Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Opinions: U.S. the target, "most lethal" attacks

I fixed two statements of opinion in the opening paragraphs.

Opinion: These were attacks on The United States of America. The fact is that these were attacks on targets within the U.S. Invoking the entire nation-state as the target is a political opinion that has no basis in fact.

Opinion: The Commission concluded that the hijackers "used [the planes] to execute the most lethal acts ever carried out in the United States." This also has no basis in fact. How does the author qualify this? It is best to avoid qualifiers like "most" "greatest" etc . . . in Wikipedia articles unless quoting another source. If the author is quoting the commission report directly, it should be represented as such.

-r33tr33t

See also

• Hijackers Talk
• Casualties Talk *US governmental response Talk
• Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Title & comma archive (Some felt the title should be changed, as it is grammatically incorrect. Others wanted the title to stay as-is. Consensus was not reached.)
• Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/"Terrorist" archive

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

Please keep this notice at the top of the page, right here, so people will see it more easily. A sitewide policy on the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is under discussion at Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). There is a truce on the words for this article. For details, see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/"Terrorist" archive. Maurreen

Clarification: The truce terms are roughly this: Keep the word "terrorist" in the first paragraph to give immediate concise information, leave in the couple of general references to "terrorist" (or variations of the word) and don't add any further description or labeling of the attacks or attackers as terrorist. Maurreen

Maurreen, It looks like the truce has been broken. The word terrorist is nowhere to be seen. Seriously, are there actually people who don't think the 9/11 attacks were terrorism?

I noticed it was changed on the 24th. I didn't know there was a truce. I have changed it back from operative to terrorist. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

They were terrorists, and nothing else. 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 - U.S. Candour?

What about the fact the administration allowed the attacks to continue as an excuse to attack the Middle East. Like the U.S. allowed Pearl Harbour attacks for an excuse to invade the eastern Asia’s and Japan.

-G

It is hard to measure "excuse", generally triggering a complicated soap-opera-like debate about implied motivations that is often influenced by one's personal political beliefs. Also, being an American, I can attest that many of us fealt real anger at the perpetrators and we were determined to find and punish the perpetrators and to prevent further similar or worse situations. The evidence that US planners "allowed" Perl Harbour to happen is still a unsettled issue, perhaps belonging under the "conspiracy theory" category.

OT: Pentagon + Boeing?

http://lepszyswiat.home.pl/bimi/pentagon.swf

I don't know what the hell exacly happened there, but can anyone explain this video to me? Ek8 23:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can tell you that there is absolutely no doubt what so ever in my mind that NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON 9/11. Or that the cause for the WTC collapses were controlled demolition: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html --xia

I, too, have questions about what struck the Pentagon. However, if it wasn't the aircraft the official account says it was, then we must wonder what happened to said aircraft. That's a lot of aircraft and people to make conveniently vanish.

Septegram 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I cannot believe that people believe our government would have perpatrated such a horrific incident. This isn't the X-files, and that video is completely one sided! If we don't trust our government, then this country begins to fall apart. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeriandros (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 December 2005

I disagree with the idea that "if we don't trust our government, then this country begins to fall apart." We should be able to trust our government, but we shouldn't do so blindly or just for the sake of orderliness. That said, I do agree that the idea that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks is just plain nutty. People like conspiracies, though. --Mr. Billion 01:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Responsibility... (needs a fix)

Thank you to all who have contributed to this extensive article; but can someone explain the logic behind the September 11, 2001 attacks#Responsibility section. I was reading through the article (start to finish) and the flow was drastically changed after the paragraph To date, no convictions have been made in association with the attacks. and then on start of Civil engineers and the official report concluded that the collapse of... -- can we have an explanation on why the collapse of the WTC is under the heading of RESPONSIBILITY???

Sorry if this question has been raised before, but it seems that the talk about the WTC collapse is totally inappropriate -- under the current heading of course -- and also, it be best to wrap up the section on financing (such as, Osama did or did not plan the attacks but financed-or not, the attacks). I'd do my part, but seems this article and issue(s) is far beyond this rookies scope. Hey, I may have just completely missed the point, either way, if I'm wrong or do have some logic in my concern, let me know. PEACE ~ RoboAction 07:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

WTC buildings were unadequately protected against fire and this contributed to the collapse. This should be moved to another article, although I believe that is still relevant. BTW someone has vandalised the site I would correct it myself but do not know how. It has yet to be proved that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. Further Al-Qaeda was only accused not found responsible of the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. --Courageous 09:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing on the news that Osama bin Laden did claim responsiblity for the attacks. I can't prove it, but I do remember this happening. It seemed like it was a longer period of time, but I can't remember exactly how long. Rt66lt 01:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Full Transcript of Bin Ladin's Speech". Aljazeera.net. 1 November 2004 (google cache here) says

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

and

"And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. "

Since bin Laden's earlier denials are featured prominently in the introduction, shouldn't this appear there as well? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious attacks?

Just clicked on this article and the first line reads...

The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of hilarious attacks carried out against the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Can someone please rectify this, I'm not sure how the article got to be this way but I wouldn't describe the attacks as hilarious.

<addendum> This article needs to be seriously edited... the titles of each section have all been changed to terms of racism.

There has been a lot of vandalism on this page today, it was reverted many times but somehow the bit about the 'hilarious attacks' was in one of the versions that others reverted to. This has been fixed, and the page has been locked now, so it will be protected against vandalism. --JoanneB 14:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I imagine there's also unreverted vandalism in the "Public response around the world" section, that's empty (I don't have time right now to check the article's history to see what it was like). RodC 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

That section seems to have always been empty. I'll remove it.-gadfium 20:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In Memorium

To the about three thousand folks, sixteen palm trees (in the Winter Garden), countless other living things, etc., that perished on 9/11/2001, I dedicate this section in your memory. Amen. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing lock?

I thought that this article was supposed to be locked against edits? Nick L. 21:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"All your Base are Belong to Us"

The transcript of the fourth flight, flight 93, is listed in quotes boxes as the transcript of All your base are belong to us. It may be hacked, since I couldn't find a way to edit it out. Looking at the edit page, the real article is underneath.

disappointing article for Wikipedia

There are two sides to every story and discerning, and writing, the truth takes great effort, but on reading this article my impression is that it falls disappointingly short of the judicious, evolved, balanced presentation of facts and theories that is the hallmark of a good article. Are people scared off by the controversy, by fear of the conspiracy theory label? There is no shortage of wild, easily debunked conspiracy theories out there, just as there is an abundance of disturbing, persistent questions about the official narrative. In brief, it didn't satisfy my search, sparked by reading a controversial article, and wondering "hmmm, what does good old Wikipedia have to say about this?".

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

You might look at 9/11 conspiracy theories before adding conspiracy theories on this page (which would undoubtably be reverted immediatley). I disagree that this page isn't balanced -- the truth is that none of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 tie together the known events as well as the "official" version. However, I encourage you to check out 9/11 conspiracy theories for a discussion of alternate theories, from the absurd to the mildly absurd.  ;-) --Quasipalm 16:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well sept 11 was a very disapionting time and i know i wasn't the only one who cryied.

Image:WTC7-B4-Colaps.gif

I have removed Image:WTC7-B4-Colaps.gif because:

1. Animation is inconsistent with Wikipedia Image use policy.
2. The image lacks Image copyright tags. --Aude 00:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Plane shot down theory

I have removed the newly added sentence saying that the fourth plane was shot down by the USAF and moved this claim to the 9/11 conspiracy page. There is not enough support, proof, or even murmer to add it to this main article. If it has not support at all it might be removed from the conspiracy page as well. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Collapse theories

"There has been much speculation on the 'performance' of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects and the relevant U.S. government agencies." Probably it is too much of a speculation (hence I have not edited anything yet), but since I read lots of reliable (!) technical information about this event, the main reason for the collapse ought to be fairly clear actually: HEAT. If you expose a steel construction to several thousand degrees celsius of heat emitted by that engine, even robust steel can fluidize and get a chemical consistency like lava. -andy 80.129.100.99 00:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We've had this debate quite a bit on other pages. Actually, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough for steel to melt -- however, steel doesn't actually have to melt to cause the buildings to weaken enough to collapse. So, in short, it was the initial impact damage (which some speculate blasted away fire-proofing on the steel supports), mixed with fuel and debris burning hot enough to weaken the surrounding structure until it finally gave way. There are sources on this on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page under in the links section that are skeptical of con. theories. (Some people actually think that the buildings were destroyed with explosives.) --Quasipalm 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I asked CTists on a few forums to cite a single structural or civil engineer or achitect who doubted the "official" explanation. They were only able to come up with three names. Two were engineers who said a few days after the attacks, that from what they saw on it TV looked like controlled demolition (CD). One [Romero] said he had been misunderstood, that it "looked" like CD not that he thought it was CD. There other [Shi] not been heard from since even though he is still teaching at the same University in China. David Heller who has a "Masters" degree in architecture from an unaccredited school that does not teach structural mechanics, wrote an article in which his ignorance is obvious. For example he he repeats the "the fires were not hot enough to MELT steel fallacy"

Even the engineer who designed the building accepts the findings of the ASCE.

Len

Fifth plane?

In the History Channel program "Grounded on 9/11" (which detailed the Air Traffic Control and United Airlines flight dispatcher involvement in the day's events, from the initial hijackings through the grounding of all commercial aircraft in U.S. airspace) there was mention of United flight 23 originating in Newark, which returned to the terminal before takeoff when the pilot was notified of the other hijackings. Several "unruly" men of middle-eastern appearance rushed off the aircraft, abandoning their baggage, which was later found to contain "Al Qaeda materials". Use of falsified IDs prevented their being identified.

More details appear in an account of United dispatcher Ed Ballinger's actions that day:

...Kirk is adamant that Ballinger did save the passengers and crew of United Flight 23, which on Sept. 11 was about to depart from Newark, N.J., to Los Angeles. Kirk believes Flight 23 was going to be commandeered.

Thanks to Ballinger's quick call, the flight crew told passengers it had a mechanical problem and immediately returned to the gate.

Later, Ballinger was told six men initially wouldn't get off the plane. Later, when they did, they disappeared into the crowd, never to return. Later, authorities checked their luggage and found copies of the Qu'ran and al-Qaida instruction sheets.

See also this entry from the "complete 9/11 timeline".

Can anyone provide further details and references for this "fifth plane" that appears to have been an aborted hijack? It should probably go in the main article if it can be confirmed...

-- Jhardin@impsec 03:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I just watched that program. They talked about Delta flight 1989, which took off from Logan at the same time as American 11 and United 175. Delta 1989 crossed paths with United 93 in Cleveland airspace, at the moment when the transponder for United 93 was turned off and a suspicious transmission was heard by air traffic controllers. ATC was unable to determine which plane the transmission originated from. The pilot of Delta 1989 then requested an emergency landing in Cleveland, raising the suspicions of officials. Delta 1989 eventually landed in Cleveland with SWAT units on scene. According to the history channel program, the "unruly" passenger turned out to be a man refusing to turn off his cell phone. That's the best I can do from memory. PK9 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not what I was referring to - note the before takeoff. I saw the show again and wrote down more of the admittedly sparse details this time, and have done some web searches. See the edits I made above...
-- Jhardin@impsec 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

They also mentioned a Singapore Airlines 747 jet in Alaska which apparently reported a hijack and was eventually escorted to a small airport in Canada by F16s. PK9 08:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

anti-Bush sentiment?

I don't like the assertion in the Alternative Theories section that "[t]here is a strong linkage between radical anti-Bush...sentiment and belief in alternative theories..." Wording of this is perjorative and not at all NPOV. It seems to imply by proximity that staunch opponents of the Bush administration are likely to believe unsubstantiated theories. I'm therefore removing that sentence.

-- Sacxpert 09:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three revert rule - Truth in our time

I would like to remind User:Truth in our time, User:Lamrock, User:Jimmywalter of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. If you continue to restore your additions despite being reverted by multiple other users you can be blocked. Please use this talk page to make your case and gain consensus for your changes. - Tεxτurε 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

See also James W. Walter...sockpuppet accounts may or may not be same as person in article, but the message is the same.--MONGO 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not know this James W. Walter person and do not see how his message is the same as mine. Truth in our time 09:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

fyi, 'Jimmy Walter' is a person in the 9/11 truth movement who, although perhaps with good intentions, tends to try to insert extremist claims, such as nuclear radiation being found at the site of the WTC, without scientific merit. Unfortunately, he has a great deal of money.Bov 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes to the introduction

The means employed by the hijackers, and their surprising efficiency, are, I think, of a paramount importance in order to understand what ensued.

Obviously, it is humiliating for a country like the United States, always ready to mock or invade smaller countries, to see that hundreds of their fellow countrymen and women were subdued by a handful of people armed with box cutters. This humiliation called for some decisive political action — and president George W. Bush did a dramatic U-turn on foreign policy (he had been elected on an isolationist platform, denouncing Bill Clinton's using the military to try to establish democracy etc. in distant countries; now, that's exactly what he pretends to be doing, big time). I don't think it is possible to understand recent US politics and foreign policies without the above elements.

Since this is a very important issue, it should be reflected in the introduction. I understand that some nationalistic "POV-pushers" are out there to remove such unsavory details, but we should not accept such censorship.

(I had to file a complaint for a bogus "3-revert blocking", by the way.) Truth in our time 09:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Bogus" blocking performed, along with the "Rfc" are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Golbez. Clearly, you performed an initial edit, followed by 4 reverts of essentially the same material, was subsequently blocked after being reverted by at least 3 different editors and upon the return from the block, proceeded to reinsert essentially the same material.--MONGO 09:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I contend that the fourth alleged "revert" was not a revert, since it heeded the comments by other editors. And, yes, I think this material should be inserted, as demonstrated by my talk message, and I do not approve of you, with the help of a friendly administrator, trying to censor it.

But we are here to discuss the contents of the article, not the RfC. Until you bring convincing arguments why this information shouldn't be in the introduction, I'll consider that you're trying to impose your political point of view, and act accordingly. Truth in our time 09:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Referring to unarmed civilians as "surrendering" is ridiculous...box cutters or not, evidence shows the terrorist also claimed they had bombs, which certainly put a damper on any possible atempts to retake the planes initially. Passnegers had no idea they were going to hit the WTC towers until it happened...they couldn't see out the front of the planes afterall. Claiming that the U.S. was "humiliated" is also POV on it's face and has no business in this article.--MONGO 10:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You make the interesting comment that the unarmed civilians aboard the planes did not know (at least, not until it was too late to act) that the airplanes would be used as fuel bombs. This is probably true. Instead, they just did what was expected of passengers (at the time) in hijacking attempts — that is, not resist. That's called surrendering. See on dict.org: to give up one's self into the power of another; to yield.

The United States was also humiliated, that's evident (and is also reflected in a wide variety of commentaries, just go on Google). And it definitely has business in this article, for this humiliation explains the following policies of bravado and invasion pursued by the United States in the following years. Truth in our time 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, at least 3 editors feel that your data was not in compliance with WP:NPOV and that is why it was reverted. In the extreme liklihood that similar edits of such nature are also going to be seen as a violation of neutrality, you may wish to pursue an Rfc on said comments, achieve a consensus for the inclusion of such material, and then you'll have that to back it up. Your useage of the words "surrender" and "humiliated", along with the curious manner of the rest of the sentences don't add much to the article aside from appears to be an attempt to insult. Perhaps an Rfc on the wording should be the route you should take.--MONGO 10:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that "the U.S. was humiliated"? First, how can humiliation be proven or empirically talked about - it's an internalized *feeling*. The most you can objectively say is that "x says s/he's humiliated". Secondly, and more importantly, how is a *nation* humiliated? Who was humiliated? Do you mean that more than 50% of the population felt humiliated? I wasn't humiliated. None of my friends were humiliated. I don't recall any polls of people reporting they were humiliated. Perhaps you mean that U.S. leaders were humiliated? If so, please show their quotes reporting this. I think the only thing that can be objectively said here is that *you* personally think that the U.S. was humiliated.

Revert war

Neither of the two versions are complete, we should set up a temp page, craft a consensus version, and then move to the main page. Stirling Newberry 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative theories

Sections I don't like from Alternative theories of 911:

Because of the gaps, omissions and speculations in the public record, and because of political preferences, there are groups that actively promote the theories of the 911 attacks which vary significantly from the most widely believed narratives.

1. The expression "because of [...] political preferences" makes me think that the writer wants me to believe that who supports these theories is always politically biased.
2. Why do we speak about "groups"? There are also single individuals which write books to promote this theories.

These theories generally rest on evidence which has been (scientifically?) debunked, such as erroneous theories of the collapse of the Twin Towers. However, gaps within the public record, the lack of explanation for particular details, contradictions which have later come to light, including revelations of Able Danger, continue to fuel speculation.

1. Really "these theories rest on evidence... such as..."? Why can't we think that these false "evidences" are not essential to these theories? It looks like the writer (using the word "rest") wants me to believe that these theory are false because rest on falsehoods.
2. And what about the word "generally"? The writer says that "these theories generally rest on ...". The use of the word "generally" makes me think that the writer wants me to believe that such theories are almost always connected with these "evedences" in order to make them look less believable.

--Pokipsy76 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the wording of the section should follow along the lines of:

These theories have not been accepted by the investigative, scientific and or engineering communities because all the known evidence which was collected does not support the hypothesis presented by the theories. Like other scientific studies done on Bigfoot, UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster, there appears to be little or no credible evidence to support the psuedo-science presented.

That would look and sound better, I think.--MONGO 17:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any scientific community taking position about 119. Science has nothing to do with politics.--Pokipsy76 17:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There certainly are well-respected individuals in the scientific community that have publicly said that 9/11 conspiracy theories are nonsense. 9/11 wasn't just a political event. --Quasipalm 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if it's true it would be a personal opinion having nothing to do with the scientific knowledge of these individuals. --82.53.169.101 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Speculations and alternative theories

When it's written:

These theories generally rest on evidence which has been contested by most experts in the scientific, engineering, and journalistic community.

is not clear what the writer is referring to (what kind of evidence???). I think someone who knows what it is referred to should attach some explanation.

