the lead sentence needs some work? Please discuss only this subject in this section. User:Pedant (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it does need some work. User:Pedant (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I think it correctly summarizes the current reliable sources. --PTR (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It is fine the way it is. Reliable Sources make that claim, and we only report what reliable sources say. Nothing more, nothing less. --Tarage (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. It accurately and concisely summarizes the article, and the reliable sources used in the article without giving undue weight to minority views about 9/11.  Think about it &mdash; neutral point of view opposes giving minority views undue weight &mdash; compromising the entire article by re-writing in this form is massive undue.  You might as well rewrite Apollo 11 to begin "The Apollo 11 mission was an alleged manned space mission which the government says landed on the Moon." --Haemo (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody is saying that the lead sentence should give undue weight to minority views and 2) why do you compare with Apollo 11 and not for example with Pearl Harbour?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all of the proposed changes do exactly that &mdash; I chose Apollo 11 because it has about the same popular support in contemporary polling. --Haemo (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How the proposed changes would give undue weight to views that are not cited at all? On what grounds can you say that they have about the same support and what would be the relevance of "popular support" for wikipedia?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it the way it is. ~ S0CO ( talk 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, to say the least; do say, what needs to be sourced? The sheer amount of doubt? Fellows, whether one likes it or not, the tide turned, very few individuals will take so called official conspiracy without recognizing the enormous amount of unanswered questions. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far as to say that people who blindly accept unacceptable are minority, for a very long time that is, so perhaps their POV should be ignored and/or called fringy as this Apollo diversion was, eh? So what's this all about? What needs to be sourced? 78.0.65.205 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We care about polls why? And here I thought Wikipedia was built on Reliable sources, not the whims of the masses, which are always changing I might add. --Tarage (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All right then, here, have a reliable source which suits your remark.


 * Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11


 * Fisk received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times, and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award. In 2001, he was awarded the David Watt prize for "outstanding contributions towards the clarification of political issues and the promotion of their greater understanding" for his investigation into the Armenian Genocide by the Turks in 1915. More recently, Fisk was awarded the 2006 Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize along with $350,000. 78.0.65.205 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though Fisk calls them ravers, I'd say this is a pretty clearcut source for at the least "a significant minority view exists". I'm not trying to get the article to say anything conspiracy nut-ish, just don't think we can accept that there is a possibility of any source having access to the state of mind of the alleged perpetrators, so just on the face of that I object to 'suicide attacks' and 'upon the United States' (but only when stated as fact, of course I recognise that this is a widely-held opinion... but see Common Knowledge.  At this point, nobody knows, and I assert that it is impossible to know.  A source which states as fact something which cannot be known is not in my opinion a 'reliable' source.  Regardless of the policy (which we wrote anyway), reminding all of WP:IAR. User:Pedant (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One source a strong article does not make. You are going to have to come up with a lot more than that I'm afraid. The problem is, we have amassed a substantial amount of RS that support what is said in the opening statement. The link you just posted, while a RS, is not enough to warent a complete overhaul of it. At best, it is enough to be put into the Conspiricy Theories section. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if you think something is not reliable. We have guidelines that are quite clear. Please leave your persional oppinions out of this. Also, while the WP:IAR clause does exist, I'll stick to current policy, thank you. Also, if you would read WP:IAR, you would notice the following: Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. I am not going to throw out all of our other policies. Sorry. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IAR is one of the most abused policies in Wikipedia. It does not mean that we can disregard any policy which stands in the way of one's political agenda or beliefs for the purpose of furthering said position. ~ S0CO ( talk 07:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources - this has been largely aknowledged - are not reliable for *everything* they say. They are not reliable for istance when they express an opinion as a fact or when they state as true something that is unknown or when they endorse the point of view of a particular side of a debate.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

'this argument yet again'

 * Not going to get into this argument again with yet another person. If you have a problem with Wikipedia guidelines, take it up with them. We have RS guidelines, and they apply for the sources that we have. If you apply this Well they can't possibly know concept to everything, then we'd have articles filled with Well, it might be possible this happened, but it is also equally as possible that a cow jumped over the moon. because NOTHING in life can be said with 100% certanty. With what RS we have though... it's preaty safe to bet that what they say is as close to what actually happened as we are going to get. That is, unless you can come up with a pile of RS that say differently... --Tarage (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarage, you cannot have it both ways. Either you 'are not going to get into this argument again with yet another person' -- in which case, don't... or you ARE 'going to get into this argument again with yet another person.' -- in which case your statemnt is nonfactual.


 * You (Tarage) continually turn other editor's comments inside-out, restating their point so that they mean a different thin and then you attack that restatement which is not what was said ... this is a 'straw man' argument, a well known logical fallacy which by your repeated use of shows that this is either intentional or ignorance. Either way it is illogical and disruptive.


 * "If you apply this Well they can't possibly know'' concept to everything, then we'd have articles filled with "Well, it might be possible this happened, but it is also equally as possible that a cow jumped over the moon."


 * Is that helpful or relevant or accurate?


 * "because NOTHING in life can be said with 100% certanty."


 * Again either inentionally or ignorantly missing the point and restating it and attcking your own restatement. The point isn't whether something can be said with absolute certainty, but whether a source which says something is a fact, when that thing is a thing that nobody can know can be considered reliable, simply because they have a reputation for fact-checking. 'If a fact cannot be checked, it should not be stated as a fact but as an assertion of fact, or as a statement, judgement, assessment, assertion, allegation, claim, theory, hypothesis or opinion -- or something of that nature.  A reliable source should not be one that out of journalistic sloppiness(or other reason), allows a confusion between facts and theories.


 * "With what RS we have though..."


 * I maintain that there cannot be a reliable source which can state a fact in the absence of possibility of that source actually having a possibility of knowing whether something is true or not.


 * "... it's preaty safe to bet that ..."


 * Nothing in the guidelines and policies allows us "safe bets", we are required to have reliable, verifiable sources.


 * " ...what they say is as close to what actually happened as we are going to get."


 * Which is not an acceptable rationale for inclusion.


 * "That is, unless you can come up with a pile of RS that say differently..."


 * No, see burden (edited for emphasis on relevant paassage):

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

...

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may reasonably object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. It is important to strike a balance between being quick to remove unsourced material that is clearly wrong or in some way damaging, and at the same time making sure that challenges are reasonable. Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion.


 * No reliable source exists for 3 prominent facts, in the lead sentence, which is the reason I and other editors have a problem with it. With only a handful of people weighing in on whether the first sentence has a problem or not, we have at least 3 editors who feel that it does need work.  We can't effectively resolve this in any other way but to reach a consensus about what goes into the article, that's why it is protected, because lack of consensus caused an edit war. "Wikipedia is founded on the principle that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience, and a strong community spirit, each of which are undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring."


