Talk:The Terror Timeline

Develop
This shouldn't be deleted, just developed.

Deletion of material
Two sections have been deleted with the rationale "reduce to relative article size reflecting notability". The article is not excessive in length and there is no prescription that directly equates any notability to a precise length. Content should be judged on use to readers, and clearly information about the book's contents and author will be of use to those wishing to find out about the book.

If the information is inaccurate, then that should obviously be corrected, but there is no notion that this is so.

I would be grateful if this matter could be discussed, before further deletion, as I consider the removal of this content is inappropriate and the reason given does not justify it.

I have keep the deletion of a statement, which is unsourced.

Tyrenius 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just trying to reduce it from its typical overstated Striver-Alex-Jones length to a more manageable size consistent with its notability. Morton devonshire 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about Striver-Alex-Jones, though I have seen the name Striver mentioned in a derogatory fashion on the AfD. I'm approaching this from the outside, as I would any other article, with a desire to both inform and be accurate from a NPOV. I can't claim any great familiarity with the subject, so if I've misunderstood anything, I would like to know. I feel it is best to leave individuals out of the equation, and just stick to content, though I realise it's easy for the latter to be conflated with the former. I do not want an edit war over this! Tyrenius 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This material has been removed again, this time by Sloane without any edit summary or attempt to talk through the issue on this talk page. It makes sense at the very least to wait for the result of Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination) as a merge may be required from that. Otherwise my points above apply, and I can't see any objective reason for not including the information. Tyrenius 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I deleted it because it was duplicate from that page. --Sloane 12:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that a duplication is unwarranted. I suggest we wait the outcome of Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination) in a few days to assess how to play it. Tyrenius 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted on Morton devonshire's talk page:
 * Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page, when I had clearly given reasons why the material should stay? This is not collaborative work, and reeks of meatpuppetry. I expect a higher standard of conduct than this. Tyrenius 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Sloane' version better -- that's all. Meatpuppetry?  Get real -- that's for amateurs.  Morton devonshire 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reply is flippant and entirely unacceptable. Liking something is not a reason for making an edit. You have not answered the points I made previously as to why this material should be kept. You have clearly demonstrated your prejudices as regards to any 9/11 researchers on User:Morton devonshire/conspiracy theory and seem to be intent on pushing your POV. This is not in the interests of creating an objectively based encyclopedia. If two editors in rapid succession make identical reversions, without the courtesy, indeed necessity, or explanation or debate, then I consider they are acting with an agreed agenda to achieve their aim. It is, I agree, amateur. Tyrenius 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sloane and I didn't communicate. Quit making things up.  You are quite correct, I do not think that most of the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are presented in an encyclopedic manner.  Could they be?  Yes, but most of the conspiracy editors violate WP:NOR and WP:RS, and consistently try to "prove" their arguments by connecting the dots, which violates the Wikipedia admonition against doing so.  See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.  You are also violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  If you persist, I will refrain from discussing anything with you.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

I have not as yet looked further than these recent edits (and your first support of his nom for the article Articles for deletion/The Terror Timeline),as to your relationship with Sloane so I will take your implied assertion that this is not part of a pattern, but an isolated incident. 9/11 conspiracy theories can be presented like anything else in an encyclopedic manner, if they are notable. The veracity or otherwise of the theories is not the relevant factor. The significant aspect is that they have gained attention and thus become notable. They should simply be presented as the theories of the relevant groups or people without judgement on the content of the theory (apart from those judgements on them that can also be obtained from secondary sources).

I haven't studied the practices of the editors who deal with such theories on wiki, but if they are engaged in OR etc, then obviously that is not acceptable. However, nor is it acceptable that people who are personally scornful of such theories and their advocates should equally advance a POV against it, as has so far happened in this article.

On the contrary, far from not assuming good faith, I did so, stated a rationale on this page and invited both you and Sloane to discuss the inclusion or otherwise of the material. You both blatantly ignored this and just went ahead and reverted it anyway, in support of each other. It is not a personal attack to draw attention to your bad conduct and lack of collegiality. It is a simple statement of fact, and if you persist in such conduct, I will take matters further. Your reply was, "I like Sloane' version better -- that's all." This shows a complete lack of respect and is provocation. I presume you are an intelligent person and therefore quite aware of that.

