Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 32

The page has been protected following a request at WP:RFPP. I hope that we can solve this issue on the talk page. Melsaran 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as an editor who hasn't looked at this page in a while, this article loses almost nothing from the fact that the word 'terrorism' doesn't appear in it (in the voice of the article itself). "...consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks" has just as much meaning as "...consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks". Using the word 'attackers' in place of 'terrorists' in other places in the article creates a version of the article that can be unprotected and edited once again, because I doubt there's much dispute that the 19 instigators of this incident can be described as 'attackers'. The purpose and results of the attack can be derived from description of the events themselves.

If use of the word is insisted upon, then it could come in its own section on this page, which for the record I believe is completely unnecessary. If that section ("Is this terrorism?") appears in the article, then according to WP:NPOV, there should be equal time given to voices that believe these attacks were not terrorist attacks. In other words, if you open the box that debates whether this was "terrorism" or not as a debate, both sides must be given equal footing, and a lack of sources that say it isn't is not an acceptable reason not to include both sides. I suggest that the better course is to remove the term. Skybunny 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove the term as it adds nothing to the article and is inherently POV, but it's fine to say "organisation XXX said that the attacks were terrorism" (attribution instead of stating it as a fact), without giving equal footing to the minority opinion that it was not terrorism, per WP:UNDUE. Melsaran 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps change terrorist to "widely regarded as terrorist^[6][7][8][9](and add official government announcements by a few dozen countries). Not to make a WP:POINT, but NPOV would require that, if terrorist does not appear unadorned in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would appear to be a good compromise. Melsaran 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

agree with Melsaran: do not use the T-word unattributed. comment if the attacks ever turn out to be an inside job for everyone to see, there will be less debate about whether it was terrorism or "fighting". But that's not the point, if we agree to abandon our policy on this page, which page will be next? I am very frustrated with a group of dominant editors pushing their POV without striving for consensus, ignoring the spirit and the guidelines of wikipedia in the process. I'm not saying that I do not make mistakes myself, but I wonder: do you believe in wikipedia as a community or just in yourself? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their correctness never does.

suggestion ...were attacks using hijacked planes. The attacks were widely denounced as terrorist atrocities by almost every country in the world.[refs] The point being, there is no secret about it being terrorism, it's just that we on wikipedia have decided not to use that label ourselves. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Skybunny: in situations such as this, WP:NPOV does not demand equal time to alternate/opposing views, but rather appropriate or perhaps proportionate time. Furthermore, a lack of sources is definitely a reason not to include a viewpoint. See WP:UNDUE. Jpers36 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I pointed out above :-) Melsaran 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"widely regard as" is not needed. Simply terrorist, accompanied by references will suffice. So, it would be terrorist^{[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]} and need to add some more sources. Or per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we could simply say terrorist with the single U.N. reference. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Aude, which would you prefer? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a fascinating case. On the one hand, we have an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources describing the attacks as terrorism. We have the event itself - the canonical terrorist attack, hopefully never to be surpassed. It became the catalyst for "The War On Terrorism" as the article says.

On the other hand, we have wikipedia guidelines. We have WP:TERRORIST, part of the Manual of Style, which says that, as quoted above, the word should not be used in the narrative voice. Why not? Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. The question is, then: is there anyone who isn't persuaded that these hijackers were terrorists? Are there people who think that they didn't intentionally kill themselves and thousands of others in order to further their ulterior motives?

We also have WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable pillar of wikipedia - the only one, I believe JW said - which says that something can't be stated as fact unless it is generally accepted as such. Things which are not generally accepted (in other words, opinions) can be converted into facts by attributing them to a reliable source. So I guess question two is, are there any non- fringe observers who seriously dispute that this attack is the textbook case of terrorism? In other words, would it give undue weight to tiny-minority views to define this event as anything other than a terrorist attack? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "something can't be stated as fact unless it is generally accepted as such. Things which are not generally accepted (in other words, opinions) can be converted into facts by attributing them to a reliable source." is a logically fallacy of the form "A implies B therefore B implies A". I can't remember the name but its false (like "Rain implies being wet, therefore being wet implies rain" you could just be swimming). In any case, WP:NPOV recommends against the use of the word terrorism, indirectly, in the section WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Damburger 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You say logical fallacy, I say statement of the neutrality guidelines. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, is "terrorism" POV here? How can it be? Merriam Webster says that terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and that's just what 9/11 was. That's what the Oklahoma City bombing was, that's what Virginia Tech shooting was, etc. If you believe the US Government was responsible for 9/11 (I don't) that's terrorism; if you believe hijackers of planes and Al Qaeda were responsible, it's still terrorism. Any way you slice it, the events of 9/11 were terrorism. The people who carry out terrorism? They are terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, the moron from VA Tech, etc. — all terrorists. Thus, terrorists committed this terrorism — even if you're in the minority that feels the US Government did this, and not people from the middle east. The events of 9/11 were terrorism events, carried out by terrorists — whoever you think the terrorists are. How can that be in dispute? Timneu22 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What about dropping 2 atomic bombs on cities to try to coerce a surrender from Japan? What about putting people in Auschwitz? What about Abu Ghraib? By that definition many acts of war and all war crimes are acts of terrorism. Mr.grantevans2 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Acts of war are different. Timneu22 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Terrorism is what happens when people are going about their daily lives and something bad happens like India recently. When bombs are dropped as a part of war, this is not going about daily lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.31.154 (talk) 16:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it but I think someone said al-Queda declared war on the USA years before 9/11? In any event, I'm responding to the definition shown above and unless the definition explicitly states that acts of war do not qualify as terrorism, then perhaps that impression is just an urban myth.Mr.grantevans2 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then are you stating that 9/11 wasn't terrorism? That VA Tech wasn't terrorism? Oklahoma City? These are all terrorist acts, right? Timneu22 10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the article doesn't need the word and shouldn't include a controversial word which it doesn't need. Mr.grantevans2 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying there's no controversy. 9/11 (and the other events I mention) are terrorism. Period. Timneu22 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What does the use of the word add to the article? Mr.grantevans2 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes the article accurate. How can 9/11 events be described without saying they are terrorist events? This must be stated. Otherwise, it's like describing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without mentioning bread. I really feel like the elimination of "terrorist" in this article is just a ploy for people to push the idea conspiracy theories. And I've stated: even if it was the US government, it's still terrorism. Timneu22 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22, I can't read your mind and you can't read mine. I am not using any ploy nor do I subscribe to nor push any theories at all and your suggestion is ridiculous and inhibiting to open discussion. Regarding your actual point, I think including the word terrorist is like describing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and including the word "tasty". Mr.grantevans2 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) It's just ridiculous. I want to know what the point of this discussion is — no where else in the sane world is 9/11 discussed without "terrorism" being involved. So why, on wikipedia, are people trying to remove the term? If it's not to push a conspiracy theory agenda, then what is it? You're telling me that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists? It wasn't terrorism? If all the planes had crashed into military targets, it wouldn't be called terrorism. When people are going about their daily lives (like Atlanta Olympic bombing or London bus bombings) this is terrorism. MY GOSH, even the List of terrorist incidents says 9/11 was terrorism BECAUSE IT WAS! How is this in dispute!?!? We should "[avoid using "terrorist" unless] verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". Haven't enough sources been cited to say this is terrorism? Timneu22 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica describes the event without using the "T" word within that description; so don't say it can't be done. The reason people on Wikipedia are trying to avoid it is because we are dedicated to NPOV and some of us feel the "T" word oozes POV in the public mindset. Mr.grantevans2 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Two articles and their intros:

* The July 7, 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts...

* The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on ...

9/11 was far more notable as a terrorist bombing than these events. Are you therefore going to rewrite EACH of these articles? Rewrite all articles on Wikipedia pertaining to terrorism? We can't just go around updating every article (I'm sure there are hundreds) to remove the word terrorism. At some level you must realize that using the word "terrorist" isn't POV. Was Oklahoma City's bombing a terrorist act? Yes. Well then tell me why 9/11 isn't. Timneu22 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Mr.grantevans2; we use terrorist because we want to remain NPOV. Britannica has no such concerns. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one is objecting to the use of the word 'terrorist' in the article. They are merely objecting to the use of it in the narrative voice. As far as I'm concerned I think nothing would be lost from the article if the narrative voice used attacks, attackers and other more descriptive words. This is in no way an indorsment of the beliefs of the conspiracy people. Its simply a matter of NPOV. And the word can be used dozens of times if you like - with references.Extrememedium 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...(continued from #back to the polls)

I think there is a paradox. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, there are two major suspects: Osama bin Laden and an alleged shadow government. Now, in order to establish which due weight to give to either the mainstream view or to conspiracy views:

• government sources and associated media reports are deemed reliable sources (which is not the same as trustworthy sources)
• popular opinion does not count
• scientists, military, intelligence personel which are fired for speaking out about their mistrust of the government seize to be "reliable sources" from that moment on
• any fact which is at odds with the official version, even if acknowledged as "true" is labeled "factoid" (in the second meaning, being: irrelevant bu true detail)

It appears to me that this is a snake biting its own tail. When following this process, it is absolutely impossible for wikipedia to write about crimes committed by the establishment neutrally unless they themselves admit it. Every other authority is denied. Every expert, major politician that speaks out is set in a corner a lone lunatic.