--Pokipsy76 18:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

9/11 Television Archive

There used to be a page that archived the television coverage of 9/11. You could just choose a channel and watch the news. Do you have any idea where it has gone? Lapinmies 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

20th hijacker

This section kind of makes a lot of assumptions - where is the proof of all this? simon 22:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

343 NYC Firefighters plus one

I see there is some protocall for editing this page, so I hope it's ok that I made this change to the article. The reference to 343 firefighters dying in the attack on the WTC is a commonly misquoted figure. It is actually 343 New York City firefighters because the figure does not include Kieth Roma, a member of New York City Fire Patrol who also died in responding to the attack. Fire Patrol, which predates the official fire department is an independant org sponsored by insurance companies. They have (I believe) three firehouses in NYC, including two in Manhattan. The following is the text that I have changed to make this correction, with additions marked here in brackets: "including 343 [New York City] firefighters, 23 New York City police officers, 37 Port Authority police officers, [and one member of New York City Fire Patrol], in the WTC;" EGregory 14:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see that the change above was stricken from the article. Does anyone know why? To leave this firefighter off the list of fatalities seems unfair just because he was not a member of the FDNY. You could say "344 firefighters..." but then you run into the problem of everyone thinking it's an error, since 343 is the known number that sticks in everyone's minds. --EGregory 15:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who deleted the reference to Fire Patrol or why. I don't see where this change is made on the history page. But if you need documentation, here's some: http://www.silive.com/september11/lr/index.ssf?/september11/lr/roma.html If you need more, just google "Keith Roma." EGregory 17:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Memorials

Several memorials are discussed in this artcile. Of course there are many more around the world, particularly in the communities surrounding Manhattan where many of the dead had lived. Perhaps there should be a page where these memorials can be listed. For example:

-- "Postcards," Staten Island, NY -- Architect Masayuki Sono designed this memorial on the St. George waterfront overlooking New York Harbor. The monument consists of twin white monoliths that bend apart like doves' wings. Between them are plaques dedicated to the 258 Staten Islanders lost on September 11, 2001. Each plaque bears a silouette designed to resemble the honoree. Standing between the wings of the monument, one looks out over the harbor at the site of the missing towers. Ground broken, September 11, 2003; dedicated, September 11, 2004.

I also read about the following in the Staten Island Advance ("Going Up and Across," an article about the Bayonne Bridge, Wed., Oct 19, 2005) "...in Mayor Dennis Collins Park. The park houses a monument to Sirius, a four-year-old golden retriever who perished in the Sept. 11th attacks. There's even a dog run there, welcoming canines from New York and New Jersey."

--EGregory 14:00, October 21, 2005 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition as a "claim"

• I have added

  {{totallydisputed}}

  because controlled demolition is no longer a claim, it is a widely accepted view that should be listed as a fact. If you can prove how a building can fall in 8.4 seconds without the use of explosives then YOU WILL get ONE MILLION US DOLLARS: http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm
• This should, in my view, be enough to argue the current version on the page is disputed. If you can prove that controlled demolition should not be given as the explanation for how the buildings fell, then you will not only prove this article is not disputed, you will also get one million dollars. But I bet you can't, now can you?
• http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051026163300114
• http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html
• http://www.terrorize.dk/911/#wtc.1.demolition
• http://www.terrorize.dk/911/#wtc.2.demolition

This is so outlandish that it is a shame that it requires a response. None of the sites listed have any credibility in the real world. Serious researchers do not try to prove a negative because it is not possible. It is a trick of false logic. The "reward" is similar to a classic huckster con game. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, there is no chance the reward will be given unless you take the matter into civil court.

Arguing with a conpspiracy theorist is like trying to toilet train a badger. It annoys the badger, and you get covered in crap. --Cberlet 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I second Cberlet's comments.--MONGO 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I second Mongo's seconds. --Quasipalm 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

On the topic, I just reverted a conspiracy theory related edit by User:142.179.143.133. I'm surprised it went undetected for 4 whole minutes as I'm not really that quick on the draw. Keep an eye out for repeated interjections of theory on this article, as they may stem from the same source. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

s/terrorists/fundamentalists/

In the first paragraph it refers to the hijackers as terrorists, well that could be said of 2 of the 4 sets of hijackers but the third plane at least hit a military target. I don't know if that's a direct quote or not, but it's inaccurate. The second thing is the "among the most signficant events..." line should be qualified with a reason to why such a relatively small loss of life should be such a significant event outside the US. So Ill make a couple of changes, please discuss...

It is the largest single loss of life from one terrorists attack "plan" in world history and they all happened in just a couple of hours. I think that sums it up.--MONGO 03:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The line in the article is not "among the most significant terrorist attacks..." it's "events" , and events that include the deaths of hundreds of thousands (I know, mostly non-americans but still). So I would be happy to change the line to "among the most significant terrorist attacks" otherwise I still prefer the qualification.

Combine sections

The article has two sections covering the same general topic "Collapse of Towers" and "Collapse of World Trade Center." This should be consolidated into one section. I simply do not have the time to do it now. Can we get someone to take that on? RonCram 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Death count

Someone should look at this edit [1] by an anon. I don't know it it's true also check the figure on List of wars and disasters by death toll and in the info box on the page. I don't know which number is right. More people should be keeping an eye on such a high profile article. Broken S 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

September 11 Wiki

I don't know if this was mentioned anywhere... but we have a dedicated a September 11 wiki: sep11:In Memoriam. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Total killed

Curious as to if anyone knows the exact number of fatalities...this edit [2] indicates that the number mention includes the number of hijackers in the total, yet I always thought that the number listed traditionally as the total included everyone except the terrorists.--MONGO 00:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is User:Patsw bandying about inaccurate figures of the 9/11 death toll? It is way above the offical toll - on this wikipedia article the death toll reads "The official count records 2,986 deaths" You have quote the right-wing Daily Telegraph with a figure of 4,537 people -max rspct 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Photographs

I'm a lazy ass, but damn the placement of images in this article is a disservice to the entire Wiki...can somebody please use gallery view, left-based thumbs, anything and everything to clean them up? I would love you forever. Fondly yours, Sherurcij 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Bodenstein?

In Motive, the paragraph beginning "The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animus towards..." has a quote from Ralph Bodenstein. Where is this quote from? And who is he, anyway? What qualifications does he have to be quoted in the article? Without a source for the quote and an explanation of who he is, it seems that the sentence should be removed. Objections?

Terrorists verses soldiers?

Very POV and a big shame that this article has sat in wikipedia with such an inaccurate, loaded and POV term.

EVIDENCE OF REUTERS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DIFFICULTY IN USING WORD TERRORIST :

"Do not forget the infamous words of the Reuters News Service after 9/11, when they announced they were not going to use the word 'terrorist' to define the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center because 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,'" he says, quoting the news service. (from the American Family Association website[3]) ..taken from what I guess is a right-wing/pro-us gov website.. but used to illustrate that even Reuters had problems with the word terrorist. -max rspct 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay Max, but how is calling them "soldiers" not even more POV? Soldiers are recognized by a a recognized government...are you suggesting that a recognized government sent these guys to hijack planes and attack purely economic and military targets? Reuters is merely a news agency and regardless of their seeming ambiguity, I never saw them refer to the hijackers as soldiers.--MONGO 16:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the non-neutral viewpoint is to imply some sort of moral equivalence, as if we said in 1939 "war has broken out on the German-Polish border." I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'even Reuters,' but I suspect I might mean something different if I said that.

I think truce has worked well. We should continue to abide by its terms. I also urge you not to keep reverting. I count four reverts in a few hours, unless I'm mistaken. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of terrorists is so obviously bias.. I don't know how u get away with it. Where is consensus on truce? was it voted on as well?? -max rspct 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the term "operatives" also misleading? It suggests again to me that the hijackers had the endorsement of a recognized government.--MONGO 16:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Max rspct, clearly we all feel strongly about this, but please don't use the edit summary for personnal attacks. Alleging bias is not helpful. Please assume that we're all working in good faith. Again, let me remind you about the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 is a case where there's strong consensus (not just WP:Consensus) that the acts were terrorism. There may be some news agencies that prefer to use other terms, but most do refer to the attacks as terrorism. Using the term "soldier" or "operative" implies that the hijackers had some sort of official backing. Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So you would call any operative/agent/soldier/guerilla who fights against an government or state as a terrorist? Al Qu'ada had the backing of Afganistan government at the time (or one could argue he and Taliban were trained by cia if u wanna go down that route). Use of 'terrorists' IS POV as the term has so obviously been viewed as such by academics and the worlds foremost internation press agency Reuters. On the question of reverts - I think it is YOU Tom Harrison who should lose his admin privilages for defending such biasness.

A CHUNK FROM WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON Media Bias: "..The best example of this bias is the use (or avoidance) of the word "terrorist". Most mainstream media will not use this word, opting instead for less accusatory synonyms. For example, a 2005 memo to the staff of the CBC states:

Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.

In a widely criticized episode, initial online BBC reports of the 7 July 2005 London bombings identified the perpetrators as terrorists, in contradiction to the BBC's internal policy. But by the next day, Tom Gross and many others noted that the online articles had been edited, replacing "terrorists" by "bombers".

Even more subtle is the preference of the word "terrorist" in one context, not another. For example, searching the CBC web site, the string "Palestinian suicide" was used 14 times more frequently than the string "palestinian terrorist", but "Al Qaeda suicide" was 23 times less frequent than "Al Qaeda terrorist" (in contradiction to the memo cited above). Clearly, CBC editors want their readers to judge these acts differently, depending on the origin of the people targeted for killing. This particular word bias is not unique to the CBC, but can also be found in many western news source.

Another example of language bias would be using the phrase "freedom fighters" instead of "insurgents." The former phrase creates an image of a noble struggle, while the latter is more neutral."

Please note that I am not advocating the use of term 'freedom fighters' -max rspct 16:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ps Although I am amiable, co-operative and have good intentions, I have finished with assuming you are operating in good faith .. because u are threatening me with a block over the removal of clear POV bias. -max rspct 17:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See> Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

Addendum: I have read the 'terrorist' archive - It seems all the voting (bar one very close vote) went against those who wanted terrorism in the article. You have obviously been pushed back to a 'truce' - but this was dependent on a "sitewide policy". But since this has not been developed or applied ..the truce must come to an end on this. I have requested comment and am close to reporting administrators for 'admin abuse' -max rspct 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Max, the "threat" of a block is merely a reminder that there is a rule, WP:3RR which clear states that it is a violation to perform more than 3 reverts of the same or similar content to the same article in a period of less than 24 hours. The rule is there to help people disengage from edit wars, not to bury your contributions. The hijackers of the planes that were subsequently flown into the those targets are most closely defined as terrorists. If they were soldiers, they would have had the sanction of a recognized government. If they were operatives, they may of may not have had the same endorsement, but I've never seen that word used in the latter sense. If they were freedom fighters, then whose freedom were they fighting for...Palestine? I've never read that the Palestinians sponsored the attacks. Now had they flown their own planes into the U.S. and struck the towers and pentagon, the definition of soldiers may possibly be more accurate, but the fact it that they hijacked domestic airlines, kidnapped those aboard, murdered them when they flew the planes into their targets, and killed primarily civilians (non combatants} with their actions...this fits the definition of terrorism, regardless of the attempts by Reuters et al to avoid using the word.--MONGO 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're just giving me a deluge of your own POV. USA has been killing non-combatants all over the world. It wants to bomb Al-Jazeera because it doesn't agree with what those civilians are broadcasting. We aren't allowed to call them terrorist. The bond dealers were part of the economic stucture of US economy.. and your not going to argue that those in the Pentagon were not legitimate targets? By US governments own definitions of structural/economic targets AND it's own views on collateral damage..This "declaration of war" was most a legitimate action according to actions/terms already practiced by US forces outside the borders of USA. -max rspct 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to cut and paste the UN definition of terrorism here for easy reference for you:

• While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism [4], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). [5]

• UN short legal definition, also proposed by A.P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime." [6]

• In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." [7]

MONGO 17:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Max rspct, I'm not an admin, and have no more privileges here than you. I reported you for violating the three-revert rule. It's no more reasonable to take that report as evidence of bad faith on my part than it would be to take violation of the rule as evidence of bad faith on yours. I don't doubt that you're working with the best of intentions to improve the article. You will be more likely to succeed if you refrain from personnal attacks. Besides making reasoned discussion more difficult, they make others question the substance of your argument; as does mere repeated assertion. If the use of the word terrorist were obviously non-neutral there would not be so many pages of discussion.

I do call the men terrorists who hijacked passanger airliners and flew them into the world trade center. That seems to me consistent with the Definition of terrorism, and with the key criteria identifying terrorists. Still, I don't think it's appropriate to use the term more than necessary for a facutal presentation.

I can't help thinking that much the same thing, on both sides, has been said by others. The result was inconclusive, hence the truce (which was before my time, so I speak subject to correction). I'm not sure what's gained by recapitulating it all here when we can read it in the archives. I would be surprised if the outcome were less inconclusive if we did it all again. Unless there is new information, I support abiding by the terms of the truce. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The UN is not an unbias source. The last paragraph can apply to ALL wars. E.g terror bombing of dresden, carpet bombing of cambodia and vietnam, Phoenix Program, bombing of Serbian bridges during Kosova campaign was intended to destroy infrastructure and serbian morale (civilians too) as stated by Wesley Clark and had nothing to do with stopping Serbian Paramilitary and ethnic cleansing.......I can go on but I have to go - I am talking here to US editors who obviously have an too much emotional attachment and POV on this subject. And waddya mean Reuters (and BBC etc for that matter) doesn't count in the assesment of media bias and usage of term terrorists. I strongly diagree that the vote was inconclusive ... what is your problem?? -max rspct 17:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The actions of the hijackers is in concert with the UN definitions of terrorist.--MONGO 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the UN is constantly redefining the definition of terrorist. I prefer academic sources -max rspct 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, please cite some scholars, aside from Ward Churchill, who referred to the workers in the Twin Towers as "little Eichmanns"...what scholars would refute the UN definition and if so, what definition do they describe as best characterizing the actions of the hijackers?--MONGO 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Soldiers??? Excuse me "Max rspct", but I was a soldier. The perpetrators of 9/11 were no soldiers, as any veteran can tell you. Rearden Metal 23:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to request for comment I will be very candid. My nearest relative worked on a high floor of the World Trade Center. He was one of the very last to escape. Most of the people from his office are no longer alive. I joined the United States Navy because of this and am now a war veteran. The idea that this could even be a subject for debate astounds me.

That day's events were terrorism in the truest sense. The World Trade Center, where the bulk of the lives were lost, was a set of civilian office buildings. This bears no resemblance to collateral damage of a military attack. No other location in New York City was targeted even though the city hall, courts, and police buildings were mere blocks away. The perpetrators hijacked civilian airliners, another classic terrorist act. This cannot be compared to wartime atrocities. The perpetrators were not soldiers and the United States was at peace.

I find it stunning that anyone would contest the term terrorist as applied to those nineteen perpetrators. If you wish to criticize United States foreign policy there are many productive ways to do so. As a member of that democracy I vote. I contact my elected representatives. I write to newspapers. I do not always agree with my government's choices. However, it takes a great act of personal restraint to read any further when someone begins by excusing an act of mass murder. The attempt to use this article as a platform for some political agenda is deeply misguided. It is in extraordinarily poor taste. Max rspct, as one human being to another, I ask you to stop. Durova 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh how high? I think most of the comments above show that US editors are dominating this page and obviously have an emotional or mental health interest in keeping this page bias and riven with POV. I am not here to offload criticism but to remove biasness from the article. Again I ask - where is evidence that a 'truce' is in operation and where is consensus or vote on it? From what I can see voting has been solidly against use of the word terrorist. -max rspct 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to withdraw that insinuation. It is highly disrespectful. Durova 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To call nineteen men who hijacked civilian airliners and flew them into civilian buildings "terrorists" is not POV, it is common sense. After all, if this act was not terrorism, than the word itself has no meaning, for this action surely fulfills any available definition of terrorism. They were not soldiers, for they were not members of any recognised state's army (and identifiable as such, the Geneva Conventions are clear on that), and they were not operatives either for the same reason. They were, in short, extra-state individuals targetting large numbers of civilians in order to cause terror and influence an audience, and so they are terrorists. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Durova, Tom Harrison and MONGO on this issue. — Impi 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! Where am INSINUATING what??! >>Again I ask - where is evidence that a 'truce' is in operation and where is consensus or vote on it? -max rspct 13:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't "shout" at other editors. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't vote on everything. Carbonite | Talk 13:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, answer my questions on the truce and votes then. -expain and justify. I don't wish to replace terrorists with word soldiers...Although it is arguable.. But I think there a qualitative difference is seen between 9/11 and, say the London bombings - which really were targeted at civilians/those using public transporation system. To argue that the 9/11 attacks were aimed at civilians and not the military-industrial complex and economy of the US is wrong. (p.s for those that see it as an issue - i am ex-soldier myself and brought up in military family so there!) -max rspct 13:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Kindly cease spouting such Ward Churchill-esque bullshit. Were the people in the hijacked aircraft and WTC towers civilians or not? Clearly, according to any objective definition they were, and so the attacks were terrorism. I actually find your comment all the more sickening for me personally because I lost a friend in that attack, are you now going to tell me that he was somehow a legitimate target? As if you could even define attacking the WTC towers as "attacking the US economy" - by that measure ANY attack on civilians is justified because terrorist attacks harm a country's economy, so would you be willing to support that? As for consensus, take a look around, you're being opposed by no less than four editors. Now, 4-1, in plain speak, means consensus is against you. — Impi 16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Go vent spleen somewhere else. STOP SWEARING AT ME! Keep your emotion to yourself. As for the civilians, collateral damage in the cold, hard terms that the United States military have set out already. Are you going to label US Airforce as a terrorist organisation? no ... think about it. It is known that US government wanted to bomb Al Jazeera because it didn't conform to it's own view of whats actually happening in Iraq, Afganistan and the rest of the world. What about all the collateral damage in Iraq etc. And don't tell me those in charge aren't aware of the risks to civilians. Who is terrorizing who? Who should be labelled terrorist? They are insurgents if pro-american (yea don't forget that Taliban and Osama B have been connected to and funded by successive US governments). I am not trying to justify 9/11, I just want fairness in the reporting of world events. I know there are 4 american editors with very strong points of view on this - perhaps they should't be editing this? is there any chance of unbiasness?? Please answer my questions (anybody) regarding the truce and voting... or shall I start pointing things out myself? -max rspct 19:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Max, I know nothing about any truce in regards to the use of the word terrorist. I do know that, according to the UN "approved" definition of terrorist that the actions of the hijackers on 9/11 fit that description. No better alternatives have been mentioned.--MONGO 19:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Max, I'm not American, not that it matters to you of course. Besides, since when does the nationality of editors mean anything? Furthermore, if you cannot comprehend the distinction between intentionally targetting civilians and collateral damage, then there is little point in continuing to debate you. — Impi 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And my uncle is an engineer who spent part of his career in Saudi Arabia designing air conditioning systems for mosques. Not that it matters to some people. There are legitimate citations in defense of the present wording. The one editor who opposes the majority cites POV OR. Wikipedia policy excludes such material. Someone posted a request for comment and the editors here have gotten it. I wish you well. Durova 00:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's way too much sentiment in this discussion. Which is a logical result of the severity of what happened. But that should be kept out of the discussion. The question is whether the word 'terrorist' is pov. I've had similar discussions about words like 'regime'. In that case, there's a clear definition, namely the implementation of a form of government (irrespective of who is in government at one moment - the cabinet or administration as that is called). Still, one never hears of a 'democratic regime'. So the term may be neutral, but usage isn't. In the case of terrorism, there isn't even a proper definition, as illustrated by the fact that the UN can't agree on one. I've even heard that the reason for that is that every time they think they've got one, it turns out that it also applies to the US, and of course we can't have that. :) (Is there any truth in this, by the way?) Another issue that has come up in the Netherlands is that by most definitions the underground during WWII was a terrorist organisation. And of course we can't have that either. The problem is that the term 'terrorist' is never used in a positive way. So it is a pov term and should be avoided. Which brings me to what alternatives there are. 'Attacker' is an obvious one. Any other suggestions? DirkvdM 14:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