You (and Sloane) have so far failed to address the points I made earlier, so I repeat them below:
 * Two sections have been deleted with the rationale "reduce to relative article size reflecting notability". The article is not excessive in length and there is no prescription that directly equates any notability to a precise length. Content should be judged on use to readers, and clearly information about the book's contents and author will be of use to those wishing to find out about the book.


 * If the information is inaccurate, then that should obviously be corrected, but there is no notion that this is so.


 * I would be grateful if this matter could be discussed, before further deletion, as I consider the removal of this content is inappropriate and the reason given does not justify it.


 * I have keep the deletion of a statement, which is unsourced.


 * It makes sense at the very least to wait for the result of Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination) as a merge may be required from that.

Tyrenius 01:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ty, I apologize. Maybe it would help if you understood something about the world you've stepped into here -- for want of a better phrase, I'll call it the "9/11 Conspiracy Zone".  In the Conspiracy Zone, people try to inflate the notability of their various pet conspiracy theories by massively inflating the scope of an article way beyond the apparent notability of the subject of the article, and create, literally, hundreds of articles with the intent of advancing their political viewpoints.  The practice is rampant, and there are a core group of editors, of which I am one, who aim to put a halt to the practice.  Yes, there are characters in the conspiracy world who are notable, such as Steven E. Jones.  They're notable because they are mentioned in the mainstream reputable press, and we can responsibly describe them in articles because we can rely upon secondary sources meeting WP:RS to craft an article.  If the article is well-balanced, without original research, and well-resourced to mainstream, reputable, sources, I leave it alone, as I have done so with the example article I cited (Steven E. Jones).  Now, I think Steven Jones is an idiot, and have said so many times, but that doesn't mean his article should be deleted.  My personal feelings are not relevant.  Wikipedia rules, however, are.  If a Wikipedia article relies upon blogs (like the blog Cooperative Research) and other sources with no independent editorial review, then those sources have to go -- those are Wikipedia's rules, not my personal feelings.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

Thanks for your response. Fortunately I am not, as you observe, engaged in this area of wiki, apart from this article which I strayed into. If your observations are indeed true (and I can't judge) then I would not disagree, though I would caution that a distaste for such theories and their advocates must also not exert an undue influence. The little I have seen of both sides in this issue gives me cause for concern, and I suspect it is one which has created frustration, too much emotion and too many personal confrontations all round &mdash; understandable perhaps, but undesirable nevertheless. A situation of loggerheads and polarisation then leads people to contempt and to try to score something over the other side, whenever the opportunity presents itself; and the wounds get deeper. I have certainly seen actions and statements from "your side" which have no place on wikipedia, and I have to say my recent experience is included among them. Lack of edit summary, lack of engagement with discussion and flippant comments are all inexcusable, particularly, as you point out, when a contentious subject is involved. This is a cause for even more care and communication than normal, not less.

My concern is with this article. It has been put to AfD. The whole community has had a chance to decide on its fate. It has been kept. On that basis, it should then be informative. It seems perfectly reasonable that a reader wishing to find out more can see what the contents of the book are. It seems perfectly sensible that there should be some information about the author of the book and his views. These are not extraordinary items to include in the article. I find it very disagreeable that these sections have been deleted by two editors who did so without any attempt to answer the points I made for their inclusion. (OK the contents are have remained this time.) This is a blatant violation of good editing practice. If this is what things have come to as regards 9/11 issues, then things are in a sorry state.

I urge you to consider what is happening here and to work towards and encourage co-operation with other editors, however problematic that might be. There are remedies long-established in wiki to deal with unsuitable articles and inappropriate behaviour. The response I have experienced is not the way.

An article can use information about an individual from that individual's own website, and, as Paul Thompson works with the Centre for Cooperative research, this effectively amounts to such a website. We have to take a reasonable commonsense view, not splitting hairs. It is not just some random blog. It is an authoratitive site as regards the subject. I also made an observation about the AfD on Thompson currently in progress, and a sensible approach is to retain this material, at least until that has finished, as a likely outcome is for a merge, which will be a community consensus to keep it. It is good to make life easier for other editors, not take up their time with needless tos and fros. I propose to reinstate that information, unless there are cogent arguments for not keeping it.

By the way, I do not engage in edit wars, and I recommend the practice. If it is obvious that there is a disagreement, then the best approach is to talk about it. Two or more editors reverting against one editor is a particularly disagreeable action for those editors to do, as it is relying on force not rationality.