This cannot be the way forward? We must be able to find a better way to find some balance between what to include and what to leave out? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Addition: are reliable sources not supposed to be independent of the subject matter to be useful for wikipedia? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more a discussion for Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks instead of September 11, 2001 attacks. --PTR 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would apply there, also, but this discussion is about THIS article being NNPOV. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But your para above talks about suspects. I'm not sure what you want to change. I don't think an article saying most people think this but some people think that is going to be very readable. That's why the subarticles are linked. --PTR 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For readability, and given the views of most wikipedians, I would suggest a lead paragraph stating that this is the mainstream view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This alledged shadow government isn't a major suspect, making this entire discussion pointless. RxS 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

not major - That's your opinion (and such is your right) but it is not mine. Since you believe they didn't do it, there is no need for you to question all the spin stories they put out, and you are confirmed in your belief. But your reasoning goes in circles. Independent sources would not make a strong case against the inside job theory. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See, that comment makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. It's not up to you or I to decide what's "major" Something is "major" when experts working in their field and neutral third party sources say it is....this all should go without saying. You can consider something "major", I can consider something "major" but for Wikipedia's purposes our opinions don't matter. RxS 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, according to recent polls, something like 40% of the American public does not believe the "official" account of what happened on 9/11. On a related note, on the order to 60% of the American public does not believe in the theory of evolution. Both are based on pretty much the same level of evidence, and display about the same level of acceptance in credible experts and reliable sources. They also both, in the stead of the so-called "official" version have a literal zoo of different explanations, which have no support by qualified and credible experts. As the evolution article does, we devote a small section of the article to a discussion of these alternative theories, and link to an extensive sub-article where they are treated in depth. Wikipedia is not the court of popular opinion, it's not a democracy, and it's not a vote; it's a reference encyclopedia. If you read above, or here you can see an explanation for why the article is the way it is. Essentially, in compromising the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, by saying things like "according to the official account" or something similar, you give an absolutely staggering amount of undue weight to these theories, which have no support by credible experts. It's the equivalent of writing the lead of Hitler to say "Adolf Hitler was Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and Führer from 1934 to 1945. He led the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the Nazi Party. Some believe he escaped Germany and now lives in Argentina." It not only totally misrepresents the article which follows, in violation of our guidelines, but gives a far too much credence to a fringe theory about Hitler's death. --Haemo 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the self-eating snake metaphor - it has a corollary, too. Consider, for instance, a Paranoid Nut Job who shows up to Wikipedia one day to teach the world about some big secret. Paranoid Nut Job eventually finds himself blocked for disruption (or whatever). Paranoid Nut Job now has another bit of "evidence" of a vast conspiracy – one that now includes Wikipedia. Now, how are we to tell the difference between a self-eating snake and the work of a Paranoid Nut Job? That's why we pretty much stick to verifiable, reliable sources. Rklawton 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of this. I'm sick of the endless debates that go nowhere, and those who attempt to try every concievable method to push the same flawed idealogoly. I'm sick of the constant revert wars. If you are sick of this, let your voice be heard here. I propose no more pointless debates. No more "but they aren't 'really' terrorists". No more "this article has POV problems." Maybe if enough of us stand up and say Enough, we can move beyond this pointless argument. Who is with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarage (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 August 2007

I totally agree with you here. All Muslim references should be removed until evidence is show. I don't care so much if people call Lary Silverstein or GW Bush terrorists for staging the attack but if wikipedia has rules about it then I'm all for sticking to them. More rules is better here. If there is a chance to improve the rules then so be it.(Gaby de wilde 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I proposed a 1RR limit for people posting obviously controversial theories on articles like this many moons ago, this is absolutely pointless. --Golbez 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a brief read through this Talk page and it certainly seems that the normal wikipedia editing process is being disrupted - to an extent. However, I'm not sure what the best route to take from here is. If specific questions (e.g. use of "terrorist") are the issue, then an RfC is appropriate. If you feel that a particular editor is a problem, then I would suggest discussing it on their Talk page, and if that proves unproductive, requesting a third opinion or even a user RfC. The wikipedia dispute resolution process should be able to deal with this, one way or another. Be patient and keep the faith. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC has, in fact, been filed. See here. Melsaran 11:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to stifle debate and essentially freeze this article for all time? I can't think of any reason other than that you feel the article as it stands is to your liking and that editors with contrary views are a threat to this and must be silenced. This is not a wonderful attitude to have on wikipedia, is it? Damburger 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall. I'm tired of shouting at the top of my lungs to someone who doesn't get it, and never will get it. I'm tired of wasting my time on a debate that has been going on for years, and yet people like you STILL come out and with this idiocy. Yes, I called it idiocy. No, I will not take that back. Your ignorance has shown like a star in this entire debate. And I just don't care anymore. I refuse to let you have your way. --Tarage 08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You've the nerve to complain about my civility whilst calling me an idiot? I'm not a brick wall. I hear your arguments, and I tear them apart. Then you continue to make the same argument as if nothing has happened, and won't move on or try to make a new argument. To me that shows your ignorance, not mine. Damburger 09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, Tarage has already warned me about editing this page and he did so without addressing my point. Thats just rediculous? So he is A terrorist attacking wikipedia, look out everyone!(Gaby de wilde 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You say 'tear appart', I say 'plug your ears and go lalalalala. Again, I don't care about your argument anymore. It's wrong, and I'll fight till I'm banned against it. Because to fight a fool, sometimes you must act like a fool. --Tarage 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof Osama was involved, so you should take the fascist hate speech about Muslims some place else, don't assume it's time to start making weird accusations at my address when I mention this.(Gaby de wilde 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You just accused me of "plugging my ears and going lalalalala" in the exact same sentence as you say "I don't care about your argument anymore". I'm not sure you realise how ridiculous that is. Damburger 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"To fight a fool, sometimes you must act like a fool." --Tarage 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But the other person might be acting like a fool in order to fight with you.

Leave aside for now questions of why you think you need to be fighting on a Talk page, and of who started it (honestly, I can't believe I'm having to say this). The only thing that is certain, if you follow such a philosophy, is that you look like a fool. It doesn't help you or your cause.

What might help is proposing an improvement to the article and pointing out how, in your view, your proposal meshes with wikipedia's principles. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a pretty minor thing to bring up, but we've got 177 refs here. What do people think of a four col reflist? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall trying it in a preview before, and it looked terrible; but, since there there's been a drive to clean up the references into standard formatting so maybe it would look good now. --Haemo 06:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 177 refs is typical for an article like this. Evolution has 167, New York City has 161, and even I-35W Mississippi River bridge already has 102 refs. But only two columns. Three columns of refs used here is unusual, and I think four would definitely make them too squished together and difficult to read for people using smaller screens. --Aude (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". Indeed it was an act of terror.
However it is important to understand that in this context the term "terrorist" is designed. Designed to function like: "Which" in Europe between 1450 and 1700; like "Jude" in Germany 1930-1945; and "Communist" in USA and Western Europe 1945-1980.
Like the other examples, the term is designed to create these effects:

• To have someone to blame for all evil in the world.
• To deny those who are termed so basic human rights.
• To put the attention of the individuals and groups that holds these beliefs (and NOT are terrorists), outwards. So they don't have to face their own feelings and thoughts (which actually creates all these horrors).
• To silence any questioning or other belifes (then you're suspected of beeing a terrorist, and who wants that?)

As it is now, the article is advocating the above statments.

And to #Enough: If the majority at school are beating and harassing you. And there comes a point where you speak up. Or somebody is speaking up for you. What is it enough of? Harassing/beating or speaking up? Geir 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's a terrorist act even if it was not committed by the Al Qaeda operatives. I believe, even Al Qaeda spokesmen referred to it with an Arabic word frequently translated as terrorist. Is there anyone who does not call it terrorist? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So, now we are beating and harassing conspiricy theorists? Come off it. You aren't getting your way, so you try a different means of attack. That doesn't work, so you try another. If anything, you are the bully here. You refuse to stop the harassment on this article, so you continue to attack it from different angles. Enough. --Tarage 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the results for your muslim neighbour in everyday-life after this 911-story became widely acepted? Does she/he feel the beating? Geir 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow... now you are grasping at straws. You are saying that by labeling the hijackers 'terrorists', I am labeling every muslim a terrorist? Nice try, but no. Apples and oranges. Calling someone evil does not mean anything but that person is evil. Stop twisting things. --Tarage 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this was not specificly about the label terrorist. It was about the every-day impact of the hole 911-story, the increased hostility and suspiciousness against muslims all over the world. Geir 10:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait... this isn't about the label? Tell that to Damburger. And even then... are you sugesting we censor the truth so that a few people won't be harassed? Surely you jest. --Tarage 11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is how you understand what I'm saying, so be it. Please keep an respectful tone on wikipedia. Geir 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In western countries we see those attackers as "terrorists" because they attacked the US, but in certain middle eastern countries, the foreign policy of the US is seen as very invasive and as a danger. See also the section Statements by others in this article which is giving reasons why a palestinian or a person with arabic background may think of the 911 attackers as "freedom figthers".