 * Edit warring is not necessarily characterized by any single action; instead, it is characterized by any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. ... so let's work together to achieve a consensus about what really is acceptable. My view is that  a source must actually be based at its origin, in something someone knows, not just "what they say is as close to what actually happened as we are going to get". User:Pedant (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (deindent) Your argument is basically this &mdash; "X is not true. Any reliable source which states X is true is not a reliable source because they are being "sloppy" and reporting a theory as a truth".  I think the issue with the argument is clear, and what Tarage has requested is if you say seriously believe that there is discussion over whether or not X is true (i.e. X is a fact) then you need to present some reliable sources which state it's not, to disagree with the ones that do.  Right now, there are multiple reliable sources which explicitly say "X is true" and your rationale for disregarding them is flawed. --Haemo (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Haemo, but I've given up on trying to debate him. Everything I say falls on deaf ears, and while I try to remain atleast somewhat civil, he continues to call into question everything about me he can grasp at. I have far better things to do than sling mud, so I won't. If he wants to enact these changes, against consensus, so badly, he can. But for his one edit, I'll be here with my one revert, and we will be back to square one. But to be honest, the way the article is right now, square one isn't a bad place to be. --Tarage (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haemo, I think you are mistaken. Pedant argues: the RS have no clue about whether "X" or "not X". Logically, when they cannot say whether "X", they also cannot say whether "not X". What I mean is: any RS which either claims "X" or "not X" when in fact they have no proof for such a claim is wrong in making it. So it goes both ways, and I feel you are not doing justice to Pedant's reasoning.The RS are just making presumptions, and repeating each other. For example: the scientists who claim that the WTC's collapsed due to impact damage are presuming the innocense of the White House, and started hypothesizing there. One can always make a hypothesis which looks plausible. And other RS will copy such a hypothesis, assuming it to be correct without doing any background checking.I agree we should always rely on RS, but you seem to be biased in selecting them, Haemo. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See, that's a judgment call on your part &mdash; you argue that "logically they cannot say whether X is true of not" thus, any source which says "X is true" or "X is not true" is wrong. You argue that they're just "making presumptions" and then citing one another as authoritative.  However, what you think they "logically" cannot know is a judgment call on your part &mdash; you think they cannot know something, and thus you wish to disregard their statements because "they are wrong".  You have previously accused me of being "obsessed with the truth", but I am not the one arguing that "any RS which either claims "X" or "not X" when in fact they have no proof for such a claim is wrong in making it".
 * This, however, is the opposite of what our policies say we should be doing. We are not supposed to be making judgment calls about which reliable sources are "wrong" or not.  This is a fundamental disagreement you have with our policies on Wikipedia, and which Pedant has also.  He acknowledges this, and has decided to try and make changes to the policies on the relevant.  I hope you do the same, because arguing about it here will not accomplish anything. --Haemo (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article status
It has always bothered me that this article is featured in other languages, but not on the English Wikipedia. What does it take on our part to get this article to FA-status? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, it was the edit warring and vandalism... but I could be wrong. --Tarage (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has to be stable according to the featured article criteria, which this article will have trouble achieving, but I think that the article should be able to achieve the other criteria. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably not too far from good article status... I'll have to go into the archives and see why it failed GA nomination in October. Okiefromokla questions? 19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. That didn't take long. It wasn't really reviewed back in October. As Tarage said, it was basically automatically denied because of edit wars. You could make the argument that the article is much more stable now because of the Arbcom decision. Any edit wars are sure to result in bans, so, there should be no problems. Anyone want to put it up for a GA nom? Okiefromokla questions? 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would oppose GA based on lack of consensus for inclusion of dubious 'facts' from sources otherwise considered to be reliable. I think that making the article good is more important thatn awarding it Good Article status. We all know that the

"WRONG VERSION is the version of a page that is protected during an edit war. The Wrong Version is biased, nationalistic, libellous, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikipedia generally. There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version."


 * I think we need to fix the article before flogging it around as an example of some of the better work of which Wikipedia is capable. I sincerely feel that we can achieve a consensus that the wing-nuts on both ends of the bolt can agree is actually factual. Then as actual facts appear, we can add to the article instead of correcting its mistakes. User:Pedant (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one slightly amused at the fact that the cited text is actually satire? I don't know if User:Pedant is aware of that or not, but either way, it is amusing. --Tarage (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking about making serious suggestions for improving the article. Judging from your reply, I must have been unclear. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You might wanna try making it conform with policy, such as NPOV. But I know, my words are wasted, because you are in the belief that it already is... &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
in the introduction the sentence "resulting in the collapse" does not comply to NPOV. "followed by the collapse" would be more accurate. There could be many causes of the "collapse" (like improper structural design, bad quality of Iron, high temperature fire, bad fire protections, explosions...). Lpele (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say it "does not comply to" WP:NPOV? Editors sometimes cite NPOV when they think the article isn't true, or doesn't say what they believe. The plane impacts initiated a chain of events which led to the towers' collapse. Bearing in mind that the lead should be a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic, how could the introduction be better worded? Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He is actually making a suggestion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. I must have blanked it out somehow. I think that to say the impacts were "followed by" the collapse is rather too vague. It almost implies coincidence. I would prefer the term to be strengthened, rather than weakened. I would suggest "causing" or "leading to". Sheffield Steel talkstalk 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the same, I don't see why a link should be made in introduction, it is interpretation. I think that this article should focus more one the facts than on one therory and explanations. There is such a shift between what the facts I know as million of telespectators round the world and what is said in this article, I have got huge doubts about NPOV on that article. I'm just a French guy that switched on TV on september 11 and saw a tower on fire, journalists were reporting explosions and plane crash, then a second plane crashed, journalists were reporting lots of witness about explosion, I wanted to know why this planes crashed, but journalists kept talking about explosion, I switched to CNN : they were reporting explosions in the basement of the building in some stories under the plane crash, BBC World too. Then I saw building exploded then collapsing in a few seconds, reports of explosion in the basement just before the collapse. and this article it talking about a theory telling that in some circumstances, building can collapse when hit by a plane, maybe, but this is not what I saw on TV, I didn't see tower collapsing but exploding from the inside, with some parts going up. So I just went to my basement to get French press published on september 12 and september 13 and what they said about this events, and I'm not mad, they said there was explosions then building collapsed. not in one sentence, but they give plenty of witness reports. And when I read this article, the word "explosion" is not on the article at all ! Why ? About two third of live report on all TV were about explosions, why is there no chapter about reports of September 11 on TV, saying that millions of people saw live througout the world "fire on the first tower, another plane crashing the 2nd tower, fire at the pentagon", that they reported lots of explosions and why don't you say in the introduction that "three towers completely collapsed and got desintegrated in a few seconds which produced huge clouds" ? Talk about the facts first, none of my newspaper of september 12 and 13 made an explicit direct link between plane crash and collapsing. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", september 11 didn't affect my life and I don't care about US politics but I would like to see more information about the facts to see which theory comply more to what was observed. I don't understand why this article don't show the facts properly. As far as I know, none of the live media or newspapers that covered 9/11 apologizes for giving bad information that day. It is the opposite, there were plenty of reports about explosions.Lpele (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dutch newspapers reported the basement explosion as well (Sept. 12). &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting a little too WP:FORUM here, but I'll just say that initial reports were almost complete speculations. When Flight 11 crashed, people thought the pilot had a heart attack. When the second plane hit, people realized it was terrorism. It like that, the pieces fall into place as more is revealed. People focus too much on what news reporters were speculating and reporting on 9/11 and not on scientific facts and studies performed afterwards.