Tyrenius 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG, you believe this stuff, don't you? You believe that the Cooperative Research Center is a real research center?  You don't understand that in the conspiracy theory circles ANYONE can call themself a "researcher".  No sir, the Cooperative "Research" Center does not qualify as a reliable source -- it's yet one more advocacy arm of the so-called "Truth Movement".  It has no oversight, no editorial control, no fact-checking, no real peer review.  It fails all of the tests under Wikipedia reliable sources.  See specifically.  Morton devonshire 05:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a calmer approach and less jumping to conclusions would help us reach a happier conclusion. I don't know anything about the CRC and I don't have any particular belief about it, apart from the fact I assumed it was probably a self-generated body without further accountability, which seems to be what you're saying it is. It is something that Paul Thompson is associated with and if you care to study WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves you will see that it can therefore be used for certain information about him and the organisation itself, which is exactly what is being done. Tyrenius 07:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not reading the whole policy. Morton devonshire 07:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you'd try to avoid the personal observations, unless you happen to know I'm not reading the whole policy. I assume you are implying that there is something in the policy which renders redundant the part I have referred to. The whole point of that section is to specify an exception to the normal rules which applies to certain information which can be used from someone's own website.Tyrenius 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an advocacy cite, and therefore not reliable. Here's what the website says about itself:  "To provide a means for members of civil society to monitor the activities of powerful entities, such as governments, large corporations, and wealthy and influential individuals."  Sorry, it does not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.  The exception does not swallow the rule.  There may not even BE a Paul Thompson, such is the nature of the conspiracy movement.  Without a reputable source, we just don't know.  That's why we don't allow blogs as sources on Wikipedia.  Morton devonshire 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your argument, or perhaps you have not understood mine. The site is not being used as a reliable source for statements about third parties. It is being used as a source about itself, i.e. what views are espoused on it, and about its associate, Paul Thompson. This is widespread on wiki and specifically provided for in the policy section I cited:WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. Quite obviously this is seen as an exception to the general rule of not using such sites as sources, or there would be no need to have the section all about it, as it would be covered under the standard guideline. I am surprised there is any problem with this.

There clearly is a Paul Thompson as he is the author of the book, whether that is a pseudonym or, for that matter, a fictitious name for a collective. However, that is not our business. It is good enough that a major publishing house has seen fit to print that this person exists and give him a biography. Clearly this fits WP:VERIFY, the products of such publishing houses being reviewed internally be editors, fact checkers and lawyers, where necessary.

It is by no means an absolute rule anyway that blogs, usenet etc are not used as sources. The article Lumber Cartel, for instance, consists solely of such sources. You may like to check out Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel and Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel (second nomination) to see some of the debate around the notion.