The problem of calling someone a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is always determined by the point of view of the narrator. For example when the US financed the Taliban in the 1980s in order to combat russia, no one in the western countries referred to them as terrorists but rather as freedom fighters against communism. But for Russia they were seen as Terrorists. So for me the T-Word is never NPOV ! It is hard for someone who's country has been attacked to have NPOV but that is exactly why there are guidelines! Of course it is necessary to mention that most of the western countries see 911 as a terrorist attack.

It's not just Western countries; Arab media and government like Al-Jazeera label 9/11 a terrorist attack. In fact, you can believe it was a terrorist attack and still be supportive of it. Terrorism is a para-military tactic; it's not some kind of relativist pejorative — see Definition of terrorism. Simply listing "who calls this a terrorist attack" is an absurdity; instead, the question is "who doesn't". We're still looking for reliable sources which attest to these nebulous people who believe otherwise. --Haemo 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have been banging my head against the screen trying to explain, this is a question of wikipedia policy and sources do not matter. If the whole world calls George W Bush a wanker (and, lets face it, its only a matter of time now) we still do not use that word in the narrative voice in his bio. Damburger 01:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that uniformity of "who says this is terrorism" is apparently everyone. No one has been able to bring up a reliable source that indicates substantial views, especially amount academics who actually know how to apply the definition of terrorism that this anything but a terrorist attack. The view that the manual of style trumps the neutral point of view is absurd, since the reading of WP:TERRORIST this argument is based on is so narrow as to totally ignore the point of guidelines in the first place. --Haemo 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you misrepresent my arguments in order to make them easier to rebutt. As I pointed out above, WP:TERRORIST agrees with WP:NPOV because of the concept of 'letting the facts speak for themselves'. My reading of the guidelines, and of the rules, is not narrow simply because its not the same as yours. My reading adheres to both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

And it isn't that nobody has been able to bring up a reliable source that says the are terrorist attacks; its that nobody can be bothered since, as I have stated so many times, sources are irrelevant to this argument. Damburger 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care what you think anymore. We have been down this road many times, and you refuse to accept that they ARE terrorists. I don't CARE anymore. Do you understand? You won't win this. As long as I have editing powers, I will undo ALL edits that take out 'terrorist'. There, it's done. Call me a troll, call me an asshole. I don't CARE. I refuse to let you have your way on this. --Tarage 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you are now promising to vandalise wikipedia out of sheer spite if this doesn't go your way? Damburger 09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'll be just like you. --Tarage 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

They really, really aren't. The point of the manual of style guidelines you are quoting is to encourage attribution of statements which can be considered pejorative and negative. The point everyone else has been trying to make to you is that any such attribution in this case is pointless, since the list of "who calls these terrorist attacks" would run into the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of references; including everyone qualified to weigh in on applying the definition of terrorism to this attack. Changing the lead to call this otherwise give undue weight to a view which is so in the minority that no one can find sources for it, so far — let alone sources from anyone actually qualified to weigh in on the topic. --Haemo 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you get that the point of WP:TERRORIST is to encourage attribution? To me it seems to be fairly clear in what its says: avoid the use of the word terrorism. Despite your constant invoking of WP:NPOV that also suggests we shouldn't use the word terrorism. I can find sources for people saying these aren't terrorism, but I am not posting them because I am well aware of what you are trying to do. You are trying to make this about the sources and it is not, it is about wikipedia policy. I won't let you take this off on a tangent and distract from the point.

The fact that my interpretation of both rules and guidelines is widely accepted as correct can be seen in any wikipedia article relating to a terrorist group, where that terrorist group doesn't target Americans. Contras and Lords_Resistance_Army are examples of this. Words such as 'armed opponents' and 'guerillas' are used for stateless groups that have committed horific atrocities against civilians. The only reason that such objectivity isn't found here is because of cultural bias. Damburger 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If other articles lack the term terrorism, then I suggest you go and edit in them and add that term, so long as there are reliable third party sources to support the claim. That there are a plentitude of third party statements by numerous international entities, news media and respected authors who do refer to the attacks of 9/11 as acts of terrorism, and that these are mainstream views, makes it more than accurate that we document this event as an act of terrorism...lets not continue marginalizing what happen on this date.--MONGO 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IT DOES NOT MATTER how many sources you cite, because terrorism is not a word thats allowed in wikipedia. You could try editing other articles to add the word terrorism in, but you would be shot down very quickly. That would be the case here as well if the victims were, say, French. Damburger 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop yelling, you're looking at things in much too much of an absolustionist viewpoint. The page you keep referring to is a guideline: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." RxS 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it doesn't say "don't use the word terrorism" at all; the guidelines exists to encourage attribution of who is labeled a terrorist. This should be pretty clear, especially since it references Category:Terrorists which by the Wikilawyering reading of the guidelines it shouldn't exist. --Haemo 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished by using the word? At the least it is inflammatory and can appear to portray bias. This article should be written with the same lack of inflammatory language as the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan article if this encyclopedia is to appear to be unbiased. I'm sure the "terror" felt by Afghans when our 500 pound cluster bombs started falling was similar if not worse than the terror felt by Americans on 9/11; but my primary point is; Why use such language in an encyclopedia? Is it necessary in order to tell the story of what happened on 9/11? Not in my opinion. Mr.grantevans 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished? It labels an entity for what it is. Charles Manson has have felt his killings were "art", but that doesn't stop us from calling them murder. Creationists may feel that evolution is a religion, but that doesn't stop us from calling it a fact. Wikipedia does not, and should not, subscribe to semantic relativism, where we disallow any words which can be misapplied as a pejorative — for all the sound and fury, in the end there is still a definition of terrorism which exists, and can be applied by experts on the subject to entities. And guess what? They unanimously call this terrorism. --Haemo 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is such a loosely defined term that it shoulnd't be used here. Although, if anyone does have a good definition of terrorism that we could use on Wikipedia, then please provide it here. If no one does, the term should be removed from the article. Merat 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo has no background in physics or engineering and as such is not qualified to consider the evidence which proves beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolitions which hence invalidates the grossly false suppositions of this page.Bofors7715 04:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good I don't need any, because we're writing an encyclopedia here, and not evaluating evidence ourselves. --Haemo 04:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you claiming that is acceptable for an encyclopedia to include treasonous falsehoods?Bofors7715 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No? --Haemo 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No??? Then why are you are engaging in unacceptable behavior.Bofors7715 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of information is verifiability, not truth. It is at best unproductive to argue here about what is true and what is false. Instead, provide links to reliable sources supporting something you'd like to add to the article. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please, kindly change the following sentence in the attacks section…

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell.

Into this one>

A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., the 47 stories building was not hit by plane, it collapsed without resistance in less than 7 seconds, after six years the official explanation of its collapse is still pending.

Reference: NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation

Feel free to improve the wording, many thanks. 89.172.46.93 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. --Golbez 10:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The source supports the current wording and it is less vague than the proposal which implies that there may be a cause unrelated to the collapse of buildings 1 & 2 whcih is not supported. . --Tbeatty 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the source doesn’t support the current wording. The source is all about working hypothesis and ongoing investigation. We had a discussion above, there were no takers, feel free to add your comment there, again, working hypothesis in an ongoing investigation is not acceptable and cannot be presented as proof. There is no official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 and we cannot invent one, it's against our guidelines it is disturbingly POV, to say the least. 89.172.46.93 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you're a new user, so you may not be aware of this but we've gone over this topic many times. Reliable sources, experts working in their field in and out of official positions and neutral third party sources all around the world indicate that WTC7 collapsed from damage resulting from the attacks. None of these sources display any doubt about this...don't mistake due diligence for doubt on their part, thanks. There are other articles that discribe conspiracy theories, perhaps you could examaine those for possible improvements... RxS 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but you'll need to provide reference for your claim, a single official source will suffice… I'm not interested in conspiracy theories… there is no official explanation for collapse of WTC 7. None. That sentence is false, especially so with regards to provided reference, so what is that? It is nonsense, isn’t it? You provide a reference and then you misrepresent its meaning? Why?! 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.38.72 (talk)

Please see this exact same discussion in the last archive section. --Haemo 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To User:89.172.46.93, perhaps your edit should be revised to "although not impacted by an airplane, WTC fell after sustaining heavy damage from thousands of tons of structural steel beams dropped directly on the building from hundreds of feet above from the collapse of the north WTC tower along with several hours of fire damage fueled by thousands of gallons of heating oil stored in the basement. Emergency workers at the scene reported significant damage to the SW corner and predicated as early as 4:00pm that the building would collapse." 206.169.172.212 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

@ user 206.169.172.212; perhaps so, if you can find the reference… elsewhere, it's already done anyway… this article in its current form, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report will become historically insignificant… best wishes… 78.0.94.68 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how much energy has been used here basically saying: "You're wrong, we're right"? It doesn't lead us anywhere, does it?
I want to focus on two goals for this article/subject:

I searched but I don't think the damage to this building, its dismantling, or the two further (I would say) 9/11-related deaths that occurred there recently are in the article. Should we at least have some mention of it? --Golbez 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the damage section - September_11,_2001_attacks#Damage. The deaths are not, but they are mentioned in the Deutsche Bank Building article. I'm not sure about when deconstruction will be complete, but the LMDC website still says September 2007. I'm skeptical about that, but we need to find a more up-to-date source for that. --Aude (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would first like to say that the following is not a personal attack - merely an observation. I have read through most of the talk page notes on this article and I do understand the policy on verifiability. But in my opinion, I feel the question of true impartiality must be brought up - especially after viewing the comments of Tarage. Seemingly, Tarage seems so passionate about going against governmental findings and mainstream theories, that his/her rebuttals against possible conspiracy discourse may actually keep future generations from coming to this site and getting the broad scope of what may have actually happened. I feel comments like "Because the conspiricy theories are all without substantial sources." show that Tarage believes the only credible source for information on September 11th is the government.