 * Fuel and debris from the flights traveled down elevator shafts and injured many people as well as blowing out windows in the lobby. But basically, it all comes down to verifiable sources. The FEMA report, the NIST report, and the 9/11 Commission are all verifiable sources despite what conspiracy theorists may argue. But I've written too much on the subject&hellip;didn't mean to preach here. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * VegitaU, do you have RS for this or is it OR? Fuel and debris from the flights traveled down elevator shafts and injured many people as well as blowing out windows in the lobby.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, what people are missing here is that we don't report facts as such. We report what reliable sources report. You talk a lot about live coverage of the events that day. It's pretty clear that, as with any rapidly emerging story, there was a lot of confusion. Our interpretations of what we think we saw on live TV doesn't really matter. In any case, since that day there has been a lot of reporting and that reporting is what we draw from. Not eyewitness accounts and not live reporting that was transmitted that has since been superseded. The lead reports what reliable sources report, that is, that the collapse was a direct result of the impact of commercial aircraft. The contributing causes (structural design etc) are well covered in this and other articles. RxS (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? What we saw on TV doesn't really matter ? I saw on TV that "three towers completely collapsed and got desintegrated in a few seconds which produced huge clouds" like millions of other people and they reported lots of explosion, this article doesn't talk about that, but it is false or you decide it "doesn't really matter" because it doesn't fit to what you would expect. when all tv media and press report the same thing, they are reliables sources, sorry. Please tell me your source giving the duration of the collapse. What is the average size of the stones found ?Lpele (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You want to debate 9/11 with me? Are you sure? Well&hellip; okay. But this isn't the place to do it. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, surprising isn't it! You nor I are reliable sources....I think I'd point you to WP:RS for an overview on how we decide what to include in articles. More to your point though, those reliable sources may have reported a variety of things on that day but since then they have had more time and more resources to present a deeper and more considered picture. We report what the current thinking is of reliable sources, not what they might reported extemporaneously and on the fly that day. Again, the encyclopedia would be unmanageable if we all could include what we thought we saw on TV. RxS (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Issues such as poor design or fireproofing serve only to distract from the key question. Even if the buildings were badly designed, even if the fireproofing was sub-standard, even if the relevant floors of the WTC buildings were packed floor-to-ceiling with explosives, it was still the impacts of the planes that began the process that ended with collapse. The good faith interpretation of this thread is that some editors think the collapse process is important enough to be covered in the lead of the top-level article on the attacks. I do not think so, but I would bow to consensus if it disagreed with me. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think it is worth to add a chapter about the facts as they were covered live by TV and seen by billions of people and created such terror fear : just to say that people saw on TV, first tower on fire, second tower hit by a plane. lots of reports of explosions, people screaming, fire trucks alarms, three building collapsing each one after the other and desintegrated in just a few seconds creating huge smoke clouds and fire on pentagon. This article should talk about it even if these facts are inaccurate because it is still what people remind, anyway as far as I know, none of these facts are inaccurate, and they look to me more important than the theory described in this article or how these facts should be explained or interpreted. It is just what millions of people saw on TV and what was reported on all press the next day, so it is what people know about it. It is not worth talking about ? not a word in that article about reports of explosion, about desintegration of building, about collapsing in a few second. So this article is just talking about something else and when people read it, they feel that it is lying to us, why hiding such obvious facts ? families of people killed will be happy to learn from you that this building was full of explosive and they thought they were working in a safe place and they were working over a barril of powder, you think it is a minor fact so ask people working in new WTC7 what they think about working over a barril of powder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpele (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I say "Even if X, Y" I do not mean to say that X is true. I mean to say that Y is true whether or not X is true. Apologies if this confusion is due to a language issue. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with Sheffield Steel's first comment that this is not a POV issue. Planes hit the towers, undisputed.  Towers failed structurally, and then collapsed, not disputed. The problem is that the first sentence overstates the facts, by making a causal link between the two facts (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) which cannot yet be established.  It's not a POV issue, it's a WP:RS issue, which has not been sufficiently worked out. (whether a source which is otherwise reliable -- because they have a reputation for rigorous fact-checking -- can be a source for a statement that could not have been fact-checked.) Maybe we need some discussion at Talk:WP:RS .  There is discussion in a similar orbit to this subject here.  Maybe we should all (anyone who feels they can productively discuss this) take it there to get a wider opinion base on the underlying concepts of sourcing. User:Pedant (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, see, this is the issue here &mdash; your dispute over whether or not certain facts and statements in this article are reliably sourced is based on the fact that you have a different interpretation of our policies which goes beyond what they say. You basically argue that we should disregard reliable sources which report certain facts which you do not believe they could know &mdash; however, that's a judgment call on your part, and the main reason why our policies don't endorse that interpretation.  If you want to continue this argument, I suggest the place would be on the relevant policy pages &mdash; not here.  Local consensus, even if you achieved it, does not override policy. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, we're not interested in facts as "truth". In fact the first sentence at WP:V is:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
 * If you're not happy with the relationship between facts and reliable sources the relevant policy pages would be the place to have that conversation. RxS (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, you're right. The right place to discuss this is at WP:RS or the Village Pump.    This article still needs some work to avoid this sort of shoddiness, the article will never be legitimate journalism as long as it states hypothesis as fact. User:Pedant (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No Pedant, I disagree with you. The policy need not change. The threshold for inclusion is V, not T. But we are still responsible for the wording, and we should not word speculation by RS as the undisputed truth whenever we know there exist significant minority view interpretations which contradict such claims! &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undindent)Wrong. This isn't a democracy; facts don't change based on popular opinion. There are countless media publications that explain in detail the findings of 9/11. That there may be some fringe sources that want to dispute this is fine in their own section (conspiracy theories of 9/11). -- VegitaU (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC),
 * Just want a source for 3 assertions of fact, in the lead sentence and so far there is no source.
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor is a crystal ball a source.