as a visitor from the RfC list, here's my 2 cents. i agree with dirk above, "terrorist" is too ill-defined & unevenly applied a term for an encyclopedia or reference publication. i would also use "attacker" or "hijacker." Appleby 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As one who has done the bulk of work on the actual individual biographies of the 19 over the past year, I must agree that "terrorist" is a laden term, and I have always sided with "hijacker". That said, max's claims about operative/agent/soldier are not logical, nor is his claim that Al Qu'ada had the backing of Afganistan government at the time (or one could argue he and Taliban were trained by cia if u wanna go down that route). for two reasons. Firstly, none of the hijackers had anything to do with the ruling Afghanistan government, none of them even ever met with government agents. They most certainly were not agents of the government, nor operatives, nor soldiers. They acted 'alone' with the guidance of their own group. (Al Qaeda was not even a term they used, it comes from a brief message that referred to "the base" (Al Qaeda, in Arabic), and the US legal need for a "named criminal organization" to prosecute bin Laden in absentia. As per the second point, none of the 19 had anything to do with the CIA's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war, and even bin Laden himself indirectly received funding, not training during that time. In short, I disagree with Mongo, but not nearly as much as I disagree with max. The term "hijacker" is the way to go. Sherurcij 10:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hijacker connotates that one or more persons seize an airplane and essentially kidnap all aboard and then force the pilots to take them somewhere at which point the kidnapped persons are either released freely, held for ransom and then released, held for ranson and then murdered or simply murdered. I have not known of a situation in which any previous hijacker or group thereof, not only seized an airplane and kidnapped it's occupants, but then took over the actual flying of the airplane themselves and then used the planes as missles, deliberately intending to inflict massive casualties on targets of opportunity. The 19 "hijackers" are far more than mere hijackers...they are terrorists and there is nothing loaded about the useage of this term to designate their actions by any stretch of the imagination....no other word more closely or accurately describes the their actions...terrorism. This article is about the events of 9/11, not the bombing of Cambodia, not Hiroshima, not the fire bombing of Dresden. If folks wish to label those actions as terroristic in those articles, then be my guest, but to call the actions of the 19 hijackers anything other than terroristic and them as terrorists is completely POV.--MONGO 11:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two different claims being made here:

• The words terrorist and terrorism cannot be defined and therefore should not appear in any Wikipedia article.

• The words can be defined and should therefore appear in Wikipedia articles. However, the men who seized four aircraft on 9/11, three of which reached their intended targets, and one of which was prevented by passengers from doing so, are not terrorists according to this (unstated) definition.

The words themselves (despite the reluctance of Reuters to use them) exist and have a common meaning in English and specifically as used by mainstream media and the United States government to refer to 9/11. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter is a cliche and not an argument. A person whose personal dictionary has a blank page where terrorist should appear is in a reality-denying bubble.

Both the victims and the organization that claimed responsibility for the attack acknowledge that non-combatants were killed to to attempt influence national policy and public opinion, i.e. terrorism. If this wasn't the intent, what was? A complaint against the quality of airline food? patsw 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

All political correctness aside, the UN does essentially support a definition of terrorism as delineated above in this thread. The actions of the 19 hijackers do indeed fit within the parameters of that definition. I won't sugar coat comparative analogies in which we all say that well, if the actions of the 19 hijackers is terrorisms, then so is the actions of the U.S. in Cambodia during the Vietnam War...as I mentioned, if that definition also fits U.S. actions, then it should be used in those articles. What we are discussing here are the actions of the 19 hijackers and the best fit in terms of a definition of their actions on 9/11 is terrorism.--MONGO 21:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? good luck trying to add "terrorism" to articles on u.s. actions in the past. since that's not gonna happen, that means the word ends up being applied unevenly, in a POV way. no doubt 9/11 was terrorism in some sense, but other actions that are terrorism in the SAME sense do not get called terrorism. the word is fine in many contexts, but i think best practice for encyclopedias is to avoid such effectively POV descriptions. Appleby 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a point of view that the intention and action of the 19 was to kill civilians and strike at symbols of American (and the West's) power and prestige. Please understand how the Wikipedia works: one article at a time gets edited. If you have a problem with other actions in another article, discuss it there. A policy that would apply across all articles would be proposed and discussed elsewhere as well. patsw 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't mean just other wikipedia articles, i mean the word as is actually used. if "intention and action to kill civilians and strike at symbols of power and prestige" of another is "terrorism," then there's a whole lot of textbooks, history books, news articles, encyclopedias, etc. that need to be rewritten. until then, that's not what the word, in reality, is used to describe. Appleby 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsw, your two arguments to move this discussion elsewhere are valid in theory but a bit lame in practise. You know that the US involvement in Vietnam will never get the label terrorism. So, however valid your argument, the result will be out of balance. And discussing general rules should in the end indeed be done in general sections, but there's nothing wrong with discussing them in particular instances and since this is the best known example of what is often labelled terrorism this talk page is as good as any. DirkvdM 10:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going oppose a changing of the word "terrorists" to "attackers" or something similar. This is despite still being in absolute disagreement with Max rspct's outrageous claims. I also still have absolutely no doubt that the 9/11 attackers were terrorists according to any real definition of the word. I believe it would be POV to not refer to these men as terrorists, and I further believe that each individual debate over the use of the word should be argued at each article's Talk page, as is meant to happen. Still, if there is a sitewide effort to avoid certain words, once again I won't oppose it. — Impi 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, the word terrorist is defined sufficiently for the United States government to create the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and to have people recognize what it means. Your argument is with the United States government on their usage of the word not with me as an editor.

DirkvdM, your speculation as to my knowledge of the eventual characterization the role of the United States in the Vietnam War in the Wikipedia is irrelevant. This article does not need "balance". There is no morally neutral "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" with respect to the 19 men who killed themselves and 2,967 others as if those 2,967 in some way deserved to die. patsw 00:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is privatized warfare. Governments traditionally have a monopoly on democide, so naturally becomes defensive when free enterprise encroaches on their domain. I do not advocate violence in any form. I become angry when I hear about "terrorist acts", just as I become angry when I hear about "collatoral damage". People are people, and they die the same, whether they are civilians or soldiers. Killing is inexcusable regardless of who is doing the killing. I would cast my vote here, in favor of using a more balanced term than "terrorist", but I recognize this isn't a democracy. At least we all have a voice here. Aaronwinborn 03:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC: It's my opinion that the word terrorists should be used. User:Impi gave some very good reasons above. What the US has done or not done is irrelevant to whether the 9/11 attacks were committed by terrorists; whatever the goals of the 9/11 attackers, their actions and methods were terroristic in nature. In my opinion, to say that those who have committed acts of terror are not terrorists because of the country they attacked is blatantly POV.

Additionally, above that list of reasons not to use the word terrorism is a list of reasons for the use the word terrorism. I don't know how to put the link in here, but all you have to do is scroll up from the link provided. KathL 18:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents:And one note, above I believe the memo on bombing Al-Jazeera was mentioned. But it does not appear that the U.S. actually was going to bomb them and no credible news source is taking it seriously. No to move on, terrorist is a perfectly fine term, when used to describe someone who perpetrated an act of terrorism. I quote oure own article ""Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life." Those people were terrorists. It was a target against U.S. citizens not the Government. That said, hijacker is just as neutral of a term. Soldier is definetly not, as they represent no army and never had. Falphin 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is this section for the Request For Comment posted November 28? Because it should have been so labled. Anyway... of course they were terrorists. Don't be silly. Couple points:

- Terrorist is not a pejorative. Hell, the old Russian SR, the Anarchists, etc. -- they were proud to be called terrorists. Many many people feel that terrorism is a valid tactic if it's for a good cause and you don't have the resources for other approaches. These guys were terrorists, and they were good terrorist -- they were effective and successful. Why take that away from them?

- Terror was these guy's objective. They didn't want to bring down the towers for material reasons, to make the US be out the cost of replacing the towers etc. They didn't do it for revenge, or for thrills, or by mistake, or whatever. Fomenting fear and terror was the point. Terrorist: "Terror" and "-ist", one who uses, makes, or does. Like, say, "Guitarist" or "Copyist" or whatever. ("-ist" can also mean "one who believes in" as in "Communist" etc., but that not what it means in terrorist, in this case anyway.) Copyist = one who makes copies. Terrorist = one who makes terror. It's just simple English word formation.Herostratus 09:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well of course they should be called "terrorists". They even admitted and are proud to do it, the bastards. According to Merriam-Webster: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" [8]. Henceforth, they should be called it becuase they qualify as the definition of "terrorist". --^KILO-^LIMA 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

bin Laden's point of view on bin Laden and the September 11, 2001 attacks

The UK Daily Telegraph reported on 11 November 2001 [9]

Osama bin Laden has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.

I hope this answers the question for everyone on the usage of terrorist in the article. patsw 00:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual quote was, "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically." And yes, Patrick, that does answer the question once and for all. If avenging the killing of one's people makes someone a terrorist, that makes me, you, and probably everyone else here a terrorist. --Peter McConaughey 02:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, I think he was adding that to demonstrate that Osama called himself a terrorist and as you added that he made the statement as a defense of his actions believing that the U.S. had killed his people and he was therefore justified with sanctioning or at least being in agreement with the actions of the 19 hijackers. I am interested in knowing who the people Osama feels were killed in the same indiscrimate fashion as his sanctioned attacks. Perhaps, based on that thought process of his, he should have been more concerned about striking at Tel Aviv, not NYC and Washington. As far as whether Osama's definition is the one to abide by in terms of neutrality, nothing could be further from reality. I could care less what he calls himself or what misguided notion he thinks justifies his means. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [10] has several definitions that there is some concensus on as far as what defines terrorism. They equate terrorism as peacetime equivalent of war crime and a concensus on what defines a war crime is less shady and includes deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners. The definition by the European Union, (albeit not one in full agreement and resulting in a "Chairman's Statement") nevertheless, stated in their draft proposal that Terrorist offences can be defined as offences intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country." [11]

In other words, the actions (not that they in any way pertain directly to this article) such as the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Cambodia and related issues all happened in times of war and if anything fall under the definition of war crime, not terrorism. That is the distinction.--MONGO 09:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His (OBL's) rhetoric usually holds that any Muslim killed by the west, outside of the codes of Islam (negating the EU, UN, Geneva Conventions, etc.), is a killing which should be avenged. Thus, deaths resulting from numerous wars, sanctions, civillian rules, and numerous nations, are on his 'hit list', so to speak... the USA for their Iraq sanctions (an estimated 500,000 civillians dead) and support of Israel (several thousands of civillians dead, millions displaced), as well as USA support of brutal governments of muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, (etc.), he hates Russia for killing Chechens and Afghanis, he holds most of the nations of Europe responsible for the crusades (millions of civillians dead) etc. His chain of reasoning seems to be that since democracies endorse their leaders (through a vote), nobody in a democracy is a "non-combatant" civillian.

As far as whether or not he would justify his actions as war crimes (vs. terrorism), he declared war on the US a long time ago (The US government chooses not to recognize his declaration).

If such kind of "justice" (in the form of civillian deaths) is to be classified as terrorism is a bit of a semantic game, which is why there is no universally agreed-upon definition. The UN has a hard time defining it, as does the EU, and even the US, depending on the political forces and stakeholders in the argument.

See the works by Bruce Lawrence, Randy Hamud, and others, for more detail on his (OBL) thoughts and rhetoric. Ronabop 10:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Osama represented no state entity so that is partially why the U.S. didn't declare war (something it has only officially done a few times anyway) on him. I remind you the sanctions on Iraq were UN imposed so Osama is obviously distorted there. The hatred of the U.S. is primarily due to U.S. support of Israel and the presence of Americans (and westerners in general) in Saudi Arabia, et al. This article discusses the 9/11 attacks and the argument is whether they are the "hijackers" are terrorists or not. I say that the UN has, as shown on the pages I linked, at least a rough statement that defines terrorism...if they didn't have that they would have said so. The statement by the UN isn't playing on semantics as you suggest. They quote, as a basis of a position, that terrorism is the peacetime equivalent of war crime and a concensus on what defines a war crime is less shady and includes deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners. The 9/11 hijackers did by their actions, a peacetime war crime, as we were not AT WAR with anyone aside from enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq, which was UN sanctioned, and our peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia to protect, no less, Muslims. If there ever was in recent history a better example of what defines an act of terror than the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, then it would be most enlightening.--MONGO 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre

I have a photo of a "Demonic Creature" seen in the smoke and derbis when one of the planes hit the WTC. This was either a UPI or AP photo. A LOT of people reported spotting the bizarre formation. A lot of the print media carried this photo.Martial Law 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article needs a section with the title Hoaxes for those Photoshopped images. patsw 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this used to be talked about under Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, if memory serves, that page was merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. This pissed off the people who believe in "alternate" theories about 9/11 because suddenly their theories were listed back to back with "smoke demons" and that photoshopped guy on the rooftop, so slowly they were removed. I'm not sure where the smoke demon belongs (maybe not in wikipedia at all) but if you do add it I would not put it on the main 9/11 page because it's pretty absurd. --Quasipalm 18:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Find on Jeff Rense's Homepage and Archives material relating to 9-11 Conspiracies, 9-11 itself.Martial Law 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion for resolving the {{POV-section}} tags

A {{POV-section}} tag is added to an article when the disputed content of a section is biased toward only one side of the argument. Since most of our editors are western-influenced, international articles tend to have a western bent. In the case of this September 11, 2001 attacks article, the description of Al-Qaeda is based almost entirely on the propaganda used for a war against it. Twenty years from now, we will look back and realize that our characterization of Al-Qaeda is as silly as our 1960s characterization of Russia. We will marvel at how our blind hatred shaped our definitions and led us to do really stupid things. We will wonder why we had to repeat history again through the use of another evil ism.

Speaking of isms, one of the best ways of avoiding the appearance of McCarthyism in the eyes of our children and future generations is to write articles from a neutral point of view. As a very minimum, we need to avoid words that betray righteous indignation. For more on this, see Wikipedia words to avoid:Terrorism. --Peter McConaughey 22:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide an English language link to Al-Qaeda's description of itself. patsw 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I found these quotes by Osama bin Laden over at the terrorism article: The Importance of Objectively Defining Terrorism. Also there is apparently an edit summary by an al Qaeda member in the history of this article. --Peter McConaughey 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Twenty years from now, we will look back and realize that our characterization of Al-Qaeda is as silly as our 1960s characterization of Russia."...you must be kidding, of course! I wonder if in the 1960's we were looking back on the Nazi's and saying, gee, labelling them as mass murderers sure was silly! I sure am glad, looking back now 60 years ago, that our "blind hatred" helped the allies defeat the totalitarian dictatorships of the 1930-40's. It sure is good we were silly or else we would all be goosestepping around and looking for a few good Jews to lynch. Gee, I sure wish I could let go of my "silly" notion that life in Communist Russia was lousy and that they are better off as a democracy. I guess it sure is facsist to label the actions of the 19 hijackers as terrorism!Wikipedia words to avoid:Terrorism only discusses the why and why not for using the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism"...it doesn't say it cannot be used. If the actions of the hijackers on 9/11 doesn't fit the the definition of terrorism, then nothing does. For better or for worse and whether some like it or not, there is no finer example of terrorism than the events on September 11, 2001. They were much more than hijackers quite obviously...the term attackers is simply not descriptive enough...they don't fit into the label of soldiers, except to their fellow Al-Queda members.--MONGO 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call them soldiers either. Both "terrorist" and "soldier" apply personal bias about their legitimacy. I would prefer a more impotent term like "combatant," but I'm open to anything that promotes a more NPOV article. The current page with strong subjective bias words like "terrorist" isn't going to fly. --Peter McConaughey 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with the use of "operatives". -max rspct 17:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of less pejorative synonyms. --Peter McConaughey 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• collaborator
• conspirator
• dissident
• freedom fighter
• iconoclast
• incendiary
• insubordinate
• insurgent
• insurrectionary
• insurrectionist
• rebel
• recreant
• renegade
• resistance fighter
• schismatic
• subverter

Begin at the beginning with defining what the other side of the argument is, where and by whom is it advocated before we try to obtain a consensus on how to edit the article.