It's great to be a great American (if Tarage is an American, I can't say for sure), but to toss out comments by other posters simply because their comments didn't come from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX news, violates Wikipedia's own policy on neutrality. Comments like "Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way...you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened." seems to denote that Tarage cannot even fathom the possibility that our government could have possibly done something that contradicts the "documentation". If the Nixon administration could cover up their actions against John Lennon back in the 70's or of course, Watergate, then could it not be possible that some of these "so-called" conspiracy theories may have some truth to them?

Example. In one of your earliest notes, you stated on the subject of opinion polls:

"Public oppinion polls can be quite flawed. For example, the way you phrase a question can change the answer people give. I'd have to know exactially what questions were asked, as well as the motive of the poll."

But, on another Wikipedia article, we could take a look at the approval rating polls of our current president. President Bush had an approval rating of 92 percent back in October 2001 (according to ABC). In July of 2007, his approval rating, according to ARG, was 25 percent. Now, would we exclude the ARG poll information simply because ARG may not be as recognizable to the general public as say ABC would be?

So, under conspiracy theories section, the comment "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.", despite article "verification", could be deemed as a statement of opinion, rather than a reflection of neutrality. My questions to Tarage would be:

1. What do you deem a credible source? Does this have to be a reasonably recognizable impartial news organization?

2. Do you believe that the news organizations of this country are, in fact, impartial?

3. If a news report (surfaced on any of these news sources) stated information that called into question or completely and undoubtedly refuted the information that is currently in your September 11th wiki article, would you post that information in depth upon it being posted to Wikipedia or would you allow your our personal feelings on the subject to prevent you from doing so?

Again, this is not a personal attack. I'm just merely trying to understand why it seems that you, Tarage, are trying to keep information off the article, when it is obvious that numerous people have brought up stronger points for not just a quick inclusion in the article of the fact conspiracy theories on 9/11 exist, but these points make a good case for there to be a broader discussion in this article about some of the points brought up by these theories. I understand that their is a seperate article for the theories, but I must agree with some of the previous posters - this article is far from neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kct2002us (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There has been no evidence presented that any WP:RS has given the 9/11 conspiracy theories any degree of reliablility; they have reported on the existence of the theories, but not their "truth". We should do the same. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All fine and good, but if you look at Tarage's previous remarks on the subject (on this talk page), does it not seem that the whole "Reliable Sources" policy is more subjective and based on opinion than anything else? You have some people who don't believe that news sources such as CNN or Fox News are actually reporting on the actual news or perhaps that they twist the news based on their political leanings or monetary persuasions. This is the same opinions people would have for those news mediums that feel their may be merit to the conspiracy theories. Doesn't this make the "Reliable Sources" policy seem somewhat one-sided? Both sides of the argument could claim that evidence can be seen for their points of view. Why just placate to one particular point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kct2002us (talk • contribs) 19:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it perfectly clear that the oppinions expressed by myself are NOT the oppinions of some of the better authors here. The only posts I take responcibilty for are my own, and likewise they should only be applied to me, not the "Pro Terrorist Use" group as a whole. Editors such as Haemo and MONGO are far more eloquent than I am. The purpose of my posts are to voice my oppinion and mine alone. Once again, please do NOT apply my ignorance of editing to them. To do so is a cheap and pathetic tactic. --Tarage 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, while my arguments may have as many holes as swiss cheese, I trust that editors like Arthur_Rubin can take my nonsensical-ish arguments and back them up. Again, my oppinions and arguments are my own. Don't apply them to anyone else but me. --Tarage 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the reliable sources guidelines. Reliability is not the same as what we colloquially would refer to it as, and there are clearly delineated guidelines for when a source is reliable. The key principles are (1) editorial oversight and (2) a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. --Haemo 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kct2002us, please note that the essence of wikipedia's no personal attacks guideline is that editors should comment on content, and not on the contributor. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm being pedantic but shouldn't the article be named "September 11, 2001, attacks" (with a comma between 2001 and attacks)? I believe that's more grammatically correct. Or was there some reason the comma is missing? -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is in the archives several times. Since the English Wikipedia covers several dialects and stylistic rules, there is no single perfect solution. The current name seems about equally objectional to everyone. Peter Grey 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not pedantic. And, yes, you are correct. There should be two commas setting off the parenthetical year in the American English form of "September 11, 2001, attacks." Nevertheless, it's not worth fixing the title because the rest of Wikipedia reflects the same punctuation error. Due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia autoformatting, in many instances, American English dates cannot be viewed with correct punctuation without screwing up the dates for users who chose to view autoformatted dates in the British form (i.e., "11 September 2001 attacks"). See this discussion for an explanation:. The consensus in the Manual of Style talk pages was that it is better to have "hanging" years (such as "September 11, 2001 attacks") in the American form than to have an out-of-place comma (such as "11 September 2001, attacks") in the British form. If the ubiquity of this punctuation error bothers you (as it does me), I suggest you change your viewing preferences to the day-month-year format. That won't help with the title of this article (which is clearly wrong but ultimately not worth fighting over) but it will alleviate the problem when reading most other articles. Lowell33 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That section is getting a little big, but that still doesn't invalidate the dispute:

• The word 'terrorist' is recommended against in WP:TERRORIST. Its explicitly cited as a word to avoid using in the narrative voice.
• The word 'terrorist' is not to be used, according to the principle of 'let the facts speak for themselves' in WP:NPOV
• The word 'terrorist' has not appeared in the narrative voice in articles about attacks against non-americans, such as Guildford pub bombings. This shows the use of the word is a clear example of WP:BIAS.

These arguments have not been refuted. Those who want to keep the word in have simply maintained that they will revert edits regardless of what anyone else says. I have been the subject of accusations of acting in bad faith, and then been told to apologise to the same author moments later for turning these accusations back against him. For pointing out his hypocrisy, he put me on ignore.

This level of debate is not healthy. Can someone actually address the points above? Otherwise, simply concede that use of the word is not objective, and is contrary to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Damburger 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 3 - as pointed out to you above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_diplomatic_assassinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec

If you read through all the discussions above without an agenda in mind, you'll find the answers to your points one and two as well. --PTR 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To address Damburger's points in order...

• WP:TERRORIST is a red herring. It is only a Manual of Style guideline, and WP:NPOV is a wikipedia policy. To understand the difference between guidelines and policy, try violating both and see which one gets you banned ( do not actually try this).
• Other editors interpret WP:NPOV very differently to Damburger. The sentence "let the facts speak for themselves" is section 3.3; by way of comparison, the sentence "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." is section 1.0.
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good basis for argument.

It seems to me that a correct interpretation of WP:NPOV is the only issue before us. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've misread my third point. I'm simply using other parts of Wikipedia to highlight the bias that exists in this article. Damburger 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the next step is a guideline RfC to confirm whether WP:TERRORIST should be modified in conjunction with WP:NPOV, rather than being on carried out on the individual pages about clear terrorists. (I also ask Damburger to correct the section title. This isn't about "objectivity". It's about policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A RfC to clear it up isn't a bad suggestion, although its clearly wrong that there is a contradiction between WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. As I read it, they work together perfectly. Damburger 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its worst to say the word "terrorist" must be applied in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Mr.grantevans2 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not; at the heart of doublespeak is the notion of semantic relativity, where the meaning of words can be distorted to support a political agenda, or to distort reality. Calling these anything but terrorism is doing exactly this. --Haemo 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• One entirely inarguable fact is that there has long ceased to be any new points raised on this talk page with respect to this question. Some say "terrorism" is the correct vocabulary and no other word suitably describes the event, some say the term is inflamatory either inherently or because of its use in bad faith by politicians. I would suggest that it is time other dispute resolution mechanisms were pursued. Peter Grey 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we done yet? Or is Damburger's temper tantrum going to be allowed to continue till it fills up another page? --Tarage 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY please. Anyway, I've asked for editors as WP:NPOV and WP:WTA to come and comment here. Apparantly, according to you, that constitutes a 'temper tantrum' because I won't simply give up and let you get your way. Damburger 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say calling in everyone you can to try to argue a losing point is a temper tantrum. No... I'd actually say you are boardline trolling. --Tarage 03:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at all of the inventors who don't deserve a wikipedia page because of a lack of mainstream confirmation of their invention. I had to learn to respect the way wikipedia works right there. This makes me think the amount of pseudo science on this page should make it more then worthy of deletion, Wikipedia should not function as a platform to advertise a minority opinion as scientific fact. The page doesn't mention doubt about the subject, everything written goes without proper scientific evidence. Who brought Osama bin Laden into this story? I really want to hear how he relates to this before reading "he did it!!" in the wiki. Don't you actually have to prove some one did something? Lets agree to disagree and delete the page. There are so much lies on it it's broken beyond repair.(Gaby de wilde 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

WP:SOFIXIT --Haemo 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. Peter Grey 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute? You talk about me and call me an idiot AND move my article but you don't reply to me? This is just rude trolling IMHO.