 * At some point someone made the assertions, and they have been repeated, simply because news outlets generally get their stories from the same sources everyone is carrying the same story.


 * Who wrote the actual story? Not who repeated it, who WROTE it? That is the source, and what is their source?


 * At some time some person "X" said "suicide attack" and other sources repeated it. It isn't possible to say definitively as a fact that the intent of the hijackers was suicide.


 * At some point some mind-reader reported the intent was to make a suicide attack upon the United States and anyone who reported that as a fact simply does not check where their facts come from or don't care about accuracy, which to me destroys any reputation they may previously have had for fact checking. That seems to me to stray into the area of undue weight, that all the different news outlets have repeated the story does not make it any more true.

The issue is what you view as "speculation" is what other has reported as true. It violates undue weight to compromise the entire based on a minority view. --Haemo (talk)


 * No, you are misstating it. What I am saying is not that it is speculation, but an assertion of fact. An assertion of fact needs a source.  Clear policy.


 * The policy is good, all of our policies are, and I don't have a problem with them, at all, but only with their misuse. Because WP:V and WP:RS, etc.,  don't explicitly state that we don't publish unsourced speculation as fact, several of the editors here believe thet these unsourced speculative statements pass muster as reliably sourced facts.  But the intent of the policy is clearly that we do not use unsourced statements, so maybe the policy page could use some discussion.


 * Factuality isn't the issue as we all know. "Verifiability not truth."  It certainly can be verified that "countless media publications that explain in detail the findings of 9/11." so that is fine to report.


 * But that's not what we have done in the lead sentence. There are unverifiable statements of fact there, with no source citation, I have requested citations and according to policy, since there are none, it would be well within proper procedure for me to remove them. That just makes me look like a tendentious editor, so I prefer to resolve this backstage rather than in the article.  User:Pedant (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, maybe a better example:


 * "This is a fundamental disagreement you have with our policies on Wikipedia, and which Pedant has also. He acknowledges this, and has decided to try and make changes to the policies on the relevant. I hope you do the same, because arguing about it here will not accomplish anything."

The above statement by Haemo (Not picking on you, just making an example that we can all readily understand.) contains several statements of fact: --synthesis --untrue, mischaracterization of my state of mind, you are not a reliable source for reporting my state of mind --untrue. I have written extensively about why we have our policies and why they are needed and how they have come about and what they mean. I am in complete agreement with, if not the exact text of the policies, but with their intent, and when the intent of a policy is to never state assertion as fact, and to remove statements not supported by reference, I think that is exactly what we should do. --untrue. no source for this assertion. synthesis. unwarranted conclusion. --crystal ball.
 * You have a fundamental disagreement with our policies on Wikipedia
 * Pedant has a fundamental disagreement with our policies on Wikipedia
 * Pedant has acknowledged that he has a fundamental disagreement with our policies on Wikipedia
 * Pedant has decided to try and make changes to the policies.
 * arguing about it here will not accomplish anything.


 * Any source which reports that "it was suicide" rather than "X says it was suicide" is not doing a reasonable job of fact-checking. If the source does not fact-check, how can it be a source with "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking"?

User:Pedant (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I'm not in disagreement with the policies, I just disagree with what they say". Right.  Your argument, once again, amounts to saying "Any source which reports something I disagree with as true is not a reliable source".  That's a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's policies, right there, and it's not a "mis characterization" to state.  This argument over whether I'm a "reliable source" for your state of mind has nothing to do with anything and is incredibly silly.  You don't seriously believe me stating my opinion about the article, your arguments, and this discussion falls under the many content policies you just cited, do you?  --Haemo (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You misquote me, or at least your putting that sentence in quotes appears to me to be intended as seeming to be a quote. You have made statements about what I believe and what I intend. (do you dispute this?)  Those statements are in point of fact false statements. (do you have evidence to the contrary?) To me that seems ironically similar to some news agency making similar claims (which may or may not be true) without the ability of knowing.


 * Regardless, I have asked for sources for assertions of fact (defined by wikipedia as: as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.) and neither you nor any other editor has provided the references.
 * "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
 * (do you dispute that the above is in fact official wikipedia policy?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You made false statements about me that were not framed as opinion and appeared to me to be intentional falsehoods. I object to that, if only on the basis that making false statements to another editor about me interferes with the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia. Colleagues don't spread rumors about each other. User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I really only want to work on the encyclopedia, and not to get treated cavalierly as if I were some sort of random troll. My extensive body of productive work on wikipedia speaks for itself.  I am requesting citations vis a vis WP:VERIFIABILITY for three unreferenced assertions of fact in the lead sentence.  (do you dispute that this act of requesting citations falls within wikipedia guidelines and policies?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No references have been provided (do you dispute that as of this moment, and for the past several weeks there have been no inline citations to a reliable source for those 3 statements for which I requested citations?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I intend to remove the text in question, if sources are not provided. (do you dispute that this is in accord with policy?) User:Pedant (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nineteen men boarded the four planes"
Is there any evidence they actually boarded these planes? I'm not familiar with the reference [78] but I'm wondering if such evidence is available in this reference?