The victims of the attack and the perpetrators of the attack use the word terrorism and terrorist to describe the September 11, 2001 attacks as already verified and cited. patsw 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

They want to dance around the application of the word here for purposes of being less descriptive and less encyclopedic because it doesn't fit their bias. No other word besides terrorist singularily fits the vulgarity of the actions of the perpetrators of 9/11 better. The words cited above are deliberately misleading and indicate that they wish to be limp wristed in assigning blame for who is responsible and for properly attributing just how sick the actions of the 9/11 terrorists were. Appears to be a strong anti-American and radical left viewpoint to not call a terrorist a terrorist in this situation. It's pure Ward Churchillism and or Noam Chomskyism if I ever saw it.--MONGO 20:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, MONGO. For me, saying "evil Karl Rove" without the evil is deliberately misleading and indicates that some people wish to be limp wristed in assigning blame for who is responsible and for properly attributing just how sick we find the actions of the Plame affair, the 2000 Election and the 2003 State of the Union Address ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") Yet, regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to someone, doing so simply is not encyclopedic. --Peter McConaughey 20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the events of 9/11, not Karl Rove or your opinion on the 2000 elections. I would consider the actions of the 19 hijackers to be evil...do we agree on that?--MONGO 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't put that in the article. Calling our enemy "the evil bin Laden" would be almost as unencyclopedic as calling him "the terrorist bin Laden." --Peter McConaughey 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, what part of "we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents" are you having difficulty understanding? patsw 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The part where you took that quote out of context? --Peter McConaughey 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the context in which the meaning is changed to "we are not terrorists. No, we do not kill their innocents"? patsw 22:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith, Patrick, but your insistence on grabbing the last three words of that sentence is making it hard for me to do so. The entire quote is, "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically."

Please remember we're trying to make Wikipedia a reliable resource of information. That means our articles cannot be argumentative. They cannot use pejorative terms to describe people. When the article calls someone a "terrorist," it makes the whole page look tabloid. Some very accurate and precisely cited information in that article is debased when you add pejorative and hotly-disputed descriptive terms like "terrorist." --Peter McConaughey 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are Osama's people?...what state does he represent?...I mean, nobody wanted him around so he ended up in Afghanistan where his subversive ideals were welcome under the Taliban. Are you suggesting that Osama thinks that the U.S. deliberately planned, as a course of action, the premeditated and ruthless killing of innocents, thinking that it was legal religiously and logically? Regardless of his feeling of a need for retribution, he clearly states that this is indeed what he is doing, and that he accepts the definition of terrorist as a descriptive term for him and his followers if that is what best describes his actions in response to his claim that the U.S. killed "his" people. I consider that to be an admittance of being a terrorist.--MONGO 03:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks excessive to have two POV section flags within the same section. Durova 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

k --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please remember we're trying to make Wikipedia a verifiable resource of information. There is an accepted meaning of the word "terrorism" and bin Laden seems to know it and use its meaning in the accurate sense. The word is being used all over the world and not merely in "tabloid". It appears in media accounts, books, testimony, government reports -- in fact, everywhere where terrorism is discussed you will find the word, including elsewhere in the Wikipedia, and in places with far greater fact-checking and standards than are performed here. Peter, you can't just wave your hand and say "pejorative" and "hotly-disputed" when it comes to the description of Al-Qaeda as terrorist -- it's mainstream, it's common, it's accurate. What is the problem with pejorative as applied to the 19 terrorists? Do or don't the terrorists deserve the contempt of the entire world which is included in the meaning of pejorative?

Let's even assume the very unlikely event that there is a consensus of editors to remove terrorism from the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Wikipedia critics would then just cite this article as evidence of the lack of reality and extreme bias in its editing.

If Al-Qaeda's point of view is incompletely or inaccurately being presented in the article, please add it to the article. The point of view of the West in responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be distorted, truncated, or made inaccurate by avoiding the words terrorist and terrorism. patsw 04:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If the west calls Al-Qaeda a group of terrorists, then we should say that the west calls Al-Qaeda a group of terrorists. Nobody has a problem with citing sources, but authorship of the derision is not being cited and is highly controversial. The article is making a statement of fact about a Al-Qaeda being terrorists. Since the term "terrorist" is disparaging, belittling, and not equally applied as per definition, an NPOV article cannot claim it as fact. The narrative voice of the article must remain NPOV in order for Wikipedia to have any credibility.

The only way to associate the word "terrorist" with Al-Qaeda without destroying the integrity of the article is to cite, in the article, the most authoritative and neutral source making that claim. Tell me your most reputable source claiming that Al-Qaeda is terrorist. Let's put that in the article and remove the NPOV tags. --Peter McConaughey 14:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• PBS Frontline repeatedly refers to Al Queda as terrorists [12]

  Wikipedia article on Al-Qaeda...second paragraph it clearly states that many people regard Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization...it doesn't say that many people don't regard it as terrorist. [13]

  Time Magazine online with article titled "Hate Club: Al-Qaeda's Web of Terror" [14]

  Frontpagemag.com: "the terrorist organization al-Qaeda" [15]

  CDI Terrorism Project: [16]

  Infoplease, "Considered the world's foremost terrorist" [17]

  CNN archive of bin Laden praising attacks and responsibility for them caught on videotape [18]

  I can dig up more when I have time if you need.--MONGO 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We only need one to solve the POV issue. Give me your most authoratative source and we'll change the article to say that "X says that Al-Qaeda is terrorist." X doesn't speak for everyone, certainly not Al-Qaeda, so the article becomes factual again. --Peter McConaughey 15:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

An alternative would be to not try to define Al-Qaeda in this article. Instead to link to Al-Qaeda and let that article define it. --Peter McConaughey 15:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think thousands of spit-takes happened all over the world as people read your demand that there's a burden of proof which has not been met yet to describe Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as terrorist [19].

And you've missed the framework of the discussion: if there is a point of view issue, then it is is the West's point of view and will be included in the article -- the point of view that it's bad to fly jet airliners into the two towers of the World Trade Center and kill nearly 3,000 human beings doing so.

If Peter or anyone else desires to present Al-Qaeda's point of view on the September 11, 2001 attacks, then go for it. patsw 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As a United States war veteran I don't try to edit this article. I will comment though that the terms of debate are far less skewed toward the West than some editors claim. The implicit assumption behind Osama bin Laden's statement about terrorism is that his group was retaliating in kind for United States actions. In fact the United States military goes to great lengths to respect civilians of all nations. During my two deployments our volunteers assisted charitable efforts in every country we visited. We saved 113 lives off the coast of Guatemala and Panama, barely sleeping for a week as we rescued them, and even our own nation's press ignored the accomplishment. The mistakes of a few people get endless coverage. I make no excuses for Abu Ghraib. Those soldiers belong in jail and I deplore them. Their actions stained the uniform I wore. There seems to be a concerted effort by some partisans to confuse the concept of terrorism with regular military action. Let me assure you, I carried a rifle many times and never harmed an innocent civilian. That would have been the antithesis of our mission. Durova 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the desire to serve our country. Service members want to be involved in conventional warfare, where we defend our homes, our families, and the "United States Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic." We want to believe that the threat will never be domestic, but there is a reason why all service members and high-ranking officials in our government must take the oath in the above quote, and that's because the threat to our constitution from within is very great and very possible, and in this case, it is very real. When you hear that members of our Congress "need to update" parts of our Bill of Rights, there is no other way to take that. It is a direct attack on our United States Constitution, something millions of us have sworn to protect with our lives and sacred honor.

When the same enemies of our Constitution tell us to trust them when they ask to borrow two trillion dollars to wage a pre-emptive war without any evidence, and it turns out that they were lying, we have to ask ourselves what their true motivations were. Having eliminated any possibility that our intensions in Iraq have to do with reducing their military threat toward us, we are left with one answer: we are there to enforce compliance through fear of retaliation. What kind of retaliation? A few bombs here and there? No, I'm talking about mass extermination. The U.N. estimates that 1.8 million people died as a direct result of our sanctions in Iraq during the '90s. But they deserved it, right? They didn't comply with our demands. Whether or not a half-million Iraqi children deserved to die from malnutrition and preventable disease as a direct result of our sanctions, the fact remains that we used systems of terror as a means of intimidation and coercion. I don't know what definition of terrorism you have, but our actions in the Middle East fit squarely into mine, with no ambiguity.

Still, I don't go over to the President Bush article and call him a terrorist because that would be my POV, just as surely as it is POV when used by some of the editors here. --Peter McConaughey 20:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That, again, has nothing to do with whether the hijackers of the planes are terrorists or not. Perhaps the term terrorist is deplorable because Bush tosses it around like so much chicken feed which he does, I'm sure, for deliberate reasons. Regardless, the term is the most accurate description to describe the actions of the 19 hijackers. As far as the rest of your argument, UN resolution 1441 clearly stated that if Saddam and the Baathist regime didn't fully comply with unfettered access for the UN weapons inspectors that there would be "serious consequences". This resolution passed the security council without opposition and was signed by even France and Germany. We had already done all that could be done aside from military intervention to get Saddam to comply...so what did France and Germany do when it came time to enforce those serious consequences? They balked, and then failed to stand behind their own words. Nevertheless, did Bush then actually move unilaterally...no, he went to the UN and gave a speech, as did Powell and explained the situation. Bush then asked congress to approve military action in Iraq...the likes of John Kerry and Hilliary Clinton then signed the authorization to use force in Iraq...Bush then did so and by doing so, he untook the intervention with the written support of Clinton and Kerry. He didn't act unilaterally...he has been authorized by Congress and yet, he is the one "to blame".--MONGO 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Bush was "to blame." I said that he, by definition, is a "terrorist." It seems that, in your mind, the two terms mean the same thing, which proves my point that "terrorist" is pejorative. Using the term proves your bias, which is exactly why an encyclopedia article cannot use the term. --Peter McConaughey 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I provided you with substantive sources in which Al-Qaeda and the hijackers have been called terrorists. Can you provide one substantive source in which Bush is a referred to as a terrorist? If Osama is captured alive, do you think he will face a trial...and if Bush is a terrorist, why is he not under any formally recognized indictment?--MONGO 04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, I find it strange that your evidence for Bush fitting your definition of a terrorist includes the sanctions of Iraq during the 1990's after one considers that he wasn't the president at the time, nor was he in a position to do anything about the sanctions. Your argument generally fails to clarify who you deem responsible for what; in cases where you do provide evidence, I find your points far from compelling considering that your main focus, U.S. sanctions on Iraq, are both irrelevant to Bush's presidency and internationally considered to be conventional diplomacy.

The fact that you fail to differentiate between indirect diplomatic pressure by a sovereign nation and the atrocity of directly murdering thousands of civilians with extreme force denies you all credibility. Whitty 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My evidence of the sanctions proves that I am a terrorist, because I am an American citizen and I allowed my representatives to murder a half million children as a method of coercion. Bush is an American citizen too. --Peter McConaughey 04:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, Really you strain credibility! Why isn't President Bush under any formally recognized indictment? What world do you live in? It seems as if you have a puritanical and childlike understanding of power. Simply: President Bush is not under any indictment for war-crimes etc... because he is the President of the richest and most militarily powerful nation in the World. Sheeesh.

Introduction; Neutrality???

I noticed that the Introduction was tagged as being not neutral. I read it several times and I could not find anyting that was not neutral. It simply states the facts. This group reported this and this group reported this ect. It has no bias to it. Should this be removed or does someone else have any comments? Or is that header for the entire article? Shark Fin 101 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)+

People started to turn this into a discussion board on world politics and put the United States on trial rather than discuss how to edit the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Give them a little more time to settle down. patsw 03:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles don't call people "terrorists," Shark Fin, and we are editing an encyclopedia. (See also Wikipedia:Words to avoid:Terrorist) --Peter McConaughey 03:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda "many people regard Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization"--MONGO 03:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid:Terrorist "There appears to be consensus that the words terrorism and terrorist can (and should) be used where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. However, that agreement only extends insofar as the article makes it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the narrative voice of the article." 66.236.0.11 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I delineated 7 examples in the thread immediately preceeding this one.--MONGO 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid includes some helpful suggestions. Be sure to review the edit history and the talk page. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter made a good point. This is a encyclopedia and this encyclopedia article simply states what a group said. It is not biased in any way. It reports the facts. And that is what a article should do. That is why it should be removed. Shark Fin 101 21:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission Report makes a case for Al Qaeda members being "Terrorist Entrepreneurs" with statements like "No one exemplifies the model of the terrorist entrepreneur more clearly than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," but the authors of the report are smart enough to realize the difference between making a case for something and assuming a controversial and disparaging title for someone, even our enemy. The authors did not shove their conclusions down the reader’s throat. They knew that aggressiveness toward the reader backfires. Instead they patently made their case while retaining credibility with statements like "We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report."

Using language like that promotes the idea that the 9/11 Commission presented its information in an unbiased manner. Consider what would have happened if, instead, the commission assumed pejorative titles for the enemy, "We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 miscreants and al Qaeda terrorists in our report." See how use of pejorative terms backfires? Instead of strengthening the argument that al Qaeda consists of terrorists, it makes the sentence lose credibility.

Our article on the 9/11 attacks is strong without the use of inherently pejorative terms, and weak with them. I don’t think the author who added the POV terms was trying to hurt the integrity of the article, but that is exactly what has happened. I believe that an article as important as this should be written with as strong of language as possible, not some grade school name-calling. --Peter McConaughey 05:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What the Wikipedia calls the "9/11 Commission Report" the Commission itself formally calls "The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States". Please petition them to change the title and text of their report characterizing it as terrorism, not me.

For the United States, and arguably a consensus of the world possibly excluding some Muslim states, it is that the September 11, 2001 attacks were terrorism. It is a cited point of view with named adherents accurately described.

Al Qaeda itself calls it terrorism. Since the United States resists the restablishment of the Caliphate and the embrace of the entire world of Islam, this justifies terrorism against the United States. It's their point of view. They killed nearly 3,000, they are proud of it, and not disparaged by it in their public statements.

For those who deny that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were terrorism: (1) describe the point of view, (2) name its adherents, and (3) cite it from Internet or published source then add the text to the article to achieve a neutral point of view. It should be that simple. patsw 06:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• When this article was a Featured Article [20] it clearly had the term terrorist in the opening papagraph [21]...so if that was good enough to be a featured article then, why should things be different now? Revisionist history.--MONGO 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If this were your personal web page, you could call people anything you want, but this is an encyclopedia that represents all of us. In reporting things in an NPOV, you can't call people derogatory names. It puts a biased spin on the article and makes all of Wikipedia look bad. Is there any reason for this project to exist if we can't even meet the minimum standards of Britannica, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's? --Peter McConaughey 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica (terrorism): [22], and September 11 attacks: [23].--MONGO 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The attacks are so widely acknowledged as terrorism that there is nothing wrong with stating it as a fact. I say we remove the NPOV tag. Rhobite 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO, so acknowledgement of POV makes it NPOV? --Peter McConaughey 15:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement that the attackers should not be called terrorists is akin to a statement that we shouldn't report that the moon landing happened. Yes, some people hold this view. No, these people don't deserve much screen space in Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, why was the term "militant" less POV than "terrorist"?--MONGO 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Militant" is not inherently pejorative. If we wanted to put someone down, we wouldn't say, "You are a militant." The term "militant" is not a synonym for "bad guy." It has an objective definition that is equally applied to both sides of an armed conflict.

"Terrorist," on the other hand, is used by "victim societies" in reference only to the enemy. Regardless of how closely he fits the definition, a victim will never refer to himself as a "terrorist." In making ourselves victims, we give power to our victimizers. I don't want to give bin Laden power over my life, so I forgo using a pejorative term to describe him. --Peter McConaughey 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Peter, and reverted to it.

The issue here is that the USA calls Al-Qaeda "terrorists". So we can say "Al-Qaeda is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US government". What we cannot do is ourselves call them that, because that is to judge the US is right and those who think otherwise are wrong. Wikipedia tries to avoid terms that imply a preferred view. FT2 00:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

To call them anything other than the terorists that they clearly were is not neutral, it's another point of view; one implying moral equivilence. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. 9/11 being an act of "terrorism" is an absolute truth, so it doesn't matter that there was no coercion associated with the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't matter that the Pentagon and the hub of globalization were the two biggest military targets in the United States. It doesn't matter that bin Laden said his motivation for attacking them was the same as for attacking the USS Cole, a military objective. It doesn't matter that the term has no agreed upon meaning, that it is pejorative, or how many people outside of the United States disagree with you. Our fuhrer has declared that 9/11 is an act of "terrorism," so it must be an absolute truth. The only problem is that we can't seem to find any definition for terrorism that includes 9/11 and doesn't make it sound like we are even bigger terrorists. --Peter McConaughey 01:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources, some much more reputable then Wikipedia, that have no qualms about calling the 19 hijackers terrorists or the events of 9/11 as acts of terrorism. I have clearly pointed these out to you. It is most definitely common useage, widely used by numerous media and official reports on the subject, many of them not even of U.S,. origin. The stand you make is one that is definitively in the minority. If you want to go into related articles on American actions and call those actions terrorism, then please do so.--MONGO 02:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid. FT2 02:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter is answering an argument I have not made. I'll say it again: To call them anything but terrorists is not neutral, it's just a different point of view. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people want to call al-Qaeda "freedom fighters," in order to have a positive spin. Others want to call them "terrorists," in order to have a negative spin. An encyclopedia is supposed to have no spin. We need to use a word that does not imply something positive or negative, same as any other reputable resource. --Peter McConaughey 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, referring to them as anything other than terrorists is not descriptive enough for this article. If you want to inject terrorism into other articles (or even this one) that American actions are also terroristic, the please do so. I don't argue that the U.S. Government is not guilty of some heineous crimes, but we are talking about 9/11 and the actions of the hijackers. I would say that the number of those that referred to the 9/11 terrorists as freedom fighters is vastly outnumbered by those that refered to them as terrorists in this English version of Wikipedia.--MONGO 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are people who have the point of view that the 19 hijackers were not terrorists -- Describe their point of view. Identify them. Cite where this point of view appears (Internet, book, magazine article) The United States government identified the 19 as terrorists and the offical report has been cited here several times. It's getting tedious to see this characterized as spin and not the terrible reality of the intentional death of nearly 3,000 human beings. patsw 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some day we will allow the U.S. government to define our terms for us, but as of today, Wikipedia is still a global resource. --Peter McConaughey 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic Aftermath

I’ve restored the earlier version of this. It is not POV to say “The economic health of Downtown Manhattan, which by itself is the third-largest business district in the United States (after Midtown Manhattan and the Chicago Loop), has been seriously imperiled by the attacks.” According to Bloomberg.com [24], “Lower Manhattan's economic future is riding on [redevelopment], New York Governor George Pataki and city business leaders have said.” If the future of something is riding on an event that hasn’t happened yet, it is reasonable to call that future “seriously imperiled.”