At least state your opinion?(Gaby de wilde 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

I think Gaby's initial post contains its own answer: the word "mainstream". Fringe science and pseudoscience may be routinely deleted because of a lack of mainstream acceptance. Attribution of this attack to Osama bin Laden is not deleted because it has mainstream acceptance. To answer Gaby's second rhetorical question: No, we do not have to prove anyone did anything. We simply have to find reliable sources who say that they did, and present such information neutrally. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post 40,000 word rants about the subject of the article; discuss the article, not the subject. --Haemo 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article assumes a consensus that does not exist. It makes no reference to other points of view such as science! It represents everything what propaganda stands for. You are right of course when you say you do have to find reliable sources. The claim this is not a highly controversial topic is easy to disprove. My claim remains: This is a subject of extreme controversy, such discussion has no place in wikipedia. And stop deleting everything I write here will you? (Gaby de wilde 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

You do understand that Wikipedia has thousands of articles about highly controversial topics? That's not a sufficient reason for deletion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you make posts in keeping with WP:TALK, they will not be deleted, and vice versa. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The page covers a notable topic and therefore deserves inclusion in the project. it certainly wasnt wikipeduia who brought Osama into this and indeed all material should be referenced, SqueakBox 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No it was this

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

But no reference to the actual video is made on this page. So the page is just a reference in it self. It does not contain any content.

The locked page uses words like TERRORIST and has an extremely PROPAGANDA like nature. It tries to force a consensus upon the reader that doesn't exist.

The official story is a conspiracy theory.

The global scientific consensus is that the buildings got blown up.

Kerosene doesn't get hot enough to create pre-collapse explosions in the basement. Or is a pre-collapse victim in a hospital bed not a credible source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0

If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure -Mark Loizeaux, president, Controlled Demolition Inc.

So that means EXPLOSIONS not COLLAPSE. And what about the thermite? They may have tried to ship all evidence to china the 5000 megawatt afterglow is something you will have to explain for before you quote a news article as a scientific fact.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

The official story is nonsense. This everyone knows already. But feel free to explain why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Why did the private footage need to be confiscated. Where the reported to be found flight recorders are. How Bush could see the first plane crash on live camera. You may explain why the official story is so full of such non scientific nonsense. And most of all we need some explanation of why the official story needs to be supported by removing evidence.

I think those are honest questions. How can there be 10 000 videos on google video all claiming controlled demolition. While some artificial consensus is enforced here?

Please don't just delete my arguments again.

(Gaby de wilde 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Gaby please stop using this talk page to prove whether or not September 11th was real or not. This is an article talk page not a discussion forum.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But ok, lets try discuss the article.

Why not have A paragrhap about the evidence getting shiped off sight? Be honest?

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[126] These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

I find the the official story to be one heap of nonsense. The sincere questions about the hiding of practically all evidence should be mentioned here. The thousands of questions about the topic should not merely be generalised as conspiracy nuttery in one single paragraph. They should all have their own Q and A. If anything should be labeled as conspiracy theory it should be the official story.

I find spontaneous pancake dustification of skyscrapers pseudo-scientific nonsense of the highest order.

Then the story wants 3 of those caused by 2 aluminum jets? Almost all the kerosene burns off on impact but there is enough left to melt steel? This while it doesn't actually get anywhere near the temperature in the real world of science. The impact of a jet is no where near the pressure the wind creates. People who worked in the building for years got blown up in the basement. How much more pseudo-scientific does it get I wonder? Explosions + not enough impact + not enough jet fuel + it didn't get hot enough = controlled demolition

no? please explain your answer. The article should contain the cop-out excuses commonly used by the mainstream media in order to get away from the facts. Not the other way around, you cant quote up an article out of chunks of clear nonsense and rationalise it by saying it was written in the bible of mainstream media. The truth is not the property of news agencies to make of what they like.

I'm not putting this up for debate, it is my opinion the story should go as it's not based on scientific facts.

(Gaby de wilde 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

The paragraph that Gaby quoted is a WP:SUMMARY of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If that paragraph is not a fair summary of that article, then it should be discussed here.

If, on the other hand, there is a problem with that article - perhaps it does not fairly document the various conspiracy theories or their recpetion - then Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories is the place to discuss that, not here.

We still have important issues to cover here, such as how to resolve the question that got this page protected. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the posters above have no intention to ever create a decent page about this topic, they have been unable to up to this point. The page is locked while it uses slander and propaganda of the highest order.

Take this:

That morning nineteen terrorists[3] affiliated with al-Qaeda[4] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

REFERENCE 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html No one claimed responsibility for the attacks, but federal officials said they suspect the involvement of Islamic extremists with links to fugitive terrorist Osama bin Laden, who has been implicated in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and several other attacks.

In other words: This news article does not confirm the claim in any way.

REFERRENCE 4

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

this article still does not prove anything, it is a reference to a reference, the actual video is not supplied. The video is also a known hoax. So a reference to a reference to a video. Hardly a reason to start screaming TERROR TERROR!!! The sources supplied do not incriminate anyone.

Osama can say what ever he likes, he doesn't have the power to stand down the US air-force. He didn't ship the gold out of those banks, he didn't lease the WTC 30 days before the event and earn billions in insurance fees like Silverstein & co did.

Osama most certainly didn't blow up building 7. He didn't place the pre collapse explosives. Because he simply doesn't have the power to do so. Ow, wait you still have to come up with evidence he was actually invoved?

The whole page is 100% propaganda.

It starts off like this!!

The September 11, 2001 attacks consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[2] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America..

What terrorists?

what suicide attacks?

What Islamic extremists?

What ARE YOU CRAZY PEOPLE?? HUH??

You cant refer to a religion as being extremist and terrorists. You cant even make the link with the religion evident. This is just SLANDER. Specially when you don't make it evident but just pull this kind of statements out of the blue sky.

Is it still an encyclopedia if I refer to OPEC as a Catholic extremist terrorist cell? Extorting global oil supplies? TERROR TERROR!!

Does it sound flavored or objective to you?

This is why the page should be deleted. People refer to this wiki as a reference to what really happened. And the page stacks lies upon lies upon lies. It's disgusting, lets delete it?

Let them take their war of terror some place else. The intention is to scare people into worshiping their government. We shall have non of that here. I'm not a religious man but I know for sure this is not the place for you to call Muslims terrorist extremists using Donald duck references.

I'm not putting this up for debate either. The Ali Baba and the 50 virgin terrorists hoax story can-not be backed up with evidence. The scientific method demands looking at all the data supplied, not just small chunks that support your war agenda.

All pseudoscience must go, specially the social engineering kind.

(Gaby de wilde 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Ignoring rant which <s?contains mostly liesnothing that meets Wikipedia standards for something which should be considered, whether or not true, and the pseudoreferences "quotes" are not the current state of any Wikipedia article. What needs to be deleted is any of Gaby's contributions related to the rant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Edited to strike my WP:CIVIL violations, but it was commented on, so should not be deleted without the consent of the later commentors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but pretty much agrees with above) The fourth reference is known as a secondary source, which is the kind of sources that wikipedia tries to cite. We take as little as possible from primary sources, and instead use secondary sources, verifiable secondary sources in fact. Google video is not a secondary source, nor is it a verifiable source, so any evidence gleaned from people's postings there is not permissible as evidence. Unless you can find any verifiable evidence that supports your reasoning, I'm gonna call on Occam's razor and say that the more simple explanation that fits the facts is true. Please stop trolling this page unless you have cold, hard, verifiable facts that support your thesis, as any further rants will be removed as trolling. Thank you. Gscshoyru 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cease requiring primary sources ;it serves no purpose, and it is directly contrary to our reliable sources guidelines here. In addition, gigantic rants about the subject of the article have no place on this page. To be quite frank, this talk page is not here to air what your opinions about this or that are. We all have our own opinions of the events, but this is not a place to discuss them. Discuss the article not the subject of the article. --Haemo 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Although he's obviously ranting and might need to be treated accordingly,I don't think Gaby de wilde is trolling(there is a difference,I think) and I don't like sarcastic references to any type of disabilities "I must provide a phone number to a local mental hospital" which I think is the worst type of trolling. In my opinion, the mainstream theory is the most conspiratorial and incredible of all that I've heard but I'd never say people who accept it are mentally ill; that would be an outrageously mean-spirited, censoring and juvenile thing to say. Mr.grantevans2 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone making references to peoples sanity should be removed. The article is not about your or my sanity. Keep up the good work Damburger. I have seen no strange temper no nasty remarks but I do read people accusing you of such while ignoring the development of the actual article. (Gaby de wilde 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

As a neutral editor who has not had anything to do with this particular article at any time, I believe it is time to have a (relatively) neutral editor have their say.