If there is no evidence then either another reference should be used or this claim should be change to a allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd start here, there are also photos of them at the gate:
 * ,, , , , , ,  RxS (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe none of the photos are proven. Apparently the Atta ones conflict with eyewitness accounts (photos show two hijackers dressed casually while the security check in staff say they wore suits and ties). I've read that they are likely to have been taken during dry runs prior to 911. The photos/videos of the other hijackers are not clear enough to positively identify them. We know hijackers boarded the planes but their identities are assumed from evidence other than from them boarding. I think only two were positively identified by airline staff on the day. Osama has not been charged due to insufficient evidence. By insufficient we mean there is evidence but not enough to satisfy a court. Wayne (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read those sources? The computer at the terminal verified the terrorists were selected for special screening. Betty Ong verified the passenger seats the hijackers used on Flight 11. There were calls from the other three aircraft. What exactly are you implying anyway? That there weren't hijackers? That the 19 identified weren't involved? You forget that Zacarias Moussaoui was successfully charged with crimes linked to 9/11. Anyway, once again, if you have any credible sources to back up your claims, post them. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I advise you to actually read what editors write before going off on a totally unrelated tangent. I said "We know hijackers boarded the planes but their identities are assumed from evidence other than from them boarding". Where do you get "there were no hijackers" out of that? Just because they signed in does not mean they used their real names. Only two hijackers were visually identified. Wayne (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I advise you to actually read all the evidence available that confirms their presence. Remember this isn't a forum for conspiracy theorists. -- VegitaU (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE!!!!!!!!!! Nowhere did I deny their presence and in fact I said they hijacked the planes. I apologise for the caps if you are not a native english speaker. If this is not the case I suggest you refrain from commenting on what people write. Wayne (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a polite reminder &mdash; please don't use this page as a forum to discuss evidence for, or against, conspiracy theories. Instead, use it to discuss improvements to the article. --Haemo (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those pictures do exist and they could be genuine and apparently the source makes the assumption that they are genuine, and multiple reliable sources accept that claim. It's at least a possibility that that there is evidence that a given group of people boarded the plane, so I think to remove the statement from the article, we need other reliable sources specifically contradictory to the present sources.  I'm not saying it's true, just that (my opinion) we have no good (policy-based) reason to remove the statement.  This is not a court, our burden is that we have a good-faith reason to believe that our information was reported by someone as true (and I add that it should also be information which the source has a likelihood of actually knowing).  (and I still suggest we start at the top of the article and work through it from one end to the other, rigorously and scrupulously.  Any other approach seems to me to be flailing about unproductively.) User:Pedant (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not going to rework the article just so it reads like a conspiracy theory. The U.S. Government sources for who hijacked the planes is more than sufficient, as are all the repeated information posted by other entities which aren't generally in agreement with the U.S. such as China, Russia, the UN and the European Union...are they also questionable sources? Oddly, even Al Jazeera has recognized the hijackers in numerous avaiable links..here's one I see ...there are plenty more of course if one looks for the facts instead of misinformation.--MONGO 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If they can't know they don't know, and you want to use them as "reliable" for something they have no way of knowing. Let's get that plain. That is what you are saying. User:Pedant (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Something you think they can't know. That's what you're saying &mdash; as I mentioned about, you're straying really far from policy here. --Haemo (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When the EU writes that "Osama did it", that's not because they have studied the matter, it's because they are assuming good faith on the part of the White House. (Which is what all civilised naive people tend to do until they finally learn not to assume to easily.) The 9/11 Commission assumed good faith as well. Since none of them did any serious research, assuming good faith as they were, they can hardly be called an RS for anything other than presuming the official version to be true. It's just a presumption. It may be correct, it may be false. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission did present the hearing of Norman Mineta, and that should not be censored out of this article. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Right, Xiutwel. And when "Troofers" say missiles hit the Pentagon, it's because they have studied the impact, right? It's all about the sources! Start including some mainstream sources that say "Star Wars" death rays hit the towers, or stop flooding the talk page with nonsense. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that reliable sources aren't reliable because they're just repeating assumptions they've made when they say something is true is completely at odds with policy and isn't going to go anywhere. Pedant has wisely chosen to talk this issue up at the relevant policy pages &mdash; I hope you do the same, because consensus on a fundamental rewrite to policy is not going to occur here. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's easy to see why you have a problem separating speculation from fact. You speculate on my state of mind and my choices, but you don't have any way of knowing what I have chosen to do or what will occur at some future time.  Yet you have no problem simply stating your opinions of something you cannot know as if they were facts. Now imagine if a hundred other editors started repeating it, editors with a reputation for accuracy... without it being necessary that you or any other editor actually lied, or intended to report faulty news, we would have hundreds of reliable sources to choose from.  But the only person who can tell you what my choice is is me.  The only people who can tell you the hijackers intended to die are the hijackers.  If this information were based on that kind of evidence it would have been reported just as widely as the unsupported assertions have been. User:Pedant (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only people who can tell you the hijackers intended to die are the hijackers.
 * And yet the terrorists do tell us they intend to die. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not "speculating", I'm assuming good faith that when you said "The right place to discuss this is at WP:RS or the Village Pump" that you were actually going to follow through with that and discuss it at the right place. To respond to your analogy, which is completely ridiculous since reliable source are very different from Wikipedia editors, it's not our job to look at a reliable source saying "X is true" and say "Oh, they're speculating, so we can disregard that".  Mostly because, as you have demonstrated, the determination of their "speculation" is based on your personal incredulity that they could know something is true or not &mdash; and that simply not how Wikipedia operates.  You had the right idea when you were going to try bring it up on the talk pages for the relevant policies, instead of trying to rewrite a global policy on a single article &mdash; something which simply will not happen, and just wastes the time of everyone involved. --Haemo (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First, nothing in either of those articles says "terrorists do tell us they intend to die", because there is no sound on the video, and according to the article itself, "lip readers had tried without success to decipher what was being said" on the video. Neither article states that the terrorists said they intended to die. (do you dispute this?) User:Pedant (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Haemo, please stop posing as if you are lecturing me on wikipedia policies. I know the policies and as I have said before, the right place to argue about policies and what they mean is on the talk page for the policies themselves, or on village pump, or in the WP: namespace somewhere, not here.  Let's keep this page for the purpose for which it is intended, discussing the form, language and content of this  article. User:Pedant (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do so many people just want to argue?
It's very simple. If someone questions the "truth" of a statement, you explicitly source that statement. It is undeniably true that "the U.S. Justice Department named nineteen individuals, fifteen of them residents of Saudi Arabia, as the hijackers." Period. That's exactly what the secondary sources say. To say that the Justice Department's statement is true or untrue is both OR and POV, but there is no need to make such a claim, either way. Again, the "Justice Department indicated that the alleged hijackers were members of an organization called 'Al Qaeda.'" The Justice Department is a primary source. Al Quaeda is a primary source. The news articles are secondary sources, appropriate for citation, but not for claims that what the primary sources claim is THE TRUTH. Otherwise, what? "Freedom fighters today struck a blow against The Great Satan" because the majority of editors, that day, are Muslims? Pedant has it right. NPOV is not POV, unless taken to extremes. "Something possibly happened somewhere, today, and it was apparently seen on the news?" Nobody is saying that, either. Wowest (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Wowest. Attributing seems to be key here. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that we are so tired of defending every sentence in this article that we lose sight of the bigger picture. I'd be a lot more open to sugestions on improvements if I didn't feel like these arguments had been played out before. I don't think I'm crazy when I think I've seen most of them before, but maybe I am. I guess what gets to me the most is when there is an argument, and the person bringing the sugested change doesn't provide any sources. This article is stable. It may not be correct in some people's eyes, but it hasn't had any major changes in the recent months. To blindly come in and start demanding changes be made, without bringing something new to the table... rubs people like me the wrong way. But I appreciate that you are trying to find a middle ground here. --Tarage (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel happy when you express what annoys you, because may be that is a first step towards more joyful cooperation. About the stability of the article: when edit wars are always won by the same side, that does not mean the article is stable. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is not stable, the only reason it has not changed substantially is that it is being kept stable by brute force, by a relatively small group of editors, who are comfortable with poorly-sourced statments and unattributed assertions of fact, but only when they agree with that editor's POV. If you think the article is stable, then walk away from it for two weeks.  A genuinely stable article is neutral in point of view, and does not make controversial assertions without attribution.  This article is not stable, but tightly-controlled. User:Pedant (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, Pedant, you have insulted me, and every other editor who is working hard to make this article the best it can be, by insinuating that we are doing harm by reverting vandalism and keeping consensus. Then again, I expect this kind of behavior from you... --Tarage (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you picked any controversial subject which was written neutrally, and told all the editors who wanted to keep it neutral to walk away, you'd have edit wars within the week. Neutrality is not committing the argument to moderation at extreme lengths. You cannot please editors who hold fringe views about a subject no matter how neutrally an article is written.  See, for instance, evolution which is currently fully protected because someone keeps trying to replace the article with biblical verses supporting creationism. --Haemo (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You forget that we have independent secondary sources, too. Okiefromokla questions? 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have secondary sources which are independent of the American-dominated global market, unbiased, making no presumptions, are scholarly, and support the A-view? Please list them, they could be really useful. But I doubt you have any. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh COME on... are you going to take up Pedant's rediculous attack on what is and isn't RS? If you are even thinking of trying to argue that 'because a source comes from American-dominated global market, it isn't a reliable source', just stop. I don't want to hear it, and I don't think anyone one else wants to hear it either. Go take it up with the Wikipedia guidelines. --Tarage (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to try to redefine our definitions of reliable sources, since the current definitions don't appear to be adequate to you. Until that happens though, we will use sources allowed by the current guidelines, including American sources that report viewpoints you disagree with.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! I second that opinion, sir. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something he's argued before. That reliable sources aren't actually reliable because they probably have interests, monetary or otherwise, with the American government, and that includes domestic and foreign academics and scientists. Of course, regardless of his belief, it's been quoted to him that Wikipedia is not a place to correct systemic bias. That's specifically mentioned at WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla questions? 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's completely bogus as an argument, and one which we've heard before. The correct place to address it is at the relevant talk pages, not here. --Haemo (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nineteen men boarded the four planes" - part 2
I was just wondering if there are any reliable sources that proof the nineteen men on the security camera pictures actually boarded the flights. If there are such sources I think they should be added as references to this claim in the article.