On the other hand, “created a unique challenge to” is POV, PR-speak nonsense. If a man is injured in a car accident and in critical condition, would any doctor say the accident "created a unique challenge to his health?" People would look at him like he was a moron. Nobody speaks in those kinds of tortured euphemisms except PR flacks and politicians. ~Sylvain 12/7/05

The wording "seriously imperiled" is itself a POV. In 2001, for a few months, it may have even been accurate. It no longer is.

The aftermath of the attacks did create a unique challenge. It is not nonsense. To work a bit with your example, a person afflicted with a rare disease or condition does represent a unique challenge to the doctor. The doctor in this case would be the government, workers, and residents of area affected by the attacks and the patient is the geographical area, the target of redevelopment.

The attacks are over and any inhibition of the on-going process of redevelopment of lower Manhattan is a political problem not directly tied to the attacks. My text is restored. For balance (to Bloomberg's and Pataki's optimism), one might want to identify a pessmistic point of view (for example "lower Manhattan will never recover"), who adheres to this point of view and cite it. patsw 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your argument does not hold. It is clear that the aftermath of the attacks is what is being referred to, not that the planes themselves physically endangered the economic health of lower Manhattan in the moment of impact alone. I suppose we could say "the attacks and their aftermath . . . " although in my opinion that is belaboring the obvious.

The point is, I already identified a the "point of view" that thinks Lower Manhattan's economic health remains imperiled - it's governor Pataki and the city's business leaders. They say that it is "riding" on the successful redevelopment of the world trade center site. It doesn't matter that politics are the reason the redevelopment process is "inhibited", as you say. The 9/11 attacks (and their aftermath of course) are the reason the redevelopment is necessary in the first place. 1) By the governor's own admission, Lower Manhattan is serious trouble if the redevelopment necessitated by the attacks doesn't suceed. 2) Just this month, the local chapter of the American Planners Association released a statment saying the redevelopment was "sad" and "in disarray." In other words, according to the Pataki and the APA, Lower Manhattan is still in serious trouble.

For a discussion of this, see http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20040906/200/1102. Gotham Gazette is a respected urban planning website, and the article is a year old but the situation it describes hasn't changed. I've further modified the text.~Sylvain 12/9/05

I'm not making an argument, I'm describing the Bloomberg-Pataki point of view of "aftermath-as-challenge".

First, let's pick a more descriptive word than "imperiled". If I interpret you directly the "peril" is political in nature, caused by political leaders who can't break the logjam by agreeing upon the priorities for redevelopment.

I will look for a article closer to the present than September 2004 and summarize the pessimisitic point of view. It shouldn't be too hard to find pessimists or at least people who believe that the Lower Manhattan of 2001 cannot or should not be reconstituted and therefore doomed. patsw 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I found some good articles and linked to them. The "challenge" wording has been dropped and I will let the facts speak for themselves. patsw 02:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with your latest changes--I think this is the best version yet by far. Kudos.~Sylvain 12/10/05

individual terrorists

I am surprised not to see them all listed. Perhaps I missed it as the document is quite long. Specificly I am looking for the education level of the terrorists and where they where educated (in the USA??). --69.37.131.232 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

For info on one that holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard, just google "worst president ever." --Peter McConaughey 22:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please keep the snarky anti-Bush remarks off this page and focus on the article? If you're just interested in taking pointless potshots at the Bush administration, may I suggest another site? Rhobite 23:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No thanks. I've been Republican all my life.

Perhaps if you used a more specific term than "terrorists," we would know what you're talking about. When you say "terrorists," are you talking about American terrorists, Israeli terrorists, Syrian terrorists? In a world where violent intimidation passes for acceptable methods of war, you'll have to be a little more specific about which terrorists you mean. --Peter McConaughey 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The page says quite clearly Sunni Islamist terrorists;) Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I was obviously responding to the question asked, not the the content of the article. Try to keep up. ;) --Peter McConaughey 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists?

• Describe their point of view. (i.e. they didn't actually hijack the aircraft, or they did, but they weren't terrorists, or whatever)
• Identify them.
• Cite where they have defined this point of view. (Internet, magazine, book, etc.)

Please do this and move on. patsw 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In his New York Times bestseller, The President of Good and Evil, the eminent Jewish philosopher Peter Singer tries to make distinctions between the coercive actions of the United States government and the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Singer notes the use of intentions as the defining element in President George W. Bush’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly in November 2001: “In this world there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where the line is drawn. Yet there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent.”

The United States unquestionably kills innocent people with its bombs and guns during its invasions. As the enforcement arm of U.N. sanctions against Iraq, the U.N. admits that U.S. intervention directly resulted in the deaths of over 800,000 children under the age of five. Since “murder of the innocent” certainly applies to the United States government, Singer observes that the critical term in Bush’s speech must be “deliberate.” By making intention an issue, Bush draws a black-and-white distinction between American murder of the innocent and Al-Qaeda murder of the innocent: bad guys intend to hurt the innocent while good guys only hurt the innocent because of collateral damage. Bush is essentially arguing that conventional warfare—-destruction and murder for the purpose of reducing an enemy’s physical ability to fight—-is morally acceptable, while terrorism—-destruction and murder for the purpose of coercion—-is morally reprehensible.

Singer then quotes Osama bin Laden in an October 2001 interview with Al Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alouni. bin Laden said that the men who carried out the attack “intended to destroy the strongest military power in the world, to attack the Pentagon that houses more than 64,000 employees, a military center that houses the strength and the military intelligence.” About the World Trade Center towers, bin Laden said, “The towers are an economic power and not a children’s school. Those that were there are men that supported the biggest economic power in the world.” By bin Laden’s own mouth, the intention of the September 11, 2001 attack was a conventional warfare strike against the biggest military and economic threats to his countrymen. Since no coercion has been associated with the attack, it becomes hard to create a definition of terrorism that allows for the 2001 attacks against the United States mainland. Harder still would be the creation of a definition that also holds the United States government innocent for enforcing U.N. sanctions to coerce the Iraqi sovereign government by murdering over a million innocent Iraqi civilians. Singer says, “If we allow Bush to justify acts that he knew would kill innocents by saying that killing innocents was not his intention, then we should be aware that others, too, can use the same distinction.”

Significant parts of the Middle East, far East, Islamic nations, as well as people not aligned to US politics, I believe, have not called these people "terrorists". Wikipedia reports their view and considers it meaningful, too.

But in the meantime try this. It's a quote by an authoritative expert on radical Islam, Jason Burke:

"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or mainmed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)

FT2 06:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Then CNN, Time magazine, The U.S. Government, Britannica, infoplease and virtually everyone else must be wrong and biased.--MONGO 06:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's put this thing to rest. I've added {{Fact}} tags where a source needs to be cited. You can use the term "terrorist" to describe someone if you cite who said it, but citing yourself, as is implied without a source, just isn't good enough. I realize that many of us want to think of ourselves as the most definitive source of information, but that's just all in our heads. In a real encyclopedia, we have to cite someone more authoritative than ourselves. --Peter McConaughey 06:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Deal.--MONGO 08:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You aren't getting it yet. Even if there were 100 authorities who call them "terrorists", Wikipedia itself will not say they were if it may be perceived as judgemental. It's not a matter of "So I suppose all these people are wrong". They have their standards for how they describe things, we have ours. Ours is WP:NPOV, and here, thats the authority on this subject. Not the US government, not Britannica and not anyone else. If you think about it, every source can contain bias. NPOV states that we don't label X as a terrorist. We can say "described by the US govt" as terrorists". We can say "described by britannica as terrorists". We cannot say categorically as a fact, that they are considered by Wikipedia terrorists. That is what NPOV says, and I understand you want to use a term that's widely heard in the West, and others may want to use other terms widely heard in other groups, *that* is why NPOV says what it does. I'm sorry, but as its policy and not personal choice, it needs to be reverted in its present form. I will do what I can to keep some sense of what's said, such as "widely described as a terrorist organisation" with citations. Thats the best Wikipedia policy allows. FT2 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect...you are going against the consensus of the article as it appeared when it was a featured article. The actions of the hijackers clearly fits the definition of terrorism as clearly delineated by virtually every available source. This is the English language version of Wikipedia and this term is appropriate to describe the actions of the terrorists that hijacked the planes. I provided mainstream media sources that all repeatedly use the term terrorist and or terrorism when describing the actions of the hijackers. By not calling terrorists by that mainstream definition, then WE here at Wikipedia only look like we are trying to be coy, not that we are maintaining some effort to be neutral. I say that you calling them militants is not neutral...it is POV.--MONGO 13:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what you say, Wikipedia NPOV standard is not any different in spirit from the standards of objectivity used by countless other sources. We can look to other sources for guidance on these matters. "Terrorist" is clearly acceptable. "Militant" is also acceptable, but is not the preferred description. Mirror Vax 14:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica does not call anyone a "terrorist." Oxford English Dictionary does not call anyone a "terrorist." Webster's Dictionary does not call anyone a "terrorist." In fact, no reputable resource in the world calls anyone a "terrorist." The term is pejorative and only serves to show the bias of the user. --Peter McConaughey 16:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica certainly does call people terrorists (I just checked), as do reputable news services. You are spouting nonsense. By the way, can you have terrorism without terrorists? What euphemism would you use for a terrorist incident? Mirror Vax 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to give us an example of Britannica calling someone a "terrorist?" --Peter McConaughey 17:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you visit their web site and do a search? That's the least you can do before so confidently proclaiming a falsehood. Anyway, here is one example:

(copyrighted text follows)

Baader-Meinhof Gang

West German leftist terrorist group formed in 1968 and popularly named after two of its early leaders, Andreas Baader (1943–1977) and Ulrike Meinhof (1934–1976).

Red Army Faction The members initially supported themselves by bank robberies and engaged in terrorist bombings and arson, especially of West German and U.S. targets in West Germany. Baader, Meinhof, and 18 others were arrested in 1972; Meinhof eventually hanged herself, and Baader apparently also died a suicide. By the mid-1970s the group had turned to international terrorism; two members took part in the 1976 Palestinian airplane hijacking in the Entebbe incident. After the collapse of communism in East Germany (1989–90), it was discovered that East Germany's secret police had provided training and supplies to the gang. The group announced an end to its terrorist campaign in 1992. [...]

(end copyrighted text)

Mirror Vax 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Both the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Army Faction referred to themselves as terrorists. They both followed the strict definition of terrorism, "systematic use of terror for the purpose of coercion," and nobody has disputed that claim. As of 9/11, most people stopped referring to themselves as terrorists because President Bush associated the term with "evil-doers." If fact, our illustrious president is famous for using the terms interchangably.

Whether or not we adopt the definitions of a failed Texas cowboy, Wikipedia can't associate "terrorist" with 9/11. Given Bush's definition of "terrorist," as being synonymous with "evil-doer," the term is highly POV. Yet, if we take the strict definition of "terrorist," it simply doesn't apply to direct military attacks (Pentagon and World Trade Globalization Towers). --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What euphemism would I rather use for a terrorist incident?

Sanctions seem to fit the general definition of "terrorism" perfectly. It must have been terrifying to watch a half-million children slowly dying. Their water purification, sewage treatment, and medical facilities were destroyed by bombs. We blockaded chlorine for water treatment and over-the-counter medicines to cure the resulting diseases, and we did it for intimidation and coercive purposes. What we did to Iraq was terrorism in its purest form. An attack against a military target like the Pentagon? That doesn't sound like a "terrorist incident" to me. --Peter McConaughey 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I provided the Britannica definition of 9/11 and it clearly stated that they were terrorist attacks...did you bother to read it? Furthermore...the sanctions were UN sanctions and were enforced by all member countries. Had Saddam not been so busy building palaces to his vanity with the oil for food monies that were supposed to go for food and medicine, there wouldn't have been such "starvation"...(or is that the term Saddam's government used to excuse the 6,000 mass graves they had filled with >500,000 people that the Baathist party murdered through aggressive war against two of it's neighboring states, executed due to political dissent or for cultural/religious differences, or maybe just for the heck of it). Iraq was such a paradise under Saddam. This article is about 9/11 and the actions of the hijackers so we need to stay on target with that.--MONGO 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You realize you've just given a perfect and flawless justification for editing the article on the USA to start "The United States is a country with a history of sponsoring state terrorism." The supporting citations would be UN, Human Rights and other credible bodies stating that its head of state was responsible for decisions that killed hundreds of thousands, the majority of them civilians, in the last 6 years alone, some under torture, whilst previous presidents undertook wars of aggression, regime destabilization, and funded arms races including the knowing sale of illegal weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not saying we should. But that's inevitably what your viewpoint flawlessly leads to. There are a few hundred million people giving just that view, and it appears on tens of millions of web pages. Once you say "Our words are right", you have a really hard job justifying why other people's chosen words aren't too, and that's why Wikipedia does not favor anyones descriptive words, as such, not yours, not mine, not Britannica's and not the Government of any country. Cite them, yes. Advocate them, no. FT2 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, please read that Britannica article on "terrorism."[25] It reports what a council said and what is written in a resolution. Both are fully cited as the ones using the term "terrorism." --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Same link as earlier, Peter. September 11 attacks: [26]--MONGO 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Close to getting it right

Peter comes close to getting it right with the word usage terrorist 'serves to show the bias of the user'. When you read 'bias of the user' to mean 'point of view', that is what the Wikipedia is about: describing points of view, identifying adherents and citing points of view -- in this one article on one thing and one thing alone: the September 11, 2001 attacks. The point of view of the United States is that these attacks on the United States were terrorist and I'm still waiting to learn who believes that these attacks on the United States were not terrorism. patsw 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the 9/11 attacks were "terrorism" in and of themselves. Terrorism involves some sort of coercion or intimidation, not a direct attack against a military target (Pentagon and World Trade Globalization Towers). President Bush associated coercion and intimidation with the attacks, but that makes him the fear-monger, not al-Qaeda. --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy requires that we not give undue weight to highly eccentric views. Mirror Vax 13:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither the WTC nor the White House or Capitol building (either one may have been the target of the plane that crashed in Shanksville) were military targets. Even though the Pentagon is a military center, the attack on it was by nonuniformed agents not acting on behalf of a government, so the attack can still be feasibly argued to have been terrorism. If you don't see how the 9/11 attacks were intimidating, then you're missing something very obvious. --Mr. Billion 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Any type of war is intimidating, but not necessarily coercive in nature. The violent reduction of the military capability of an opponent is an act of conventional warfare. --Peter McConaughey 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article looks much better now with regards to use of terrorism - especially the start. Thumbs-up -- max rspct leave a message 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

I just read an excerpt from a most definitive book on 9/11 that is coming out next month. The excerpt is in the new issue of Vanity Fair. It features pages of quotes from the most intimate people associated with al-Qaeda and 9/11. The article refers to the attackers as "Jihadists." I think that is an excellent term because it is informative without being POV. What do you think? --Peter McConaughey 03:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is too vague for our usage needs here.--MONGO 09:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You think "jihadist" is more vague than "terrorist?" --Peter McConaughey 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No sir, I think you are deliberately vague and I for one am tired of you and a few likemind folks like yourself peddling your radical attempts to rewrite the glossary of the term terrorist to suit your POV. It is common knowledge that the actions of the terrorists who hijacked the airplanes on 9/11 are indeed almost universally referred to as terrorism. Your most recent edit in which you claim that the planes were "alledgedly" hijacked is absolutely preposterous and I am about to start considering your efforts here to be nothing more than vandalism. This game is about to end.[27]. I'm about done with those that wish to bring discredit to this effort with radical subversive nonsense such as what you continue to peddle.--MONGO 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good lord. Thats a lot of intensely emotive words, but most of it is plain irrelevant to deciding the issue. The issue, as described above, remains the same: "X says Y". Wikipedia does not say Y. And Jimbo says NPOV is "paramount and non-negotiable". Thats really about all that matters here. FT2 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about your edits and they do not conform to NPOV by demanding the terrorists be called anything other than terrorists.--MONGO 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm sorry that you have lost your assumption of good faith in my intentions. I can assure you that I am here solely in an attempt to restore a neutral point of view to this article. If you were to realize how silly it looks to call people names on an encyclopedia page, I'm sure that you would remove the POV yourself. You are shooting yourself in the foot when you create bias in an article. It make the entire piece look bad, and furthers credibility concerns with Wikipedia. --Peter McConaughey 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong...using terms such as that edit of yours did is just plain making this article a laughing stock of misinformation. I provided citations as you requested and even that is not good enough. If it is silly to call them terrorists, than it certainly is, by the manner in which you continuously toss in parallelisms to GWBush or American actions as likewise. If our credibility is at stake, it is due to the constant demand by a few late comers to alter the featured Article status quo of this page, and to go against the grain of concensus with the obvious mainstream view, as exhibited by virtually every major new media outlet, that indeed the actions of those that carried out the attacks, was one of terrorism. I also enjoy how the two of you work on the Words to avoid page and fill it with your POV and then go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point.--MONGO 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And you of course have a DIFF to back up that libellous personal attack with do you, MONGO? A diff showing I've made a post that "go[es] into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point." ?

... No, I didn't think you did.

Did you even notice that terrorism was in WP:WTA before I edited that article? And almost in identical wording? [28]

... No, I didn't think you did that, either. FT2 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a neat trick, isn't it? The country where I live, the United States of America, thought this trick to be such a problem that they separated the legislative branch from the executive branch and specifically disallowed any overlap. Through Supreme Court legislating, however, the most fundamental guarantees of the United States Constitution have been overturned. The result is terrorism and double-speak. The idea is to accuse your opponents of exactly what you are doing, but do it first. In this way, it looks like your opponents are being petty, and just copying your lead when they accuse you of it. Of course, that only works if you combine it with a lot of flag waving and speeches asserting that support of the fearless leader is the same as support of the homeland/fatherland. If you do a good enough job of raising the spirit of intolerance, your constituents will propel it as "truth" through their speech. You can always spot one of these muppets because they refuse to cite the sources of their "truth." For them, it simply exists, with no rhyme or reason behind it. --Peter McConaughey 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

....I think your rant button is stuck. Arkon 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It gets to the heart of the matter, but I agree that trying to cover the entire root problem in one paragraph is a little optimistic and would probably sound like a rant. --Peter McConaughey 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Religous commentary in External links

I believe we should have a section in the External links dedicated to religous commentary of the 9/11 attacks. The question of how do these events fit in with God is a question that many have and I believe it would be appropriate for this article. Perhaps like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Religious_Commentary_on_Schiavo.2C_Disability_Issues --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any links in particular you think should be in there? --Mr. Billion 06:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with various religions response however I am familiar with this site from chabad which is from a Jewish perspective: Life Vs. Terror: a 9/11 Anthology http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=58785 --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article itself addresses anything about various religious responses. In general, external links should be relevant to the specific content of the article, and not go off on a tangent. And the number of external links in an article needs to be limited to a useful number (to the reader), and to only the most directly pertinent. Maybe religious responses can instead be covered in a sub-article "daughter"? --Aude 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite for recent edit

The recent edit includes the statement "Bin Laden categorically denied involvement in a 2001 statement, although the denial is widely disbelieved in the West." I think we will need a cite for this if it is to be included. Arkon 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Look further down at his 2001 statements under "responsibility":

• "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation,"
• "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States... I had no knowledge of these attacks..."