In response to claims that the word 'terrorist' is extreme and should not be used on this page, I put forward that many people, from the Dalai Lama to President Bush to former Prime Minister Blair have referred to the hijackers as such. This word has been bandied about so much that it has entered into public use, not only in America but in other countries as well. It is our duty as editors to record this. Whether or not all editors agree with this usage, it is the mainstream usage and should be used in the article, even if a note is added to point out alternative words to 'terrorist.'

In response to claims that the hijackers should not be referred to as 'Islamic extremists,' I sympathize, I really do. I understand that such a reference can hurt the reputation of the entire religion. However, it is an accepted fact, supported by what evidence is available, that these men were motivated by their devotion to an extremist sect of Islam. This does not mean that all Muslims are extremists, nor does it mean that the extremists are even accepted by mainstream Muslims. My advice would be to keep references to the men as Islamic extremists as non-accusatory as possible, but to leave them where they are. Since that is how the hijackers are viewed by the majority of people, those references have a place in this article.

In response to personal attacks, as well as flame and edit wars, taking place on this article, I offer a piece of advice- leave it. If you really feel that something is wrong and should be corrected, and you have the references to prove it, then come to the talk page and discuss it. If such an edit can be added as an alternative viewpoint alongside the mainstream one, then by all means. But on no account should any alternative viewpoint completely replace the mainstream viewpoint. The ideal here is to have both viewpoints existing side-by-side on the same article, without conflict over which one is 'the right one.' Wikipedia is for facts, not for opinions of the individual.

Please think over my advice for awhile, and try to put the ridiculous edit wars here in light of how an editor should do his or her business- with others, peacefully and with teamwork. This kind of foolishness benefits none, and hurts the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia as a whole.

Sageofwisdom 19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen, amen, amen. Note that I've been discussing these same points on here, and like you I have rarely (if ever) edited this article. All your points here are dead-on. Timneu22 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here -- it's good to have an outside voice. --Haemo 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why all the fuss? Because some people can't accept that they don't get their way. Can we un-protect and move on, and treat all removal of 'terrorist' as trolling yet? --Tarage 05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much time is being spent on minor points that have no hope of being changed. The article is largely factual but we need to concentrate on the errors that are easily disputed. For example, the fake videos are treated as reliable sources. Osama is given undue weight even though the FBI has amitted they have no evidence he was involved. The identities of the hijackers are treated as their real identities despite the FBI admitting that most used stolen passports and dont know their real names. al Qaeda is directly blamed even though the source used says they are only suspected. These points all have reliable sources refuting the current claims so these are the errors that need work not the half page on semantics we have now. Wayne 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if Bush, Blair and the Dalai Lama call them terrorist attacks. Its against wikipedia guidelines AND policy for that word to be used in the narrative voice. There is no need to suggest an alternative word - because the article functions perfectly well simply not using the word. Damburger 09:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might: before the discussion regarding whether or not the people involved in the attacks of 2001 were "terrorists", or even before the argument on whether it is possible to use the phrase in accordance with Wikipedia policies, there is something on which I daresay sould agree:

1. The presence of the phrase causes reccurrent argument on this talk page
2. The use of the phrase is not necessary: after reading the description of the attacks and who qualified them to be "terrorism", readers are capable of making their own mind without the article having to endorse any specific term (and this is assuming the highly unlikely situation of someone who would come on this article with no previous knowledge of the dewscribed events).

Hence, I think that there are very good practical reasons to avoid the term, and none to endorse it. Rama 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple comments here; resposes to above:

1. Didn't Osama state that the attacks were his?
2. Are you then going to rewrite all the other articles that use "terrorist"? Here are two intros from other articles which are far less notable terrorist incidents:
   • The July 7, 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts...
   • The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on ...

I argue to Damburger that Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong or being abused for this article. This was a terrorist event — innocent people who were non-military targets died. This was a terrorist event. Timneu22 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia rules are wrong, there is a very obvious conclusion to which you should come as to your contributing to it.

The matter is not to discuss whether or not the attacks were terrorist acts; this is both obvious and irrelevant. The question is whether we, as Wikipedia editors, should endorse the point. Just like it is obvious that Hitler was evil, but beating the point over and over in his biography is not necessarily a good idea (Godwin point intended). Rama 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My statement about Wikipedia's rules was about this particular rule (WP:TERRORIST), which was obvious in context. How can someone say, as you just did, that "it's obvious" these were terrorist attacks but the point shouldn't be endorsed? Further, I can see that the people making claims on this page are certainly biased: Damburger's contributions suggest that he is a biased user. I'm looking for neutral users (like myself) who haven't been editing these types of articles. Timneu22 12:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's obvious that Hitler was an evil man, yet we don't keep pressing the point over and over in the article. It'd be childish. Rama 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to the points of Rama and Damburger. Regarding Timneu22's comment regarding his opinion of "suggest"ed bias, that is a direction we shouldn't go in, it seems to me, as we are supposed to assume good faith + anyone can accuse anyone else of being biased; extremely counterproductive comment by Timneu22 as I hope he might realize. Mr.grantevans2 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One can assume good faith and one can also research the edits of others. If those edits reveal that another editor isn't editing in good faith, then it's time to have an opinion. Which I now do. Timneu22 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Timneu22 Didn't Osama state that the attacks were his?
1. In the September 16, 2001 Osama video tape he denied responsibility.
2. In the December 9, 2001 video tape he admitted responsibility but this tape was proven to be a fake.
3. The December 27, 2001 tape doesn't say anything and is thought to have been made before the attacks.
4. The September 9, 2002 audio tape is still claimed by the administration to be genuine but the experts who examined it say they are 95% sure it is fake.
5. In the October 29, 2004 video tape (two days before the US elections) Osama admitted responsibility. There is no consensus as to it's reliability but the mainstream media speculate it is possibly a fake.
6. In the 23 May 2006 audio tape Osama said he was the only one involved and that Moussaoui was innocent. Being an audio tape there is no way to determine who is talking.
If you contact the FBI they will tell you that there is no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. Wayne 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I still say that for terrorist to be removed, we need some source that states the acts were not terrorist. I think I saw a source indicating that even al Qaeda agrees it was a terrorist act. They think it justified, but.... 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. I'll see if I can find some such source(s). Mr.grantevans2 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to find a reliable source for the negative. Perhaps it's always harder to prove a negative:)?. Here are some ones that are connected with films and books. I haven't read the books or watched the videos "loose change" "inside job" at the links so I don't know how reliable they are. The one about 9/11 being psyops and the other one about it being a majic trick are kindof interesting,I think, but reliable sources? I guess not.,

,,,,, Mr.grantevans2 14:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. Has anyone considered keeping the attack itself as a terrorist attack (almost universally accepted fact) while not calling the hijackers themselves terrorists?. Wayne 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'd go along with that as a compromise. The fewer "T"'s the better, as far as I'm concerned. Mr.grantevans2 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I object, on the fact that you are calling an apple an orange. --Tarage 06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They were undeniably hijackers who made a terrorist attack. Calling the hijackers terrorists is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy (WP:TERRORISM) and is no different than WP's example of not calling the KKK racist (Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint). We know it but need to avoid it. Wayne 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why avoid calling an apple an apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarage (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(In response to a request for help on WT:NPOV)

The principle that "terrorist" is a non-neutral word when used in Wikipedia's voice has been well-established in Wikipedia for a long time. It should not drag on this long here.

Neutrality does not merely mean "what reliable sources say". It is not necessarily a neutral description, if the US, UK, Dictionary, or ones grandmother, calls (or doesn't call) a certain group "terrorists". That is important to understand. This is Wikipedia, it is a neutral encyclopedia, and it has its own communal consensus and standards. These apply, and not standards and views which may arise outside it.

In terms of "Words to avoid" (WP:WTA), the emphasis is that a term which conveys a view of agreement with one "side" of some matter, should where practical be replaced by a term that does not favor the views of either side. We look for words that charactize and do not label, if there is contention. "Militant", "Bomber", "Hijacker" and "Activist" are characterizations. The word "Terrorist", by long standing communal view, is not.

(We can notionally test this. Both sides would probably agree that Al Qaeda members are "activists", and both sides would agree they are militant - as opposed to pacifist. Both sides would agree the various aircraft were hijacked, and both would agree that other acts by Al Qaeda included "bombers". But only one side is evidenced as calling the perpetrators "Terrorists". Why? Because it is a non-neutral term.)

Outside in everyday life, one can use terms as one wishes. On Wikipedia, neutrality comes first, and the definition of neutrality here is not "what the dictionary says" sometimes. It's what people would feel if we as a project added our authority to a word use. If Wikipedia labels a group as "Terrorist", it adds that we view it that way. Individual editors may do so privately -- but the project as a whole, which editors represent when writing articles -- does not.