Btw, I appreciate your efforts in writing and maintaining this article. I just want to contribute as I feel adding these references would improve the article a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG... well besides their passports found at crash sites, their body fragments found at crash sites, the audio of people describing them on the plane... What else do you want? Video footage of them actually sitting down in their seats?
 * This is becoming ridiculous. Someone please advise me how to deal with this incredulity. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * VegitaU, it is forbidden by the A-gang to mention that the passports were found at the crash site, so that does not count. archive 38 &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from referring to other editors as "gangs" or what-have you. It's not polite and there is no cabal. --Haemo (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide RS to discredit the mountain of RS we have, this argument is moot. I refuse to even talk about 'constructive edits' unless you can provide solid proof that the current verson isn't correct. If you can't, then don't even bring it up. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what exactly are you arguing then? If it's supposedly forbidden to mention the passports blown out of the buildings, why is Atta's luggage (IDing all hijackers) allowed? Not following your logic. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking is to add references to the claim. I'm not saying the claim is untrue. I apologize for causing you anxiety.
 * Well, we have multiple references which say that they were captured on camera getting on the flights, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. --Haemo (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, good. Please end this debate by listing some reliable second party or third party sources for photographs of nineteen terrorists boarding the four airplanes reportedly hijacked on the morning of 9/11. I haven't seen any photographs anywhere, but that's just me. Wowest (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry there aren't any. Please upload some reliable second party or third party sources for photographs of missiles hitting the Pentagon, Flight 93 landing safely at Cleveland, or death rays from space collapsing the towers. I haven't seen any photographs anywhere, but that's just me. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology, but nowhere in this article does it say that missiles hit the Pentagon, that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland or that there is such a things as death rays from space. Nor, have I ever proposed that those statements be added. The article DOES say that 9/11 was a suicide attack by al-Qaeda, however, which sounds like OR, but Haemo says

"we have multiple references which say that they                     were captured on camera getting on the flights"
 * So, fine. Let's assume good faith on Haemo's part. Please give us some URL's for the photographs and definitively end this part of the debate.
 * Wowest (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My name isn't Haemo, so I'll leave that task to him. What we do have are: bin Laden's video where he admits to having have chosen the "brothers", links between the "alleged" hijackers to al-Qaeda. Martyrdom videos from two of the pilots (Atta and Jarrah) in Afghanistan. Video shots of all those men boarding aircraft. Testimony by witnesses on the planes. Passports of those men at the crash sites. Body fragments of those men at the crash sites. Recordings of those men on Flight 93's CVR... Where exactly do you get confused, Wowest? I'll try and clear it up. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And here's a reliable source stating "A surveillance video from Washington's Dulles International Airport the morning of September 11, 2001, shows four of five hijackers passing through security checks before boarding the plane they would crash into the Pentagon." This other source and this Chinese source even have the pictures. --Haemo (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But those are all indirect indications that they could have boarded the planes (ignoring the passports and body parts). To then state in the article that they actually boarded the planes is a little bit far fetched, at least based on those references. We need other references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources explicitly say they boarded the planes. This is exactly what our policies require &mdash; you appear to require some other level of proof which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources saying that photos show the men boarding are secondary sources. If a source showing the actual photos were to be found, that would constitute a primary source. We already have the sources that are preferred according to policy. On that basis I think this thread is unlikely to improve the article. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Status and the end to all of this
I think there is a strong case for a GA nomination. The last one failed because of an edit war, but edit wars aren't going to happen anymore because of the Arbcom decision. I see one thing that might be problem with a GA attempt: A few editors are very loudly objecting to the article. So, for these editors, I ask: Is there any form of dispute resolution that would appease you regardless of consensus turning out your way or not? If consensus is to keep the article as is, would such editors stop their pushing? I have a few concerns with that:
 * Another DR would be useful only if active editors on this page will promise to accept consensus if consensus is formed.
 * There's been canvassing to conspiracy theorist websites/blogs in the past, and that's always a possibility again.
 * People from both sides would need to recognize that there may be emotional people arguing with little regard for policy (probably IPs and new accounts), and that such arguments do not count when deciding if consensus has been formed. Consensus in article discussions always means within parameters of current policy.