Thus it's already in the article and cited, that Bin Laden categorically denied involvement. (This may be true or untrue, but is factual that he said it). The disbelief is also appropriate as a balance to that, and is self evident in the Western press, popular opinion and US/UK government reactions. (Which may be accurate or inaccurate but is also factual they disbelieve it). FT2 09:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

External links removed

I have weeded out a few external links that are not so notable to be included:

• 9-11 Quotations
  • Might belong on Wikiquote, but not here.
• MAHOPA.de - 'The world after September 11'
  • Personal essay.
• Pictures 9 11, New York City
  • If anywhere, this might go in the photos subheading and not the main external links heading.
• 9-11 Predictions and PHOTOS
  • Personal blog, not appropriate.
• 9-11Heroes.us - '9-11 Heroes: Four years after: We remember the events and victims of September 11 2001: In Memory to all those who gave their lives on 9-11-2001'
  • Very few google backward links [29].

--Aude 12:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV push

I did the following revert [30] primarily due to the fact that the 9/11 report doesn't refer to Al Qaeda as Sunni islamists and that it is important to note that Osamas denial of the leadership of the attacks (as provided with citation) then must also have the statement that his denial is essentially not considered factual by the western world.--MONGO 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that the western world believes the 9/11 Commission Report. --Peter McConaughey 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are...I support using sources that are outside of the federal opinion...you know, those sources I cited earlier...the ones that are from even relatively liberal medias--MONGO 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm conservative, that isn't very tempting. --Peter McConaughey 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists? (once again, the previous section got off track)

• Describe their point of view. (i.e. they didn't actually hijack the aircraft, or they did, but they weren't terrorists, or whatever)
• Identify them.
• Cite where they have defined this point of view. (Internet, magazine, book, etc.)

Please do this and move on. patsw 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think "militants" is more appropriate, but for now I've reworked the intro (which I think reads better anyway -- events, perpetrators, long term impact) and that way at least put the term "terrorists" into the "X says Y" format for now. FT2 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I applaud the attempt but unfortunately, the intro now uses the passive voice in an awkward manner. Passive voice is frequently used to write subjectless sentences... let's try not to use it. Rhobite 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone has said they were freedom-fighters or valiant soldiers or something else other than terrorists, I think it would be useful to say who and quote them. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Who holds the point of view that they are militants and not terrorists? Militant unqualified by the identity of who holds that point of view that the 19 are militants is not acceptable. patsw 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Arab and far-east press? They have a significant voice that Al-Qaeda are not "terrorists". If you doubt this, here is a thought-experiment to try: What do you think a hypothetical article titled "Islamic perspectives on the 9/11 attacks" and written predominantly by Middle and Far East contributors would describe Al-Qaeda as? FT2 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the English version of Wikipedia so the term terrorist as applied to the actions of the hijackers on 9/11 is in cadence with the vast majority of those people who are fluent in English. Every single other term is either a weasel word or incorrect to describe the actions of those terrorists.--MONGO 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats your current view. Now maybe answer (rather than overlook) the question I actually posed, rather than just restating it? Thanks. FT2 12:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I thought I did answer your question...I would consider that the chances, based on human nature and the censorship of much of the Arab press, that it would be unlikly for them to not be defensive of the actions of the terrorists. In light of the fact that almost all mainstream media sources have referred to the 9/11 attacks as acts of terrorism and or the hijackers as terrorists, as clearly shown by my repeated links, demostrates adequately that our use of the terms here as applied to this situation is definitely within the bounds of NPOV.--MONGO 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

First, provide a cite and I will quote it at length, if not here then elsewhere.

Second, According to the official 9/11 Commission Report, nineteen men affiliated with Al-Qaeda, a loose network of radical Sunni Islamist terrorists, carried out the attack. Do you maintain that the report does not characterise them as terrorists? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say "a loose network of radical Sunni Islamist terrorists," it sounds like Wikipedia is making that assertion, not the 9/11 report. --Peter McConaughey 03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly Tom. The report characterizes them. Wikipedia does not. That's why we use the "X says Y" style here. "THE REPORT calls them terrorists" is precisely what the article says, and should say. Thats what WP:NPOV says and what editors here have been explaining all this time....

As to your other concern, a weasel word is a word like "some people" or "most academics" without saying who or where to verify it. Thats not at stake here. FT2 12:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that, I don't understand your objection to saying, "According to the official 9/11 Commission Report the hijackers who carried out the attack were nineteen terrorists affiliated with the Al-Qaeda network of radical Sunni Islamists." Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that we should state that they were terrorists according to the official 9/11 Commission Report. This cites the source and uses the "X says Y" style that FT2 mentioned. Carbonite | Talk 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission Report does not call al-Qaeda "radical Sunni Islamists." That little mini-definition was created out of thin air and asserted by this article, not the report. Wikipedia already has a full description of al-Qaeda in the al-Qaeda article. We don't need to make up mini-definitions. We can hyper-link to the real thing. --Peter McConaughey 15:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That they are sunni islamists is in the article already and I would imagine therefore factual. That Al-Qaeda is a radical islam organisation (as opposed to mainstream muslim organisation), is a term used by citable and credible authors. Hence that wording. FT2 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the X says Y style we have one big problem...that problem is magnitute. If we go by that philosophy, then we end up legitimately being able to insert every POV we can get from every available source, so long as we can cite it. There becomes no end to it...and we end up with jibberish. Is it really NPOV to cite sources for information that are of the absolute minority view and pass that off as mainstream? Of course not. It isn't even necessary to call the 9/11 terrorists anything other than that because virtually all major media sources, most governments of the world and most scholars adhere to this fact. It is nothing more than misleading than to apply the absolute minority view and try and pass that off as a NPOV.--MONGO 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up NPOV and relevance.

"Is it really NPOV to cite sources for information that are of the absolute minority view and pass that off as mainstream?" Yes Is it relevant? No --Peter McConaughey 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me qualify that. In some cases, when the only source of specific information useful to the topic is a minority view, a fully cited quote or summary can still be relevant. Also, the purpose of citing an opinion is to let the reader decide if it is "mainstream" or not. As long as we don't use weasel words, like "official," in the citation, we can avoid bias. --Peter McConaughey 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No mix up...Occam's Razor...the easiest explanation is usually the right one. We don't sit back and let the reader decide...this isn't Fox news! We find the most verifiable information and use that to write an encyclopedia, and at some point we all become editors. This isn't about what sells, or what will raise an eyebrow, but what will be accurate. Right now, the way folks like yourself are wording sections of this article, it is bordering on a piece of science fiction.--MONGO 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fox News is famous for reaching conclusions for the viewer, not for letting the viewer decide. That is why NewsCorp is considered a joke. Here at Wikipedia, we are trying to avoid Fox-syndrome by never reaching conclusions for the reader. We present the facts. We report the conclusions of other people, but we never lose site of the fact that we are only a resource, not the creator of reality. Our job is not to tell people what to think about 9/11. We are not here to put any sort of spin on the event, to vilify anybody, or to vindicate ourselves. Wikipedia does nothing except provide a set of tools for researchers. The tools are only valuable if they can be trusted. When you use persuasive words and phrases, that trust is gone and the entire article becomes worthless. --Peter McConaughey 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

HUH? If anyone wants to fill our minds with misinformation and pass it off as forced fed fact for our digestion I would put CNN, BBC, AP and Reuters above Fox. Terrorists are terrorists and nothing more or less...it would be POV to call them something they are not such as freedom fighters or psychotic murderers. But surely there is citable sources that call them that, so why not use the infallible X says Y approach and stick that in the article...something like: Pat Robertson regards the terrorists attacks of 9/11 to have been the work of psychotic murderers. With X says Y, we can't go wrong!--MONGO 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"X says Y" takes care of the NPOV issue. It does not address the relevance issue. Pat Robertson's opinion is a matter of relevance.

"If anyone wants to fill our minds with misinformation and pass it off as forced fed fact for our digestion I would put CNN, BBC, AP and Reuters above Fox." Given that your edits look like they came straight from O'Reilly's mouth, I don't doubt that for a minute. --Peter McConaughey 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now hold on there! You've been telling us in your edit summaries that we need to comply with Words to avoid and it clearly states there that we can use terms so long as we phrase it X says Y then relevance has nothing to do with it...we can fill this article up with every piece of misinformation or radical viewpoint we want so long as we follow that golden rule. Now you're saying ( as I have argued all along) that the source must have relevance? Are you telling me that Pat Robertson has less relevance to the English speaking world than Al Jazeera? So you think it would be NPOV to use the possible quote by Pat Robertson that the 9/11 terrorists were psychotic murders so long as we stated that he said it? Can I find such a similar passage and put it in the article as a stand alone with no counterbalancing viewpoint so long as I use X says Y format?--MONGO 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is made up of several things: 1/ Because it reports others words and does not make judgements as such (WP:NOR), when someone's called X we are often extremely careful to say "but thats Y's opinion". hence the rule "X says Y". 2/ Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotations. So it needs to choose its quotes carefully, to try and capture a balanced view. So 100 true quotes from one viewpoint all chosen pejoratively, isn't neutral. 3/ The sources quoted should be notable. That means, notable from bboth sides. What does the Saudi Government call Al-Qaeda is just as notable as what does the US govt call them, for example. How do Palistinians see the attacks may be as important as how Americans do. So we don't quote everyone. We try to quote in ways that honestly capture the relevant different viewpoints, and when we do, we present them in a balanced and non-pejorative manner using the "X says Y" wording to be clear who is making which claims. Hope that helps clarify. FT2 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that Peter disputes the neutrality of the section because it includes the phrase "the official 9/11 Commission Report?" Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Peter considers the word "official" to be a weasel word. While he's entitled to disagree with the contents of the reports, the fact is that the 9/11 Commission Report is the official report. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The narrative voice of an encyclopedia entry is a bridge between the reader and the cited information contained in the article. The cited information may disagree with the reader's beliefs, but the narrative voice must never draw conclusions asserting something that the reader could find offensive or controversial. If the article itself draws disputed conclusions, the entire resource becomes untrustworthy. To avoid Fox-syndrome, the narrative voice must always show complete deference to both the views of the reader and the external sources of information on the subject, allowing for both, but never requiring either.

The editors of Wikipedia create the narrative voice of our articles. Trust is an essential requirement of a solid resource. Our job is to make the information contained within an article believable so that it can be a tool for researchers. In order to do that, the narrative voice of the article must always present things in a neutral point of view, something that will agree with every reader. We are not here to convince the reader of anything, or to assume disputed "truths." Our only function is to organize and convey existing information in the most succinct manner possible. The information we cite must be accurate, but the narrative voice we use to reference that information must conform to a higher standard of also being "friendly" to the reader if it is to be trusted.

It's possible to convey any relevant information without the narrative voice offending the reader. This is done largely by adopting a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), but even the words we choose can convey certain cultural biases and "assumed truths" that will be controversial to members of our global readership.

An example would be Carbonite's adamance about including "official" before the "9/11 report." Why do we want to add undue weight to the words of the report? Why not allow the report to stand on its own? It doesn't call itself "official" on the title page. People outside of the United States don't consider it official. As a citizen of the United States, I can attest that some people inside the United States can see right through its weak content and assumptions as well. The United States government may have referred to it as "official," but does the US government speak for everyone here? Is the US government writing this article? Are there any "unofficial" "9/11 Commission Reports"? Is there any reason to call the 9/11 report "official" except to put a biased spin on it? --Peter McConaughey 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the word "official"

As long as you cite who considers it to be "official," there's no problem. [31]

It's referred to as the "official" report in the article itself. I went there expecting to find a section expounding the controversy surrounding this term and came up empty-handed. It should be trivial to add a:

... although critics such as Foo [32] and Bar [33] have objected to the use of the word "official" to describe the report, which, they, argue, is in fact unofficial, and at times, blatantly unauthorized.

- if indeed there is a widely reported objection to the description of that report as "official", but this isn't the place to pioneer that research.

I, for one, don't consider it to be very official because it is full of leading phrases and pejorative terms. [34]

Unless your objections have been widely reported by reputable sources, I'm at a loss to see what relevance they have to this discussion.

chocolateboy 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, disputed assertions may only be included when based on a verifiable source. We aren't at liberty to add anything we want and then ask reputable sources to disprove it. --Peter McConaughey 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So Peter, you wanted to get rid of the weasel words, and now we have, "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) states in what it calls its "official 9/11 Commission Report," that..." Do you feel that this constitutes a net reduction in weasely-ness? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Having now searched the entire 9/11 report, it know that it doesn't even refer to itself as the "official 9/11 Commission Report" anywhere in the paper. The version I read said that it was the "Official Government Version," but that was it. Where is this "official" coming from? It's just the "9/11 Commission Report" as far as I can tell. Did the 9/11 Commission refer to it as "official" somewhere else? Unless we can cite that source, I think we should just take the weasle word off altogether. --Peter McConaughey 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

How about the ACLU? [35] "The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration." Carbonite | Talk 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, disputed assertions may only be included when based on a verifiable source. We aren't at liberty to add anything we want and then ask reputable sources to disprove it.

Not if the dispute, as in this case, is based on a non-sequitur ("I, for one, don't consider it to be very official because it is full of leading phrases and pejorative terms") and an unsubstantiated claim that "official" (i.e. authorised) is a "weasel word".

We are not obliged to take things out because of irrelevant and unsubstantiated objections. The content of the report has no bearing on whether it was authorised or not; and I can find no evidence that "official" is considered to be a weasel word in this context. Would you also object to the description of Goleo VI or Cobi as "official" mascots?

The verifiable sources for the word "official" can be found in the 9/11 Commission Report article. That is the best place to wage this campaign if you wish to overthrow the status quo. Once that article lends credence to the idea that the 9/11 Commission Report was somehow not authorized by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, then that POV can be (and should be) represented here. Until then, it falls under the rubric of original research.

chocolateboy 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission Report isn't the mascot for our team. It may be the official mascot for the Bush's whitewash, but it doesn't represent me. "Official" is characteristic of being authorized by a proper authority. The only proper authority in this country is the people. As one of those people, I do not give any authority to the "9/11 Commision Report." Therefore, it cannot be deemed "official." --Peter McConaughey 18:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In future, I suggest you respond in a way that's relevant to the upkeep of the article rather than airing your own political proclivities, which are irrelevant here.

I've replaced "official" with "final", which is part of the full title of the report [36] and nets more Google hits. [37]

chocolateboy 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I answered that question above, but apparently not to your satisfaction. Let me try again with more detail.

Goleo VI or Cobi are "official" mascots of their organization because their organization recognizes them as "official." If only part of the Barcelona Organizing Committee recognized Cobi as the "official" mascot, he wouldn't be very official. It would be POV for part of the BOC to call Cobi "official" knowing full well that it did not represent the entire BOC.

By the same token, the 9/11 Commission Report does not represent all of the users of this encyclopedia. It is not the "official" explanation of what happened for a large segment of the world. Indeed, there are those of us within the United States who dispute the assumptions made within the report. It is not our official report either. So who gives this report its authority to be called "official?" Not the people it claims to represent, and certainly not all of the users of this resource. President Bush claims that the "9/11 Commission Report" is authoritative. Anyone who still believes President Bush may give it added strength to be called "official," but that is still the POV of the small minority of the total users of Wikipedia. If there is a single user who does not find the 9/11 Commission Report to be authoritative, then a dispute over the authority of the report exists. In the case of an NPOV dispute, an editor merely has to cite the source of the claim in the article to solve the dispute. Simply state who finds the report to be authoritative in the article, and you can keep your precious word if it means that much to you, but don't presume to witness that all editors of Wikipedia uphold the report to be "official." --Peter McConaughey 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The word's been changed now, so this is moot. But:

• The passage you objected to read: "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States states in its official 9/11 Commission Report". It made no claims that the report somehow represents all Wikipedians or all Americans; it merely indicated that it was authorized by the 9/11 Commission, just as the mascots were authorized by their respective sporting bodies.
• "By the same token, the 9/11 Commission Report does not represent all of the users of this encyclopedia." The views of Wikipedians are never directly relevant to Wikipedia articles, even those such as Wikipedia and John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy that are about Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and, of course, Wikipedia:No original research for the rationale.
• There are cogent objections to the word "official" in this context (notwithstanding Carbonite's link I couldn't find many reputable (or official :-) sources using the word), but most of the objections you've raised are offtopic and draw attention away from the article towards your own polemic.

chocolateboy 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with numerous repetitions of "according to the United States government" if it is unclear from the context what is being cited. In less contentious Wikipedia articles this is what "official" means when referring to a report issued under the authority of the United States government about events in the United States. patsw 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The report is official because it was issued by the commission itself. It is an official document. It was issued by that office. Reporters often make reports about what so-and-so said. Those are not official reports. People frequently collect things people say into "unofficial" reports, often self-titled as such. Those reports contain lots of "official quotes". The point is that "official" relates to the issuing agency. I suggest that the adjective be treated something like an transtive verb, and nail that on a WP:whatever if you must. The report should be referred to as "____'s official 9/11 Commission Report". It is meaningless to refer to something as "official" unless the "office" is obvious. —Daelin@2006–01–06 21:24Z

Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists? (again, the previous section got off track)

• Describe their point of view. (i.e. they didn't actually hijack the aircraft, or they did, but they weren't terrorists, or whatever)
• Identify them.
• Cite where they have defined this point of view. (Internet, magazine, book, etc.)