Tyrenius 22:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is self referencing
There are two footnotes and they both point back to the person this article is about...why?--MONGO 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Both links go to the author of the book...what's the deal with that? Are we going to start writing articles on every person who has ever had something published?--MONGO 06:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is far from finished. Leave it alone until it starts to take shape. I don't think it would be an ecological disaster if every book ever published by Harper Collins, and all of their authors (including pseudonyms) had an entry in Wikipedia. And every book and author of equally reputable publishing houses.--Thomas Basboll 09:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We can go even further: every book with an ISBN number! Why not?--Thomas Basboll 10:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO, would you mind explaining your point more clearly please. You seem to be saying that an article about a book should not have any information about the author of that book, but this is information which a reader of the article is likely to find informative and interesting. It is an obvious thing to have in the article. Tyrenius 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Boosterism
Morton, you have deleted material again, and left the edit summary "Wikipedia is not boosterism". There is no such thing in guidelines. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this? The information is referenced from a major publisher. It is relevant to the book if someone of note (which I understand the Jersey Girls are) says something of this nature about the book and its author. This is interesting and informative material for the reader. We are here to provide information, not censor it. You have complained that conspiracy theorists are intent on pushing a POV agenda on wikipedia, and I have agreed this is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to try to undermine any information or anything that is favourable to such theories. That is also POV. If you wish to participate in this article, perhaps you could help to find material to add to it. Tyrenius 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about a NY Times Book Review, or any review for that matter in a mainstream publication, it would be notable. Book jacket quotes are by their very nature subjective editorialisms, intended to promote the book -- hence "Boosterism".  Otherwise, they would not be placed on the book.  Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement is an official policy of long standing.  Morton devonshire 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the charge of boosterism borders on a charge of bad faith. In order for me to "advertising" the book, I would have to have some interest in promoting sales. I have done nothing to warrant that accusation. I am simply interested in determining the facts about this book's influence. In the process I've already learned several intersting things. Subsequent readers of this article will have an easier time.--Thomas Basboll 23:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do, however, agree that quoting the blurb tells us very little about the book other than who wants to see it succeed. That fact warrants mentions, though. I've changed the text accordingly.--Thomas Basboll 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Morton, you completely misunderstand policies and use this misunderstanding to remove material from the article. This is not helping wikipedia. Using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertisement is done by someone, as Basbol has pointed out, who has something to advertise. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any articles, as everything could be seen as advertising something; at least we would not have anything positive to say about anybody or organisation in any article. It doesn't apply to an wikipedian's editorial decision that there is a comment of significance to the subject. If it was a publisher's comment about the book, of course it would not be suitable for inclusion, but this is a comment by a third party, and the fact that a well-known person is prepared to say these comments is of significance. Please note the publisher's blurb has not been quoted. Tyrenius 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy I am referring to is WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically this section. The purpose of the policy is to prevent people from using Wikipedia to promote a work -- we are obliged by Wikipedia rules to objectively describe a subject, and not to engage in promoting a subject -- the Breitweiser quote is PR-promotional-speak, not real content.  Additionally, I've checked all of the citations in the article, and they all seem to cite directly to the book, or to some blog.  Please cite to the reliable source where Breitweiser makes the claim -- I don't see the secondary source that you keep referring to.  Lastly, why do you keep bringing up my original comment -- I meant no offense, but I apologized for offending you anyway, and do so again.  Morton devonshire 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see anything in the section you mention that is grounds for deleting the quote. The section is aimed at deterring biased editorial writing, which does not occur in this article, as far as I can see. It is not aimed at barring quotes from notable people which might happen to speak favourably about something. Your comment "the Breitweiser quote is PR-promotional-speak, not real content" is your POV. The fact is that Breitweiser has chosen to put her name to this statement. It is pertinent to the subject of the article. It doesn't matter where she said it. The fact is that she has said it. It then needs to be verified that it is accurate and reliable. If a major publisher (Harper Collins) has printed it, then this is a reliable source, unless you have evidence that they have fabricated the quote, and Breitweiser has not endorsed it.

Re. "some blog" as you term it, I have already gone to some length to show that someone's own site can be seen as a reliable source for information about that person and their views. I am referring to cooperativeresearch.org, which is credited with co-authorship of the book and with which Paul Thompson is significantly involved. If there is another "blog" you are referring to, which is being used to reference information incorrectly, please be specfic about that, so it can be discussed and, if necessary, removed.

My aim is to provide sound content to this (and any) article for the information and interest of the reader. NPOV demands a balanced representation of relevant views. If you feel the Breitweiser quote imbalances the article, then I suggest you find the viewpoints, which challenge this and which you consider are omitted, reference them and include them also. If I had found them, they would have been included already. I am not sure what you mean by my referring to your "original comment", but it may be something which I have specifically kept off this page and restricted to your user talk page, where it is best addressed.

Tyrenius 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an experienced Wikipedian, so I see where this is headed, and I don't want it to go there. I am going to disengage from you and the 2 articles for a week, let other editors work on the Thompson and Terror Timeline articles, and hope that things will calm down by then. Happy editing. Morton devonshire 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is only one place it is headed, as far as I am concerned, and that is to create an informative article in line with wikipedia policies. Tyrenius 22:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Ziads question and the deletion issue
The fellow is significant for an article, regardless what one thinks of him. Keep the article. Many Arab names are popular. So it is not surprising to find two or many more people with certain Forename and Surname combinations. Dogru144 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Theory or list of facts?
This page is included in Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks. I can’t speak to the printed book (The Terror Timeline), but if said book is just a printed copy of the website (The Complete 911 Timeline) then it is a list of very well supported information as reported the mainstream press, and not a theory. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 06:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The editor Morton Devonshire removed a number of statements that had been part of the article for some time. He removed the statement that Richard Clarke had assigned the book for his class on terrorism at Harvard University; this text was made part of the article following the editorial debate about the entire entry. He also removed the statement that a prominent author had assigned it at the University of Maryland. The author is John Newman a much consulted authority in the field. Both of these claims are verifiable at the Harvard and Maryland web sites, respectively. The Harvard text had a footnote that was made by a Wikipedia editor. He also deleted the World Cat sourced information that the book had been collected by many state and federal libraries. World Cat is a broadly respected tool of librarians and bibliographers (and also Wikipedians.) This individual is not competant to edit this article. The view that World Cat is unreliable or original research is nonsense. I ask that other Wikipedia editors be consulted.