A good and precise article is possible and practical, without adding our own coloration to the description of facts.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. How do the words "hijacker" or "bomber" characterize someone? If I go down to the 7-11 and plant a bomb, am I not a bomber? Of course. If I hijack a plane, I'm a hijacker. This is not a characterization. It's a description. The people who hijacked the 9/11 planes are hijackers. They also killed innocent civilians, which also makes them murderers. The problem here is that one side thinks a group of people is being labelled "terrorists", when what is trying to be accomplished is to classify only those who participated in the events as terrorists. How can that be wrong? Timneu22 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this has gone on for a bit, but I'd just thought I'd add: In all of this, hasn't WP:TERRORIST been misinterpreted? Isn't it the use of the noun "terrorist" that is legislated against, rather than the adjective? The adjective "terrorist" can be applied to any act or ploy aimed at against a civilian population to induce terror; and thus a terrorist actcan be carried out by almost any organisation, whether it be a government, group of freedom fighters or terrorists. The US tactics abroad have at times been "terrorist", although obviously they are not terrorists; and the contras, regrdless of whether you consider them freedom fighters or not, their actions were aimed to induce terror and so were "terrorist". Wireless99 16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - you actually pick a good example there (possibly unintended). Yes, they were murderers, we can all agree on this, both by law and by dictionary. But a more neutral term for Wikipedia use is "killers" ... because it lacks the emotive level of that word. (In fact we dopn't even have to use that word, we simply list how many people died, and how their deaths happened, it is sufficient to state those facts alone.) In the same vein, is part of the reason why "terrorists" is a poor and less neutral choice of word than alternatives, for Wikipedia. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I also agree with Wireless99. Why has no one commented on my question: if you remove "terrorist" from this article, what about all these, and others? Timneu22 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - In general on Wikipedia the argument "what about those there" is not given great weight. For example on articles for deletion, precedent from other similar debates (even on almost identical subjects) is actually listed as an "argument to avoid" (WP:ATA). Each is decided on its own case. The answer to your point is, I agree there are other articles which use less than neutral wording. There are also many where editors have purposefully chosen to use neutral wording. All things considered, the latter is "best practice" on most Wikipedia articles, and is the favored approach. When we finish this one, if you like, we can visit some others and address the wording on them, too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timneu22 - My answer to you speaking from a position of no authority but much reflection is that these other incidents are not as temporally and emotionally to the front for people right now. I would submit that in a small but significant way that the dispute on this talk page mirrors the wider debate about cause and effect in these troubled times. I would suggest as an ardent fan of Wikipedia, a site that for me defines all that is good about the internet that it is Wikipedia's best interest to be, dare I say, religiously neutral on this topic. People are defining this event event as the "day the world changed" and all that hokum. Let us show that Wikipedia can rise above current geo-politics. Remove the word "terrorist" from the title of this article and from within it. Let the reader decide how to interpret the facts. If that is not possible and I would be very troubled if it were not, at least make it clear within the article that certain terms within the article are controversial. Lastly (if I may) I believe that we should not accommodate the conspiracy theorists as their claims are based on an intrinsic mistrust of the government/system, bad science and they jump to conclusions - none of which is fact-based. See here for a sound debunking.

As stated earlier, the people who hijacked the planes were hijackers; these are the same people who executed this terrorist event, making them terrorists. A murderer is one who murdered, and a singer is one who sings. A terrorist is one who commits terrorism. It's that easy. This has NOTHING to do with neutrality. Timneu22 23:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it has a lot to do with neutrality. Terrorism is not a "non-neutral" word, as FT2 asserts; in fact, if you read the guideline, the consensus is that is is a pejorative. That is, it is a term with negative connotations. The reason for it being pejorative is obvious — terrorism, regardless of which of the 109 definitions of terrorism generally involves causing fear or anxiety by attacking targets which are not the main target of the action. Most people think this is a bad thing, and so attach negative connotations to the word "terrorism". The same is true for any other word, like "pirate" or "thief". These words have negative connotations.

The point which is made in the guidelines is that what constitutes "terrorism" can be a debatable subject. The guideline does not urge us to remove the word, but rather to tell us "who says it". That is, to show which "side" is labeling the other terrorists. In this case, the side is everyone. Every reliable source, every expert, even supporters of Al Qaeda and the events on 9/11 accept that these were terrorist acts. The concept that there are even two "sides" to this is not clear — apparently, the "Al Qaeda's actions were not terrorism" side is so small that we cannot find reliable sources to modify the statement as the guidelines suggest. This runs us flat into the neutral point of view guidelines — specifically, undue weight, which strongly favours calling the actions terrorism.

In fact, guidelines even suggest not to remove the word, but instead to source who says it. In this case, the list runs to thousands of reliable sources. I mean, we could say "universally regarded as terrorism", but that would just case a bigger firestorm; after all, is that neutral?

I mean, the underlying principle behind the "don't use the word" argument is semantic relativity; that a word like terrorism is so subjective that it is like saying "bad man" or "bad person". That's nonsense. It has a very precise academic meaning, and has whole fields of experts studying who and what it applies to. They call 9/11 terrorism. Every expert qualified to weigh in on the subject of what is, or is not, terrorism agrees that this was terrorism, regardless of which definition they use. That's the reason we have a list of terrorist attacks — because we, as a reference encyclopedia believe that words have some meaning which people schooled in their use can then apply to label reality. What a blind and legalistic reading of the manual of style urges us to do is forget all that and engage in facilitating this relativism when it's clearly contrary to the heart of the guidelines. --Haemo 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which side you're arguing. If it's "universally regarded as terrorism", then isn't that how it should be portrayed? Timneu22 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Part correct, Haemo, and part less so. The majority of what you say is accurate. "Most reliable sources call them terrorists, and to not state that they are described as such by most countries would be improper. The question is purely whether Wikipedia, in Wikipedias voice should do so, and on that score the view is its not good practice, for the reasons given. Not least of which is, as you say it's often heard as a pejorative. Citing is easy - a list of "for examples" in the footnote.

Your point beyond that though, needs correcting. The fact that a term is academically correct, like a term which is dictionary correct, does not mean it is popularly neutral. For other examples of possible pejoratives and judgementals with precise academic and dictionary meanings, see words such as "myth" and "cult", that are also considered WP:WTA's. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point to my post above, was to argue that it is consistent with WP:TERRORIST to describe the 9/11 attacks as "terrorist" or the hijackers as using terrorist tactics without actually calling them terrorists; for that, I submit, depends on your perspective and can be left to the reader. We can perhaps make this clearer in the article in order to maintain NPOV, maybe find some academic/jounalist sources for the description of al queda's tactics (or something along those lines) and the definiton of terrorism etc. Does it seriously follow that if you are using terrorist tactics (which have both a strict political science and dictionary definiton) that you are a terrorist? No. The US government has used terrorist tactics many times in its history, yet the majority of Americans, presented with this fact, would not call those who carried out the attacks "terrorists". Those who consider certain political groups that use terrorist tactics to be 'freedom fighters' would not call their groups "terrorists". It clearly depends on your ideological perspective. However, this does not stop the actions or tactics from being what they were. Wireless99 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But the word 'terrorism' does not have a strict definition - as its been mentioned by others there are hundreds of definitions. A word that everyone has a different take on is going to cause problems in whatever context it is used.