We need to decide if we are going to try for a GA nom right now in light of the fact that there is only a tiny minority against the article, or if we are going to try another form of dispute resolution to end all doubt before making a GA attempt. Either way, it's a shame not to have this well-sourced comprehensive article as a GA. Okiefromokla questions? 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to cite the one unsourced fact. Other than that, I think linking to conspiracy theories is enough in light of the hundreds of mainstream sources we do cite. I say go for it. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done; I've added a citation. --Haemo (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks. I wouldn't have known where to look. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have an issue with the books section; it needs to be expanded, but I'm not really "up" on what are the most authoritative books on the subject. What's the point of the books section anyways? --Haemo (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be a big issue in a GA nomination, but I could be wrong. I'm more experienced with FA noms, where a good book section usually comes up if it's reasonable that there would be many books written on the subject in question. A quick search for "9/11" in the Cambridge University Press brought up only one book:


 * 9/11: Mental Health in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks
 * Edited by Yuval Neria, Raz Gross, Randall D. Marshall, Ezra S. Susser, Foreword by Beverley Raphael
 * Hardback (ISBN-13:9780521831918 | ISBN-10:0521831911)
 * DOI: 10.2277/0521831911


 * However, a search for "Terrorism" drew many responses, and looking at the descriptions, the following deal in some way with 9/11, al-qaeda, or the long-term aftermath of 9/11.


 * Unmodern Men in the Modern World, Michael J. Mazarr, Paperback (ISBN-13:9780521712910)


 * Deadly Connections, Daniel Byman, Paperback (ISBN-13:9780521548687)


 * Non-State Actors and Terrorism, Volume 0, Robert P. Barnidge, Jr. Hardback (ISBN-13:9789067042598)


 * Terrorism and Disaster, Edited by Robert J. Ursano, Carol S. Fullerton, Ann E. Norwood, 1 CD-ROM, 1 Paperback (ISBN-13:9780521533454 | ISBN-10:052153345)


 * See what you think. They look good to me. Anything scholarly listed in a highly reputable collection like Cambridge Press is probably going to be good. Okiefromokla questions? 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We also have some pretty bad MOS issues. For instance, bin Laden is properly written "bin Laden" not "Bin Laden" and Al-Qaeda should be written "al-Qaeda".  I'm going to find-replace all of these to standardize.  --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's all done, but I fear we have lots of other issues. Having written several GA's before, we need to pay a lot more consideration to things like this.  For instance, we overlink like crazy this article.  I see multiple instances where things are linked twice in a single section &mdash; I think al-Qaeda alone is linked a dozen times.  Also, we have two templates for the "Attacks by al-Qaeda" box.  Why? There are a lot of issues here. --Haemo (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They just require a little time, but it's not too much thinking. We don't have any content or reference issues that would be a big deal that I can see at the moment. But thanks for pointing those examples out. I'll go through and see about tidying up a bit sometime soon. Maybe some of the other editors can do a good comb through the article and look for MOS issues too. It's really not all that much work considering some of the stuff I had to do to get my previous FAs passed. Annoying, yes, but do-able. Okiefromokla questions? 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are some reference issues. Some of the references are incomplete or set up wrong, so we'd have to fix that too. Okiefromokla questions? 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind lettin' us in on the wrong citations so we can take care of them? -- VegitaU (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"edit wars aren't going to happen anymore because of the Arbcom decision." -- Okiefromokla . You really think so? I think you're being too optimistic. Please remember that Wikipedia is listed very high in most search engine searches. It currently seems that every day, somebody looks up 9/11, comes here for the very first time, becomes offended by the blatant POV in the article and tries to fix it. Then, someone else calls his presumably good-faith edit "vandalism," and here we go again. The best solution I've thought of so far to reduce such incidents (you probably can't get rid of gross vandalism) is to explicitly source the statements that contain opinions rather than universally-obvious facts, or that are likely to get challenged. The list of reliable sources someone posted above contains statements from those reliable sources that "the Justice Department accused nineteen individuals associated with an organization [which most of us had never even heard of before] called al-Qaeda, with carrying out the hijackings and piloting the aircraft to their crash-sites." NOBODY can challenge that. It's the simple truth, and you have reliable, second- party sources to say so. Such simple changes would end the apparently common perception that we are circulating government propaganda or lying about what happened, and the newbies would stop biting the article. The TRUTH of whatever the government says is obviously unverifiable, sometimes for reasons of national security, but the fact that they said it is widely documented. If the government said so, then it isn't "allegedly" anymore. The government said so even if Mohammed Atta was never convicted of a crime. Wowest (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And everyday someone clicks on evolution, get offended by the "blatant POV" and tries to "fix" it. Wikipedia is not censored, and is not going to bias its coverage of any particular subject because it offends people who hold minority opinions about it.  That's not neutral point of view it's undue weight and is at odds with how every major encyclopedia covers the subject. --Haemo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Haemo and: :Why don't you do that, Wowest, if you care so much that the article is POV? I think it's pretty damn solid as is. Put some suggestions up (cited, of course) and see if it stands to consensus. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Using a DoJ sources is ok is you're going to say:
 * The DoJ accused nineteen men .... The DoJ is no position to say they actually did it. The only thing wikipedia can do is report what the DoJ said or did. This article blatantly takes DoJ and US government spin for the absolutely thruth, so much that sources are not even referenced. Wikipedia and readers loose, some editors win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Box cutters
The article mentions box cutters as the weapon used yet according to the 9/11 Commission Report this was based on a single eyewitness account (Barbara Olson) from flight 77 that was proven to be fictitious. The Secretary of Defense report (2007) states simply that "the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots" without mentioning any weapon. The reference to box cutters should be removed from the article as the weapons used are still not known and the claim that they were box cutters is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the references cited support the wording that is there. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Can you be more specific about the source for "proven to be fictitious?" Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the reports at the time indicated box cutters. Quoting standard sources is by no means "original research". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I getting this right?
 * An otherwise reliable source has reported that a person has claimed that boxcutters were used.
 * A source that would probably be considered as more reliable has apparently come to the conclusion that the claim was not supported by sufficient evidence and has not included the claim.
 * The Wikipedia article assumes that the claim is true and contains the claim without attributing it to the source in the text. --Cs32en (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems I need to clarify. Conclusion: The sources that say box cutters based their claim on speculation and misleading information since proven false. As reliable sources confirm this we should delete mention of box cutters and probably also any mention of weapons at all as it would be OR. Perhaps it's best just to use the terminology currently used by the DoD, "the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots" (Office of the Secretary of Defense: Pentagon 911, 2007 page 12.) Wayne (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that the news sources say Box cutters were used.
 * The sole primary source for those claims that Box cutters were used was their mention in an alleged phone call by Barbara Olson on flight 77 to her husband (The 9/11 Commission Report).
 * The FBI determined that this phone call did not happen and said that Barbara Olson made only one call that failed to connect with a call duration of 0 seconds. This finding is not disputed.
 * As to evidence for the weapons used, Flight 175: No weapons mentioned. Flight 11: one call said a chemical spray was used while another said a passenger had been either stabbed or shot (caller not sure which). Flight 93: calls mention passengers stabbed (unspecified weapon) and a bomb (no evidence found). Flight 77, no weapons mentioned.