TAKE A LOOK AT MORTON D's PROFILE!! You will see what he is up to!

What I am "up to" is ensuring that the article adheres to our quality standards -- the material I deleted fails our reliable source requirements and is original research according to Wikipedia policy. Morton devonshire 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I believe it should not be merged since its already been stated that 'The Terror Timeline' is deserving of its own article. The book has been the foundation of a website, used by the Attorney Generals Office, used by terrorism experts to teach others at Harvard, used as a basis for a movie, and published by a highly recognized publishing house. On top of that seperatly Paul Thompson has been regarded as a terrorism expert, called before Congress to testify on his knowledge, cited by Esquire in their "Genius Issue", is an established author who's work was published in a major publisher, and has participated in over 100 interviews on his personal research, only some of which went into the book, interview locations including Fox News and Air America. --Nuclear Zer0 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Terror Timeline is cited as a reference in Tom Fenton's book BAD NEWS: the Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to Us All(2005).


 * Paul Thompson isn't even a real person -- it's just a pen-name, and therefore inseperable from the book itself. In additon, the last Afd of the author's pseudonym resulted in a merge and re-direct.  Morton devonshire 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I adressed the issue of the last AfD, admins seem to believe you are wrong that it cannot be recreated. As for pen names they are allowed on Wikipedia unless you have proof otherwise. --Nuclear Zer0 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The library web of The Virginia Military Institute recommends THE TERROR TIMELINE with the following words... "This is an excellent comprehensive chronicle of what happened on 9/11." It is from the Preston Library, not The George C. Marshall Library, though both have strong national security collections.

The TERROR TIMELINE was assigned reading for the Fall 2006 semester for the Honors class titled "Counterterrorism"(HONR2790 section 0101) at The University of Maryland. It may be seen at the part of that institution's web site called "TESTUDO";this lists courses and assigned media(and is the name of the mascot,a turtle which is to be feared.)

The library of The Georgia State University lists THE TERROR TIMELINE as a "Suggested Resources: Books" under the category of "Homeland Security and Terrorism" on the research sction of its library web.

This book is recommended for 9/11 reading by The Sachem Library of Holbrook, New York.

A Jersey Girl
The Breitweiser quote seems gratuitous here. Should it be in the article at all? The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Goes to show notability, if you feel its too much for header, move to influence I guess. --Nuclear Zer0 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's on the jacket cover, so it's used to 'influence' sales of the book, not the other way around. Morton DevonshireYo  02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is. Still goes to show influence. You quoting some policy? If so please direct me to it, thank you. But items found in the jacket of a book are not banned from inclusion. The article is not suppose to read like a book sale, doesnt mean any item from the book cannot be included. Again please direct me toward the policy that you feel the item is violating. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. Morton DevonshireYo  18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesnt apply, the person giving the comment is notable and goes to show notability of the topic. Further its third party verifiable. Since articles need to establish notability, praise from notable people is permitted. Again, if you prefer to move it to "influence" feel free. Please be careful however not to remove items that go to secure the articles place on Wikipedia, by establishing things like verifiability and notability. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is about neutrality, not notability. Its purpose is to prohibit self-promotion, which is what this book jacket cover quote remains.  And I think you know this, but are adopting a contrary point of view as part of your "switcheroo" gamesmanship.  Morton DevonshireYo  00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to assume good faith, I find it disappointing that you cannot do this. Anyway, any quote that is positive cannot be argued to be WP:NOT#SOAP, the fact that someone notable stated that the author is notable, goes to show his notability. You still have not argued against this. Again, please be careful not to remove items that go to secure the articles place on Wikipedia, by establishing things like verifiability and notability. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)