Did I miss something in the previous section where there was a description, identification, and citation of the adherents of the point of view that the 19 hijackers were not terrorists? Please do this and move on. patsw 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We've answered your question twice. Do you consider it "getting off track" if the answer doesn't agree with your view of reality? --Peter McConaughey 18:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell, 99.9% of people might also call those nineteen hijackers assholes. But that doesn't make it appropriate to put that in the article. Graft 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does, if they are the majority voice and can be cited...we'll just use the X says Y technique and that will make it okay. Do you also prefer calling terrorists something else...I mean something other than what they are?--MONGO 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would rather call them assholes than terrorists because the latter doesn't even agree with the definition. --Peter McConaughey 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Millions of people on this planet do not think of these men as terrorists. Furthermore, since there is no single, solid definition of the terms terrorist and terrorism, the label gets muddy. In some sense of the word, I think they are terrorists, in other senses of the world I think they are not. Kingturtle 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I bet I can find 50 reputable sources that say they are terrorists to every 1 that says they are not terrorists, or that their actions were not terrorism. I bet I can locate polls that are taken internationally that show a majority view that their actions were terrorism.--MONGO 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I will take that 50 to 1 bet on the condition that you wager something valuable, like your agreement to stop adding POV to this article if you are proven wrong. --Peter McConaughey 18:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop using this section to argue against the POV of the United States government that the 19 hijackers were not terrorists -- we've got a dozen sections that do that already. This section is your place to discuss the other points of view:

Peter, Kingturtle, etc. you claim that there are adherents to the point of view that the 19 hijackers are not terrorists. This claim has to be verifiable. Let's start to edit that text:

• If they were not terrorists, exactly what were they?
• Who says so?
• Where can I look that up? patsw 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo:-

• Wikipedia is not a democracy.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
• Wikipedia:Check your facts

And especially:

• Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy"

Your post summarizes to: "I bet I can find lots of sources who have opinion X so Wikipedia should have opinion X too."

WRONG

FT2 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

When the minority view is to be the basis of concensus then that is when we no longer have an encyclopedia, but instead a rubbish heap of misinformation. I am well aware of those links and this post of yours is an absolute violation of WP:POINT.--MONGO 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pawsw, a brief summary why various editors feel we cannot state "XYZ are terrorists" or "XYZ are Al-Qaeda terrorists":

1. There *is* a clear consensus that the term "terrorist" is pejorative and an opinion usually applied by one side and denied by the other. This is made clear by consensus on both terrorism ("many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc") and definition of terrorism ("often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified... Because of the above pejorative connotations...")
2. There is a clear view that terms implying pejoratives or viewpoints, are not neutral and should be avoided as labels (WP:NPOV)
3. Other probably-pejorative terms are by and large avoided in other articles.
4. The Al-Qaeda article consensus itself avoids using Wikipedia's voice to label Al-Qaeda as "a terrorist organisation".

The time it is okay to label a person as terrorist, is when its in the words of a cited source and attributed to that source (as opposed to in Wikipedia's voice). But that's not the question here. FT2 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever "Wikipedia voice" is, it is not a policy of the Wikipedia. Neutrality is. Neutrality is acheived by including all points of view. I plead: Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists? Describe their point of view, identify who holds it, and cite. Please, present a point of view that is an alternate to the point of view of the United States government and move on. patsw 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's absurd to suggest that the attack against the Pentagon was an act of terrorism. The Pentagon is a military target. No demands were made. No coercion was levied. There were no motives of intimidation. The Pentagon was a direct attack, an act of conventional warfare. --Peter McConaughey 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You do realize the attack was carried out using a commerical airliner filled with innocent civilians? Carbonite | Talk 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. Are you suggesting that the hijackers crashed a plane into the Pentagon in order to give people a fear of flying? --Peter McConaughey 23:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not necessary nor helpful. The choice of the Pentagon as a target is but one aspect of the attack. The stateless nature of Al Qaeda, the intended death of civilians and the hijacking of a civilian aircraft as means are characteristic of terrorism in the definition used by the United States government.

If there's a point of view held by some adherents that the Pentagon attack was conventional warfare, please describe it, identify the adherents, and cite it. This might be a difficult task as the highest ranking Google page for that particular POV is this talk page itself and the POV of Peter McConaughey himself. patsw 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't conventional warfare as the terrorists knew they couldn't "win" a war against the U.S. It was a target of opportunity designed to just say, hey, we can strike you at your heart, and if we can do that, we can do anything. Textbook terrorism. I am amazed by Peter's comments above, especially after he claims he is conservative. The pentagon was struck for the same reasons as the towers, and that was to incite fear, prove that since they can do these things, they can do anything and to incite a sense of terror. There is no more difference between these actions and the suicide bomber that blows themself up at a restaurant except in terms of scale. Targets of opportunity, Peter, and an effort to instill fear.--MONGO 03:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the United States government, the 19 hijackers were terrorists

• Describe: The 19 hijackers were terrorists as the United States goverment defines this word.
• Identify: The characterization of Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization commenced in the Bill Clinton administration, continues in the George Bush administration, and applies in a particular way to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
• Cite: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

If needed, add according to the United States government liberally throughout the article where this context is unclear. patsw 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And provided that it's said in an appropriate manner, phrasings such as:

• "Al-Qaeda, identified by the US govt as a terrorist organisation..."
• "The US govt identifies Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization according it its standards"
• "The hijackers, described as terrorists by the 9/11 report..."
• "The US government's characterization of Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization commenced in the Bill Clinton administration, continues in the George Bush administration..."

are all okay. Thats all this has been about. The need to cite sources and make absolutely clear when stating facts of this kind, who said it. FT2 21:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"The 19 hijackers were terrorists as the United States government defines this word."

Why would I care how the United States government defines a word? Is that the job of the United States government? Even if creating language were the job of the U.S. government for its people, isn't Wikipedia an international resource? Could the U.S. government create "good" terms if we hired them for that job? Are they really "good" at anything we hire them to do?

Personally, I think the U.S. government sucks at creating terms. They're full of propaganda and used to promote wars, fear-mongering, and vagaries to confuse our rights and liberties. I choose not to adopt any definitions created by the U.S. government. Basing the article entirely on what the U.S. government says makes it a very weak article. The source is obviously biased, but at least you've started citing your source. --Peter McConaughey 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a point of view presented in the article (i.e. attributed, verified, and cited). We're editing an encyclopedia. Peter, you don't have to care. patsw 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think on the whole, tentatively, I agree with Patsw. It is certain that the US govts opinion is notable, and that this is a view held by many people. So I think saying that they are considered terrorists "by the US govt" or "as the US govt defines the term", might actually be a fair wording. We are not answerable for the US govts use of spin and wording. This wording does at least hint there could be other definitions or views, rather than being advocative. In that sense, it might not be the best wording, but its probably one I coukld live with. My only thought is, are there any citable credible sources we should be noting, for completeness, such as other govts or bodies, that openly say they have a fundamentally different characterization? FT2 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just giving you some friendly advice. If you want your article to be credibly, you shouldn't use a liar as your only source, but that's your business. As long as the article is NPOV, there isn't egg on my face. I only want to be cited as a Wikipedia editor if Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it in the vast majority of encyclopedias, there isn't a need for footnotes or inline links within the body of the article space, but are instead posted usually at the end of the article as we can do here through external links, references, notes, etc. It is only importnat in articles such as this one that for some odd reason a number of people find the evidence to be something other than common knowledge. This, unfortunately makes the effort appear somewhat more like a college term paper than an actual encyclopedic article. It is very amateurish and vague, as well as entirely POV. It is much further from being neutral than any time I have seen it over the past year.--MONGO 02:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, some people find a difference between White House propaganda and "common knowledge." --Peter McConaughey 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that what you believe is a definitve distortion of the evidence.--MONGO 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

It looks like all the NPOV disputes are solved. You are all invited over to Sarah's house for pizza. --Peter McConaughey 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One minor tweak, the comment that the majority of independent media sources reached the same conclusion, edited slightly and shortened: 1/ Many governments did, as well as media, this wasn't stated, so i added "governments and". 2/ We don't know if it was the "majority" (how would one count, anyhow) so best just say "many" and not try to quantify it. 3/ Most media lack resources to truly "reach conclusions", they often report the news as reported by wire etc, from others, so "reached the same conclusion" may not be accurate, what we do know is they either reached, or at the least stated, the same opinion. So I've changed the wording to reflect that because that we do know. FT2 13:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Slander?

MONGO, you reverted something that is not disputed by anyone including the United States government. Are you now disputing the accuracy of every aspect of the following?

...and a network of secret CIA prisons in foreign countries to which detainees were secretly taken without being charged and without the opportunity of having their day in court. Often these prisoners were abused or tortured, and there are allegations that their religious books were desecrated. The U.S. government argued that such abuses were necessary to obtain information from the prisoners, and that in any case the U.S. president has the power to violate the "arcane" Geneva Conventions.

If you are disputing every aspect of this, I will go through all the trouble of citing every assertion, but otherwise, it looks to me like you reverted something without even trying to incorporate the information. Please assume good faith and abide by the WP:0RR. --Peter McConaughey 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter...it needs to be reworded as something other than a personal attack and needs to have the infallible "X says Y" treatment applied...that way we know it's TRUE! Besides...what has any of it got to do with 9/11..it should be in the aftermath sections of the subarticle....--MONGO 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. The section was written poorly (the sarcastic use of the word arcane is over-the-top) and we don't need all of the details to be this prominent in the document structure. --Quasipalm 21:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorporating what we can is a much more polite method than reverting things out of hand. A blanket reversion is like a slap in the face. It tells the editor that he is either incompetent or a vandal - that he isn't worthy of contributing even an idea that can be worked with. Additionally, the original revert said, "You can put that back in if you can find a completely reputable source for that slander." Is that true or just an excuse to delete it? When the editor goes through all the trouble of citing every source, are you then going to use relevance as an excuse to delete it again? How can you be so rude to someone and wonder why Wikipedia has so many vandals?

People will express themselves. If you bring them into the fold, treat them as equals, consider their edits to be made in good faith, and give them a productive outlet, you'll find in more cases than not that you've made a contributor out of a potential "trouble maker." --Peter McConaughey 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Happens all the time...it wasn't encyclopedic and didn't use X says Y...your golden rule.--MONGO 06:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Verify "two thirds hold false views"

Two-thirds of Americans hold false views about 9/11, such as the view that Iraq was behind 9/11 (Univ of Maryland, PIPES survey), and the more television news Americans watch the more likely they are to hold such false views, according to the PIPES survey.

I wasn't able to quickly verify this. In fact, google of "univ of maryland" "pipes survey" turned up zero hits. [38]

Could we have a proper citation, tie the so-called "false view" to the actual survey question, and when this survery happened? patsw 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the current article version. I did some quick google searches and found the Pipa, not PIPES, survey report by the University of Maryland. I copyedited the statement and moved to "War on Terrorism" section, and eliminated any specific numbers (e.g. two-thirds), as they mention many different polls conducted with varying figures. I think the anon. user is valid in adding this particular point (See: Don't Bite the Newcomers), but needs to better understand how to cite sources and the Manual of Style. --Aude 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Though, many of this user's other edits seem suspect to me and POV... --Aude 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Health effects

I removed "Although an EPA study showed dangerously high levels of toxic dust, the federal goverment withheld this information from the public and encouraged residents to return to lower Manhattan (NY Times, Fall 2004).", added by 216.57.0.210.

"NY Times, Fall 2004" isn't specific enough a source, and I'm not going to bother trying to verify this on google. --Aude 21:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to call someone a liar than to type six words into Google.

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/22/national/main569727.shtml
• http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=13820
• http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=9/11#Environmental_Effects
• http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/19/1354251
• http://www.911ea.org/Front_Page.htm
• http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/WTC_peer_review_report.pdf

--Peter McConaughey 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Who called who a liar? Arkon 06:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"dangerously high levels of toxic dust" is not a phrase from the reports in the links provided by Peter McConahughey. In fact, the phrase has zero hits on Google [39].

Its deletion from the article with a comment here is appropriate. Adding an accurate summary from the EPA internal review with a verifiable link would be appropriate too. I'm assuming good faith on the part of 216.57.0.210 but zero google hits indicates a verification problem with the quote, doesn't it? patsw 17:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Concrete proof of a point of view

there has not been concrete proof that he [bin Laden] either is still alive or in hiding.

• What in the opinion of Bobblewik would constitute "concrete proof"?
• Why should his point of view denying this undefined "concrete proof" exists be presented as fact in the article?

patsw 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11 watchlist

In response to the increasing number of people using the 9/11 articles as a platform for wild theories, I created a watchlist so we can keep track of these attempts. Please visit User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist. You can use the "recent changes" link to view recent edits to the articles listed. Feel free to add any other relevant articles. Rhobite 23:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa...good job!--MONGO 07:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the watchlist. I'll definitely keep my eye on those. For my own vandalism/pov/linkspam watchlist of more general current events, politics, history (these get vandalized a lot), or otherwise controversial topics, I have User:Kmf164/Vandalism_watchlist and don't mind if others add suggestions to my list too. --Aude 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html u guys should see this

What happened to the passengers aboard the plane that this video says never hit the Pentagon?...did the evil U.S. government send then to Gitmo?--MONGO 10:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing a LOT of information..

Oh boy.. Where to start?

It seems current events have outdated this page.

By now it is pretty certain the Pentagon was NOT hit by an airplane.

Now, I know it hurts, to change this piece of information, but shouldnt wikipedia just resemble the facts?

I cant find any prove of a plane hitting it. Anywhere. I can find lots and lots of documents describing that the debries was from a different type of plane and that the pentagon was struck by either a missile or a bomb. Not an airplane....

I can even find a document in which Rumsfeld HIMSELF apparently says it is a missile.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html

http://membrane.com/news/Pentagon_911.html

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/temoins_en.htm

See 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's already covered there. As MONGO asked above, where exactly did the U.S. government murder the passengers of flight 77? What did they do with the plane? Rhobite 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Precisely...Devil's Triangle now extends over a much bigger area.--MONGO 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide reaction

What I wrote was deleted for some reason. If you have a problem with how it is written, tell me. The TRUTH of the matter is that this is how many people across the world saw the attacks.

Then you need to find a source for that information. Your comments are spurious and were mere opinion, especially the last one you made on this talk page. See WP:NOR.--MONGO 08:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I cant find a news article based on what me and my friends felt the day after the attack, I live in Australia so we found out the next day. I CAN remember seeing people in Palestine celebrating

That's nice.--MONGO 09:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does THIS offend you less?

While most news and media centres around the world condemned the attacks, many people felt indifferent while some saw the attacks in a positive light. People who werent directly effected and didnt see any reason to pretend to feel sorry for the victims and terrorists who died found comedy in the attacks and still continue to poke fun at them. Across many countries which held Anti American sympathies, people rejoiced the attacks, particularly in the third world and the Middle East. Even people in the U.S celebrated the attacks, one Ward Churchill commenting on the people who worked in the Twin Towers 'they were all little Eichmanns' Reactions were diversified to say the least.

it's not a matter of it offending or not, though that does seem to be your orignal purpose. It is unreferenced...please see WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV--MONGO 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I SIMPLY want to state WHAT the public reaction was. Seeing that you already overly express that it was sad for many people, I wished to express the opposite end of the spectrum. Being in this spectrum, I felt it even more necasery. But if this is just going to be a whine fest fuck it

We're not a discussion board where each opinion or restatement of fact is accepted and subsequent comments debate or support the earlier entries.

Perhaps the article could be improved by adding a link to an account of celebration of the attacks where it took place in the world. But we're not relying on memory, we're relying on the combined effort of motivated editors to create a usable online encyclopedia. patsw 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition to the intro

I intend to add this to September 11, 2001 attacks at the end of the second paragraph:

Bin Laden categorically denied involvement in two 2001 statements ^[40], before admitting in a taped statement a direct link to the attacks, saying

While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women.

For the full text of the video, see wikisource:Text of 2004 Osama bin Laden videotape. Osama bin Laden's current whereabouts are unknown.

Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Attribute opinion

A relatively small minority reject the view that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, often citing the CIA, Mossad, or pro-Zionist elements as the likely perpetrators. Others, while accepting Al-Qaeda's culpability, allege that members of the American government withheld foreknowledge of the attacks, silently sanctioning them.

Can the minority and the others be identified and cited?

If they cannot be, then this will be deleted as unverified. patsw 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's give it 24 hours and if no one can provide a proper citation, then I say remove it.--MONGO 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a lead in to the conspiracy article, which has a veritable flood of citations and identifications by the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd... should we just pick a few at random? Ronabop 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society

Claims like "although the legitimacy of this video has been hotly disputed" just drive me nuts -- the only people disputing the veracity of the Bin Laden tape are people that actively and willfully disregard the overwhelming evidence of the Al Queda/Bin Laden responsibility for 911. They don't really believe these assertions, but advance them because they are blinded by their hatred of Israel and the US. There are people on this planet who also believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that their POV is valid or even worth describing on Wikipedia -- it should be edited out completely. This should not be a place for the nutburgers that believe that the US or Israel planned the attacks on the WTC. Morton devonshire 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Morton_devonshire

Actually we do protect the POV of the flat earth society, same thing for moonies, scientologists, christians, and other similar wackjobs, anyone with enough time to spend on the internet--64.12.116.201 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And those that hide behind anonymous IPs. Morton devonshire 19:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at that "legitimacy" word myself as unattributed POV. This article is full of "disputes" and "allegations" where the disputer or allegator is not identified. If a writer cannot identify who disputes or who alleges then it is a POV from nowhere and should be attributed and cited or deleted. patsw 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Arts and Literature section

How about splitting off the "Arts and literature" section into a separate article? There are just three mentioned (a play, a novel, an upcoming film), while I'm sure there are others, such as 9/11 (film) that aren't mentioned. I don't really think that these are central to the article, and would be more suitable as a separate article, linked from here in the "See also" section. --Aude 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea; That's going to grow over time. Include music too if you want.Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

redirect

when you search for "september 11, 2001" it redirects you to "September 11, 2001 attacks", it should not do that, for other things happened on september 11 2001 besides the attacks.WikiJake 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Full dates are never used for general purposes in Wikipedia. Events are listed either as 11 September or under 2001. Nothing else significant happened on this day (most of the world were watching these events). josh (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Severity

Has there been a more destructive terrorist attack? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... "worst and most infamous act of terrorism in World history". I won't argue with the term, *imfamous*. Though, at first when I saw this phrase, I didn't like the word "worst" and saying it's the worst in "World history". I'm saying this because groups like the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) [41] — former members Interahamwe, who killed 800,000+ in Rwanda, could also be considered by some, "terrorist". I'm not sure I agree with calling them that, but it's arguable. And not sure I'd consider the genocide as a single "attack" or what.