 * It would be nice if there were a reliable transcript of the Flash presentation. Accepting for the sake of argument that it says what you say it does, I don't think we can reasonably use Prosecution Trial Exhibit P200054, a primary source, to over-ride the secondary sources. That said, it's possible the paragraph as written implies we know more than we do about exactly what happened on the planes. Some rewording similar to what you suggest may be in order. We might add a reference to http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/ or something more recent. Tom Harrison Talk 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And we should add to the WP:RS policy page a sentence to the effect that reliable sources should be used unless found to be unreliable... --Cs32en (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming from WT:V, see, this is why I don't get involved. The commission report linked to support the box-cutter claim distinguishes between "knives" (stated to be on all 4 flights) and "box cutters" (stated to be on 77 only), yet the article says the captain of Flight 11 and many unspecified others were killed by "box-cutter knives". Both the Wikilink to "utility knife" and the word "box-cutter" constitute claims unsupported by the cited sources, and perhaps confusion bordering on WP:OR, and the rest of the sentence is unsupported by the sources too without specific page references. WP should be very careful not to prejudice a claim without proper sourcing in the majority-view article. If this is a representative example of the sourcing of the whole article, too bad. Surely someone can provide sources for the whole meandering claim, During the hijacking of the airplanes, the hijackers used box-cutter knives to kill flight attendants, passengers, and crew members, including the captain of Flight 11, John Ogonowski? Otherwise I would affirm something like Wayne. Thank you for your attention. JJB 13:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Slate's view "not demonstrably false" might also be included as one of several POVs. JJB 13:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is problematic. All that means is that there is no evidence box cutters were or were not used. We could also claim that the hijackers using guns is "not demonstrably false" as at least one stewardess claimed they did. In fact maybe they used dental floss to incapacitate everyone as that is "not demonstrably false" either. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the 9/11 Commission Report...on flight 11, Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeny reported from coach class that two other flight attendents in the first class cabin area were "stabbed" and subsequently a passenger named Daniel Lewin was "stabbed"...that is what the report states...read it. Betty Ong and Sweeny as well as other passengers were forced away from the front of the plane as either Mace, pepper spray or some other irritant was sprayed into the first class cabin area...the hijackers also claimed they had a bomb...Ong reported this via and AT&T airphone to the AA Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, N. Carolina....she had the phone connection for 25 minutes. Ong was also able to ID the hijackers names via flight manifest and correlation with empty seats she observed. A similar report of stabbings and or knives used was reported for flight 175...on the ground, Lee Hanson recieved a phone call from his son Peter who reported from flight 175 that a stewardress had been stabbed...a subsequent phone call again from Peter Hansen continued until the plane hit the south tower of the WTC and repeated stabbing incidents had occurred...Flight 77...again, the report of knives used. Page 13 of the report...it states that 10 passengers and two crewmembers all reported knives were "wielded" in the hijacking of flight 93. User:WLRoss...please read the report...--MONGO 01:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:MONGO...please read the report.... Stabbed DOES NOT mean box cutters in any dictionary I have read. In fact it is extremely difficult to stab (or even slash) someone with one and expect them to be disabled. Box cutters would be efficient if used to cut throats but not a single call mentioned that, they all said stabbed and even blind freddie would not confuse the two actions. Stabbed does not even mean knives. It could just as easily have been stabbed with sharpened toothbrushes or even pencils. We don't know what weapons were used. Mace and pepper spray is also speculation and OR because the irritant was not named. Stick with the 'known facts, your WP:OR does not decide page content and is disruptive. Wayne (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the report...you apparently did not..no argument regarding exactly what was used to stab numerous attendants and passengers, jury out on that issue. However, when you state above as you did if you reread your previous comment, you claim that there were no reports of weapons on either flight 175 or 77..."As to evidence for the weapons used, Flight 175: No weapons mentioned. Flight 11: one call said a chemical spray was used while another said a passenger had been either stabbed or shot (caller not sure which). Flight 93: calls mention passengers stabbed (unspecified weapon) and a bomb (no evidence found). Flight 77, no weapons mentioned"...if you had read what I posted which summarized the 9/11 Commission report...indeed there were the eyewitness and secondary accounts that some of the terrorists on each plane had weapon(s) [plural]. Its all there in the first dozen or so pages of the 9/11 Commission Report. If you don't want to read the report, then thats your choice. We cite the reports we have available to us...the 9/11 Commission Report is a reliable source. Flight 175...not just the Hansen report but a male flight attendant called a United airlines office and spoke to a Marc Policastro who claimed that what he heard from the caller was that a stewardress had been stabbed and the pilots had been killed. You're yapping about no weapons reported...if someone has been stabbed, then yes, it doesn't matter whether it is a pencil or something else...it is still a weapon. In a court of law in the U.S., almost anything is a weapon if it is used to inflict bodily injury on another...I have no issue adjusting that we can clarify the details, but to claim erroneously that we have no reports of weapons on used/brandished/etc...when in fact we do, is truly disappointing.--MONGO 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mongo, but I'm not a regular who intends to read the whole report. I'm just surprised that (Slate confirms) Olson is the only source for the box-cutter claim, and then following that lead I find a morass of unsourced data in a single sentence. And I don't see regulars stepping in defending the sentence questioned, which is apparently a very garden-variety WP:OR that unintentionally arose due to attempts to compress narrative. Let's lay out the flaws and solve: Now this is all just very basic comparing a sentence against its sources for nonconformities. I have a particular interest in this topic so have avoided editing it, except for questioning this one sentence due to WT:V-raised concerns I deemed legitimate. I must also thank the community for the discussion proceeding rationally as opposed to another political talk page I could name. Would one of the regulars now please ensure the claim conforms to the source(s)? Thanks. JJB 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) no source supports a link to utility knife.
 * 2) only Olson supports stating "box-cutter" and his POV is vitiated by that of his employer, the US, at the Moussaoui trial; it's harmless to remove the word.
 * 3) the word "kill" is not supported by Mongo's summary, only "stab". Is there any evidence that any caller knew anyone was certainly dead?
 * 4) Mongo's summary only mentions 4 stabbings of identified people, but the sentence uses 3 plurals or minimum 6 identified people; are there any more sources for these, particularly additional passengers or the crew?
 * 5) What is the source for Ogonowski?
 * 6) If the answers to any of (3)-(5) are "the report", then the footnote should give page numbers for verifiability.
 * 7) Further, if the sentence synthesizes several claims of the report in one clause for convenience, it would be preferable to find a secondary source that performs that synthesis more reliably so as to prevent just the sort of original contributions I've highlighted.
 * 8) Is the sentence giving undue weight to knives, seeing as several other threats and types of force were employed, which should be rectified by expansion?
 * Thanks to MONGO for removing unsourced claims 1, 2, 5, and resolving my concerns on the other points. JJB 02:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)