However, this isn't really the place for that debate - the place for that debate is WP:TERRORIST. The point here is to discuss how to adhere to policies and guidelines, not whether or not they are correct. Damburger 13:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that they are not "correct", I am suggesting that they have - mostly - been misinterpreted in the current debate up until now. And as it is in application that the policies are interpreted, so it is here that the debate must take place. And as has been reiterated a thousand times, I may define "terrorism" as my left leg if I so wish, this does not give it any authority or justify this definiton to be taken note of by anyone else who speaks the language, or wishes to know about the reality of the subject. For this we refer to experts in the form of inter alia the relevant scientific community. And if (as a responsible encyclopaedia we should)we do, then we do have a strict definiton for terrorist acts and tactics. Wireless99 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If your view on the word 'terrorism' were correct, the guideline would never be applied, and thus wouldn't exist. So logically, your view cannot be correct. Damburger 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you been reading what I have been writing? Obviously not. It is describing people as "terrorists"(noun), "extremists" and "freedom fighters" (also nouns) which is guarded against by the policy as they carry ideological overtones outside the scope of a Wikipedia NPOV article. More objective language should be found. However, describing acts or tactics as terrorist can be done without - I argue - any consequences for wikipedia NPOV. That the policy would never apply I cannot understand, for under my interpretation of it it would still play a vital role in keeping the hijackers from actually being called terrorists in the article. Wireless99 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does WP:TERRORIST make that distinction? It does not. Damburger 14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It never once uses "terrorist" as an adjective, and always talks of labelling your enemies as "terrorist" groups etc etc. Its not that difficult. God you're hard work. Wireless99 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be merely an academic point, but of the "hundreds of defintions" of terrorism out there, I personally don't know of any that wouldn't define these attacks as terrorist. The different definitions quibble over things like civilian v. non-combatant victims and whether intent is required, but all that I'm aware of would consider flying civilian airliners into civilian buildings and knocking them down to be a terrorist act. This might be more of an arguement for the WP:TERRORIST discussion page, but I don't think the existence of hundres of definitions should be a reason to throw out the term entirely, esepcially if all our reliable sources uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchall1 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no evidence of any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down was the fire. When you enter 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel thrust contruction like the trade centers did, they warped bent and gradually was more then the building could handle. As for Unitied airlines 93 was not shot down but brought down by the hijackers when the passangers of flight 93 fought back and stopped them. The 9/11 Commission reported that "authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft — American Airlines Flight 11 — long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center," according to CNN.com. Furthermore, the closest fighters were about 100 miles away and were unarmed. Fighters also went after a Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 which was suspected to be hijacked though it was later determined untrue and the plane was safe.Alauran 05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, when I saw this header I expected a totally different message. Do you have any suggestions for changes to the article? Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats because I deleted a previous post that was obviously trolling. Apperently, Alauran didn't see it in time and posted a responce. Or maybe this is a parody of that post. --Tarage 06:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no evidence of "any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down" because there was no attempt to find any and the primary source of such evidence was deliberately destroyed before it was examined for such evidence. No evidence found (if no one looked for it) does not equal no evidence. I haven't looked at flight 93 yet so can't comment. As for the fires...90% of the fuel burnt outside the buildings (the fireball). There is survivor eyewitness testimony that within 15 minutes of impact there were only small scattered fires on the impact floors. NIST found that the fuel was not a factor in the fires after the intial impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). NIST’s tests found that peak temperatures were reached in 20-30 minutes, and that temperatures were below 600C (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p78). The most significant aspect of all the tests NIST carried out is that they could not (NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5) get the trusses to fail! Strange as it may seem these were results of the NIST simulations yet they concluded fire made the trusses fail without actually determining exactly why (in fact they determined that maximum damage to the steel occured 20 minutes after impact. Why didn't it collapse then?). Obviously the tests were inadequate and the cause of collapse is undetermined. Whatever the air force did on 9/11, it is the first and ONLY time armed fighters were not sent to intercept an aircraft that flew off course. There are plenty of gaps for conspiracy theories to fit in. Until there is a proper investigation they can't be discarded. I will also point out that I did not read the NIST report until a few weeks ago so I may find I am incorrect once I look into it closer. Wayne 10:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This last paragraph qualifies as WP:OR. There may possibly be something to investigate here, but there's nothing that should affect editing of the articles until some reliable source comments on those. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't use this talk page for soapboxing, or general comments about the subject. --Haemo 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Its apparent to me that whilst the debate is nowhere near over, asking for help from WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST and getting a fresh perspective has moved the discussion forward a lot more than my previous arguments. In that vein, I'd like to offer this point to discuss. Please don't simply repeat what you've posted before, as I feel we are finally starting to make some progress.

Compare the following two beginning sentences:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

and

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

Can those who advocate the inclusion of the word 'terrorist' tell me, what useful meaning is conveyed in the first sentence that isn't conveyed in the second? Damburger 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No good. "terrorist" is undisputed. "Islamic" is disputed, although accepted by the mainstream accounts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If 'terrorist' was undipsuted, this would be a very short talk page. 'Islamic' is a totally different issue, but one I agree is worth looking into. I can't help noticing you've just evaded the question. Please tell me what meaning is conveyed by the first sentence that is not conveyed by the second sentence. Damburger 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That it was a "terrorist act" is not disputed. I see possible information creep here; "terrorist" gets removed, then "Islamic fundamentalist", then "suicide attack", leaving nothing but WP:WEASELs. I'd suggest leaving terrorist unadorned, and citing the others. Or perhaps:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1-100] suicide attacks[1-20] by Islamic extremists[1-22] on that date upon the United States of America.

showing the approriate weight (or number of reliable sources) for each phrase. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to actually answer my question? Damburger 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does an removing undisputed statement (although possibly in violation of a guideline) help? I don't see them as signficiantly different, although removing terrorist probably violates WP:WEASEL. 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

You don't have to justify the non-presence of words in wikipedia, if you did they would be filled with nonsense. You have to justify the presence of words. This should be a no-brainer. Damburger 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't told us what we are supposed to refer to the terrorists as...we can't just call them "those people" or the "men"...this is an encyclopedic effort which means all we need do is attribute what others have stated...those others must come from reliable sources, well known for not being biased. If the UN (which is not universally sympathetic to the U.S.), most fo the world's media and the preponderance of reliable references call the event an act of terrorism and the people who did it terroists, then you want to make this article into something it shouldn't be, namely, unencylopedic.--MONGO 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the question, Damburger, is that you cannot remove "terrorist" from The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks... because they were terrorists! Arthur Rubin is absolutely right. This is not in dispute, except by you. It's just getting ridiculous. As I've stated several times, if the official accounts of 9/11 are wrong (if the US Government had a hand in it, or if Islamic extremists didn't do it) the people who performed the acts of 9/11 were terrorists. Why can't you get this through your head? Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, so that's what his article says. Over and over you're arguing that "this was terrorism but not performed by terrorists." What the heck is that? Timneu22 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And each and every one of you dodges the question. Its not about removing the word 'terrorist', its about the justification for its presence in the first place. We don't have to 'call them' anything, as the perfectly readable alternative sentence shows. So, what meaning is added by having the word 'terrorist' in the sentence? Damburger 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove "Islamic extemists" from your introductory sentence because it is not POV: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America. Now, attacks by whom? The sentence is incomplete. Try this: The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by terrorist hijackers on that date upon the United States of America. Now you have a good introduction. Timneu22 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be better:The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by airplane hijackers (primarily Saudis) on that date upon the United States of America. Now you have a good NPOV introduction. Mr.grantevans2 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, to keep on track I'll make those modifications:

1. The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America.

1. The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on that date upon the United States of America.

Now, can someone please tell me what extra meaning the first sentence carries, and how that additional meaning improves the article? Damburger 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Damburger, a suicide attack and a terrorist suicide attack are two very different things. If you just take the the sentence out of context for a second, the first only implies that the authors wanted to kill themselves as well as those that were killed with them. The second phrase implies that the authors wanted there to be political consequences to the attack, which is exactly what the hijackers wanted (unless the only reason why they flew into the towers was for the 40 virgins in heaven....) Wireless99 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is added is unverified speculation on the motives of people who are dead? There is no way to know what those people were thinking, and if your argument rests on that, it is very weak indeed. Damburger 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What has been verified is that they were members of alqaeda, and that al qaeda'a purpose in sending them on that suicide mission was unreservedly politico-ideological. They joined al qaeda with this knowledge, and if all they wanted was the 40 virgins they would have to be pretty stupid. Also, and this is in now way an endorsment of al qaeda: but say what you want about them they are not stupid or naive. They are a very secretive organisation and would not recruit simpletons who are only in it because they think they will get to have sex with 40 pretty girls at the end of it. They recruit those who have some degree of intelligence, and with an unwavering commitment to their ideology. This is not really speculation here. Wireless99 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This source describes an effective helicopter airlift from the World Trade Center in 1993. The source cited stated that helicopter rescue would be "impractical", but I don't interpret it to be worded strongly enough to indicate for sure that absolutely no one escaped by helicopter. Can someone think of a source that says categorically that absolutely no one made it out from the roof in a chopper? Wnt (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are all the relevant passages from the Commission Report:

• "Doors leading to the roof were locked. There was no rooftop evacuation plan. The roofs of both the North Tower and the South Tower were sloped and cluttered surfaces with radiation hazards, making them impractical for helicopter landings and as staging areas for civilians. Although the South Tower roof had a helipad, it did not meet 1994 Federal Aviation Administration guidelines."

• About the 1993 attacks: "Several small groups of people who were physically unable to descend the stairs were evacuated from the roof of the South Tower by New York Police Department (NYPD) helicopters. At least one person was lifted from the North Tower roof by the NYPD in a dangerous helicopter rappel operation- 15 hours after the bombing. General knowledge that these air rescues had occurred appears to have left a number of civilians who worked in the Twin Towers with the false impression that helicopter rescues were part of the WTC evacuation plan and that rescue from the roof was a viable, if not favored, option for those who worked on upper floors. Although they were considered after 1993, helicopter evacuations in fact were not incorporated into the WTC fire safety plan."

• "At 8:56, an NYPD ESU team asked to be picked up at the Wall Street heliport to initiate rooftop rescues. At 8:58, however, after assessing the North Tower roof, a helicopter pilot advised the ESU team that they could not land on the roof, because "it is too engulfed in flames and heavy smoke condition." By 9:00, a third NYPD helicopter was responding to the WTC complex. NYPD helicopters and ESU officers remained on the scene throughout the morning, prepared to commence rescue operations on the roof if conditions improved. Both FDNY and NYPD protocols called for FDNY personnel to be placed in NYPD helicopters in the event of an attempted rooftop rescue at a high-rise fire. No FDNY personnel were placed in NYPD helicopters on September 11."

• At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were to land on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD helicopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated that the severity of the heat from the jet fuel-laden fire in the North Tower would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter.--Sloane (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter attempts were considered, and you can see various copters in the area. The heat from the building was so intense that it was decided that a rooftop rescue was impossible due to the heat interfering with landing and steering, and the fact that the smoke made visibility very touchy. Coolgamer (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)