On the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, they don't count ALIR as terrorist and indeed have 9/11 as the worst/most fatalities. Though, the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) also note "Data for 1968-1997 covers only international incidents." and "Data for 1998-Present covers both domestic and international incidents." I don't know how far back their data goes.

To avoid an edit war here, maybe instead, it should say "worst terrorist attack in American history" or "deadliest terrorist attack in American history". -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Without a doubt it is the worst act of terrorism in the World since the end of World War II. That is undebatable. The worst terrorist attack in North American history? Absolutely. Now it would take some time to go back a good thousand years and see if anything like what happened on 9/11 was more destructive an resulted in a huge loss of life. Two high-rise buildings, each 110 stories tall--destroyed by two jetliners slamming into each of those buildings. It is a miracle that the death toll wasn't even higher; and the heroic actions of the passengers that were in the other plane that slammed into Pennsylvania...that plane was headed towards the White House! September 11, 2001 will definately go down as a date which will live in infamy. -RobDon33, 04:37 UTC 01 January 2006

I agree with your comments (especially so, as an American), but also recognize that "there is no single accepted definition of terrorism" (see Terrorism). I suggest checking out the list of massacres (9/11 is listed here), as well as List_of_terrorist_incidents, Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents, Talk:Terrorism. As you say, I'm not sure we can go back through thousands of years of world history and not find other horrendous, more deadly acts that could be considered terrorism. Thus, I just don't think we should make such a blanket statement in this article as "worst ... act of terrorism in world history". Though, if we say "American" history, that's fine, and I also certainly agree with describing 9/11 as the most *infamous*. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

La matanza, 30,000 civillians killed by state sponsored terrorism, in North America, back in 1932.... maybe "worst terrorist attack in United States history"? Black November has it beat for worst civillian-on-civillian attacks in the *world* since WW II, others have noted Ruwanda, and then there's Srebinca, Congolese cival war, Khymer Rouge, attacks in the Iran-Iraq war, the massacre of communists in Indochina, the current civil massacres in Somalia, etc. It's the whole problem of "who defines terrorism, and how". Would anybody have a problem with describing it as the "worst terrorist attack in united states history", so we don't get into edit wars over the above incidents? Ronabop 05:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Effect on Internet.

I particularly remember the indirect effect the attacks had on the Internet. Due to the sheer level of traffic, many sites took extraordinarily long times to respond, and often timed out. Should a mention be made of that, provided a source can be found?--Drat (Talk) 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate figure for number of people who jumped from the WTC

The figure reported in the article is inaccurate. While at first it was thought and also reported that approx. 200 people did jump to their deaths from the WTC, after analysis of the hundreds of hours of videotape by news sources and law enforcement, it was later determined that the number was lower, approx. 50. I will edit to reflect that, as the attacks and deaths were horrific enough and don't need any extra embellishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.200.240.19 (talk • contribs)

Thank you; Please inculde a citation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the 200 estimate back in the article; that estimate is from USA Today [42]. If you have a more up to date reference, please cite it. Rhobite 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro Rework Rebuffed

I attempted to put the following into the introduction near the top and somebody rejected it:

This event marked a major change in world politics of which the ramifications are still playing out in the Iraq war and increased tension between Islamic and Christian countries and values. As a single date it is sometimes compared to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which triggered World War One as far as impact.

The current intro gets into specifics too early. The general geopolitical impact is more important than details of the hajacking etc. The details of the event should be moved lower. The introduction should be 2 paragraphs, the first describing the event and the second something like the above that talks about the general impact. Even if you disagree with my wording, it should be clear that the approach taken by the current introduction is poor level-of-detail organization.

Having never once heard it compared to the assassination of Ferdinand (hell, I can't even recall off the top of my head what day it was), and isn't that kind of a specific thing? I dunno. Maybe if others agree, but I thought it didn't belong, and it's kind of telling the reader what conclusions to make. It's also assuming that all Christian and all Islamic countries had increased tensions. --Golbez 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps of the details of that specific suggestion are debatable. However, I still feel that the introduction gets into details too early. The geopolitical impact of 911 is at least as important as the specific events and should be mentioned earlier IMO. Perhaps a separate "Sequence of Events" section should be created to give the time-line and move events in the intro down into the Sequence section. I tend to believe that a small paragraph or two at the very beginning should have a general summary, almost a dictionary-size-like entry. I agree that the geopolitical impact is harder to objectively define, but that does not make it less important, only more challenging to describe. The Sequence section could look something like this:

06:02 - Foo gets into a car with friend Blah.

07:43 - Foo arrives at airport

08:02 - Blah puts a box cutter in his sock.

09:10 - Etc....

nine-one-one

though a few people prefer "nine-one-one" (the same as the telephone number for emergency services in the U.S., 9-1-1). Some people dislike the use of "nine-one-one" due to the similarity to "9-1-1" (which implies a call for help) and the obvious practical point - that this would be far more confusing and potentially ambiguous, and prefer to state the date as "September 11th"; this is also the preferred form in academic writing. Nonetheless, "nine-eleven" is the most common form.

What is this all about? Where does it come from? I've never seen or heard the September 11, 2001 attacks referred to as "nine-one-one".

It's vague. (i.e. few and some and the obvious practical point)

Is there a cite for the "nine-one-one" reference? If not, this section should be removed as unverifiable. patsw 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly heard 9-1-1 used casually to refer to September 11. Mostly spoken, rather than written word. It is trivial and trite, but it is a coincidence that might be worth noting to help minimize confusion. -- Pinktulip 11:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

An annecdote is not evidence. Please discuss its verification here. patsw 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:202.156.6.54 posted this to the article page, at the end of the section '9/11':

(This is possibly true of the London attacks but not of Madrid. There is a long tradition of similar abbreviations being applied to significant events in Spain, notably the coup attempt of February 23, 1981)

Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.

This recently added section makes little sense to me. It discusses what didn't happen. Does anyone besides it author see relevance, significance, etc.?

I would also strike this as being irrelevant and insignificant:

A high volume of put option purchases[43], [44] and other unusual market activity [45] occurred in the days and weeks before 9/11, prompting international investigations into alleged insider trading.

No connection to 9/11: so what is it doing here? patsw 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld's admission that a missile was used in 9/11

Donald Rumsfeld admits that a missile hit the Pentagon and "similar" flying contrivances contributed to the WTC attacks as well. This admission can be found in the official Defense Link Government Website.

• http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

"They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

Read what other people had to say about Rumsfeld's admission:

• http://www.democrats.com/node/5056

That sentence with the missile reference reads rather awkwardly. I think it's highly possible that it was a bad transcription that should have read, "...using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens as a missile to damage this building..." That makes more sense. Had he actually said that, you'd think that it would've been more of a news story then (or especially now when support for the administration is at an all-time low). That fact that it's discussed in a web forum doesn't add any credence, either. Furthermore, while I realize that there are many "under-reported" unews stories, a Google news search [46] for the terms (Rumsfeld missile "World Trade Center") yields one result that is unrelated to the aforementioned transcript. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. To characterize it as an "admission" is overblown. Consider the context--the interviewer doesn't bat an editorial eyelash when Rumsfeld says this, and goes on to the next question. -- Cecropia

Identification of the hijackers as Arab.

Anon added the identification of the hijackers as Arab. Is that accurate and relevant? patsw 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In the next paragraph, they added "Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon.". That's more specific and I think suffices. I don't think we need to say "Arab hijackers" in the first paragraph. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Im not editing your comment just saying that i also believe there was a missel of some sort used in that attack, and if this movie offends anyone in any way please tell me so but this movie is factual evidence that there was no 757 that hit the pentagon... http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.70.148 (talk • contribs) .

No, it's a poorly produced movie with a list of quotes from names. I find it amusing that so many civilians in the Pentagon area know what a missile sounds like. Occam's razor: Where's the 757? --Golbez 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A 757 flying at 200 feet above the ground would hit the pentagon before anyone heard it at the pentagon. The explosion sound would be there before the sound of the incoming plane would. This is true of missles as well oftentimes. Yes, where is the 757, and the passengers as well.--MONGO 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We should shorten the lead section

In the middle paragraph of the lead section, the National Commission is mentioned. That is the wrong approach. A better approach is to boldly make the assertions about Al-Quaida, etc. and then justify those assertions later. -- Pinktulip 12:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that for a lead section? Just simple, direct assertions. No telling the reader that the hijackers were terrorists. The reader already knows that people who hyjack planes are terrorists. Just the big chucks. No commissions. No letting someone else make the assertions. And some additional historical context, notice the two wars that followed. -- Pinktulip 12:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we add this link to the Links section: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001 -- Pinktulip 13:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all of Pinktulip's changes are an improvement. He's added weak language like, "were determined to be associated with..." and "It was determined that...". Improvement or not, all the information he took out needs to go back in the article somewhere. Having that information up front does make the intro more complex, but also avoids those vague passive-voice statements. I don't really want to just revert over all his work, but rewriting it might have the same result. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I chose those phrases quite deliberately because I did not want to lead off the second paragraph with "A massive investigation deteremined the following:". The reader can figure out pretty quickly that there was a massive investigation involving many government organzations (which some of you list-makers would then try to start rattling off). But adding that verbiage to the text just wastes the reader's time. The language is deliberately vague and passive, but more importantly: it gets to the point. -- Pinktulip 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not put footnotes in the lead section! Do not document the assertions in the lead section! This story is too complicated for that. Just make the assertions and document and justify and enumerate them in the LATER sections. You see what happened with the work done by the foot-noters? They were so obsessed with footnoting Bin Laden's denial (which is the LEAST notable item in that second paragraph) and they FORGOT to tell the reader that Bin Laden is still at large. That is a lack of judgement. The foot-noters are failing to recognize what is Important in the story. -- Pinktulip 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You see that? That foot-noters back again, foot-noting Bin Laden's denial. What is it with these people? Bin Laden's initial denial is NOT VERY IMPORTANT. -- Pinktulip 02:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out explicitly talking about Bin Laden's denial. He might have lied Monday, told the truth Tuesday and who-knows-wath on Wesnesday. It is not very important. The fact is that NOW, he has mostly admitted to his involvement and that NOW, the World pretty much accepts his admission to his involvement. And that is pretty much how it will remain, probably forever. -- Pinktulip 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip's tone, his use of capital letters, and his characterisation of others as "foot-noters" is uncivil, as is the suggestion that those who disagree with him lack judgement. Remarks like, "What is it with these people?" may be taken as personnal attacks. I hope he avoids this kind of language in the future. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip should look for consenus before removing the mention in the article of bin Laden's denial. I do not support it. His denial is significant even though he later admitted to involvement because the denial triggered the accusation of President Bush in September 2001 of a rush to judgment. The Wikipedia doesn't need to be the source to tell you what's not happened, what's not be said, who's not been captured, etc. patsw 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"...initially denied <footnote> but.." Three words and an out-of-place footnote. Still expensive for such a trivial piece of information. Bin Laden's denial amounts to little more than hot air. I suspect that the problem is that some of you guys are desperate to label Bin Laden a "liar". Or else you simply have your precioius supporting documentation, and therefore the item MUST go in as early as possible. Pathetic. You already got the label "terrorist" on him and almost all readers know that terrorists, by necessity, are often liars. It is a compromise in the quality of the lead section text, but do not feel like slugging it out with you guys over it at the moment. -- Pinktulip 10:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing me as "desparate to label bin Laden a liar" is not an effective rebuttal to "his denial is significant". Whatever is said by critics of President Bush is used by the terrorists for propaganda purposes and vice versa. This is as true in 2006 as it was in 2001. There was a significant criticism of President Bush for attacking the Taliban regime after they rejected the ultimatum to turn over bin Laden based on these two claims: (1) bin Laden denied it (2) proof beyond reasonable doubt that bin Laden was involved was not produced. patsw 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden's denial was hot air. Bush's "offer" for Bin Land to turn himself in was more hot air. Nothing came of all that talk. In this case, from a historical point of veiw, it is actions that count. The talk deserves a mention in later sections, but not in the lead section. -- Pinktulip 03:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Whatever is said by critics of President Bush is used by the terrorists for propaganda purposes and vice versa."

"Bin Laden's denial was hot air. Bush's "offer" for Bin Land to turn himself in was more hot air."

Where is the evidence for either of these? Sounds like 'conspiracy theories' if you ask me . . . Bov 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally POV beginning of the article

>event in which a total of nineteen Arab hijackers simultaneously took control of four U.S. domestic commercial airliners

This is not a fact, just a theory, no matter how likely. There can never be mathematically exact proof of this, since all the planes were destroyed beyond recognition. The fact that those five young jews were detained by police while dancing in the streets when the WTC, which they have been filming for hours, suddenly got struck will always leave the little doubt that the 19 either were not the perpetrators, or they were not alone, possibly serving as mere puppets onboard. Anyhow, you cannot state it as a matter of fact the above quoted sentence. If you state this then you are racist, because you always apply presumption innocence when dealing with caucasian master races, but pig arabs and followers of dog prophpet Muhammad are assumed guilty by default. 195.70.32.136 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from making such comments. This is obviously another 'israel/jews' did it theory.. A lot of people celebrated on 9/11 but it doesn't make them guilty of or associated with it. Also it is still in the balance whether that U.S government (and client state Israel) may have known of the plan and let the event happen. But this does not mean it was perpetrated or organised by those 2 countries. -- max rspct leave a message 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The WTC was a target since 1993 when they tried to blow it up with the van in the underground garage...the government of the U.S. also had some knowledge that was of only a very low credibility that hijacked planes may be employed as missles prior to the attack. That there was any coverup or that there was any credible evidence that this was going to happen and the government of the U.S. failed to act is completely incorrect. No event of this scale goes completely unnoticed while in the planning stages...but leads do not in themselves warrant the level of suspicions they oftentimes should. The lack of imagination of those in positions of decision making rarely exceed that of advisors and investigators who know how to put the pieces together as that is the fundemental focus of their occupation. Did investigators bring forth evidence that planes would be hijacked...yes they did. Was the evidence more convincing than other evidences of other possibilities...probably not. I'm not convinced a lot of people celebrated on 9/11 aside from those in the Muslim world...and I can forgive them for that due to the view by some that the U.S. is evil and antiMuslim. As far as the rest of the world, if they found anything comical or celebratory about the events of 9/11, then they must be sick.--MONGO 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the bulge

This article is still too long. It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky. I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality. It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section). How about it, guys? We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with that in principle; the trouble will be in the details. It should be possible to make the improvements you describe if it's done slowly. Maybe add the details elsewhere first, then take them away from this page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Two details in lead section

• "The September 11th attacks are among the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century in terms of the profound (effects)..." I find "in terms of" to be weak language. I also find having "most significant" and "profound" in the same sentance to be tiresome. You already told me that this thing is Important. Do you think that the reader is going to assume that the effects were trivial or mild? Please folks: only one intensifier per sentance. Reasonable guideline? -- Pinktulip 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I added this line: "Millions of TV viewers watched as individuals jumped from the towers to escape the flames." but it has been removed. I added it because it succinctly conveyed what I think was an important fact: This event was televized. Does it matter that this event was televized and had tons of other media coverage? I think so. I think that it is a reality that such events getting onto live TV makes a political difference, but I have an open mind. Does the line take up too much room for the information it conveys? Feedback please. -- Pinktulip 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Millions of TV viewers watched..." I'm undecided on this. I've already had to AdBlock several of the images on this page because they're too horrifying to look at every morning. On the other hand, I agree that the media coverage was significant. As a terrorist, lots of violent death on national TV was part of bin Laden's goal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Was this disaster not the first to be shown worldwide in realtime? I don't recall any other --EyesAllMine 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Arab hijackers...

I think we hammer the point home in the second paragraph that the hijackers were "of Arabic origin". Do we really have to mention this in the first paragraph that they were Arab (that whole ambiguity between ethnicity and nationality...)? We are having a mild edit war over the wording of the first paragraph because of this. -- Pinktulip 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately it may be better to list their nationalities and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that "edit war" is just because no article can be written in an absolute objective way... The paragraph says "the hijackers WERE DETERMINED to be...." by whom? Later in the paragraph "American investigators" are mentioned but just related to the "planner" of the hijack... Also, why "American"? They're from USA, America is bigger, you all should know ;) Please don't take this as some kind of vandalism or something like that, just my opinion.. I'm Smeaghol logged off.

I would be nice if "American investigators" could apply to the entire second paragraph. Yes, that is not quite the entire story (since other countries helped), but how do you say it succinctly? Something about an "American-led" investigation? Maybe start the 2nd par. with: "Investigators, primarily those of the USA, determined that..." ? (already using eight words just to keep everybody happy; please - no more than that). -- Pinktulip 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts about building seven

Building seven was standing about block away from the towers. And was not hit by a plane.

Those two facts are of relevance, and we should be able to include these in the article. Honestly I dont see how including this lead to the assumption that the building was demolished. Whatever conclusions one may or may not draw from facts is irrelevant to writing a encyclopedia.

And as long as the, to me (it seems to be pure speculation and can never be verified for sure), rather farfetched discussion about what silverstein meant or not when he said pull it, gets so much attention (I mean this could really be suggestive of the building being demolished) is included in a lot of articles there is no consistancy in omitting simple facts about the location and situation of building seven. --EyesAllMine 13:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You got any PROOF that there was controlled demolition, other than the allusions and misrepresentations of comments by the likes of Silverstein? I am really looking forward to proof...did the controlled demolition experts all die too? Your comment, "(I mean this could really be suggestive of the building being demolished)" is simply just that...suggestive and is not encyclopedic, as it cannot be backed up by any facts that there was controlled demolition. I'm waiting for facts that would stand up in a court of law under cross examination. We're not going to dally in speculations or allusions here.--MONGO 13:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

MONGO ... I don't know what got building seven down ... Others are having a hard time as well trying to find out (NIST, FEMA), I'm not having a special hidden agenda here, as you suggest. My interest is in stating the facts. Thats it. Omitting facts is not encyclopedic. About Silverstein, I dont know, and I dont care about what he meant or not. Really. Is not a factual thing. Some find it suggestive, I don't. Actually I'm amazed his remark is mentioned all over wikipedia --EyesAllMine 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)