Revision as of 22:30, 6 July 2010 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,335 editsm Signing comment by 69.156.146.160 - "→the truth: new section"← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:33, 26 December 2024 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,118 edits →RfC on lead collage of photos: Indent |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{calm talk}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}<br>__TOC__ |
|
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|counter = 52 |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=RBP |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
{{talkheader|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{September 11 arbcom}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes| 1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject September 11|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{USProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{Disaster management|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WPNYC|importance=top|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{Skyscrapers|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=B |
|
|
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> |
|
|
|B1=yes <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n |
|
|
|B2=yes <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n |
|
|
|B3=yes <!-- Structure --> = y/n |
|
|
|B4=yes <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n |
|
|
|B5=yes <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n |
|
|
|US=yes}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=History|WPCD=yes|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WPCD|nested=yes}}}} |
|
|
{{User:WildBot/m01|dabs={{User:WildBot/m03|1|ISI}}|m01}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=RBP |
|
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
Line 45: |
Line 14: |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=2553382 |
|
|action2oldi |
|
|
d=2553382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |
|
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|action3result=failed |
Line 55: |
Line 23: |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
|action4=FAC |
|
|action4date=29 December 2006 |
|
|action4date=29 December 2006 |
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|action4result=failed |
Line 100: |
Line 68: |
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=GAR |
|
|action12=GAR |
|
|action12date={{date|19 June 2010|dmy}} |
|
|action12date=19 June 2010 |
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/September_11_attacks/1 |
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1 |
|
|action12result=delisted |
|
|action12result=delisted |
|
|action12oldid=365085475 |
|
|action12oldid=365085475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=GAC |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|
|action13date=5 July 2011 |
|
|topic=History |
|
|
|
|action13link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 |
|
|small=no}} |
|
|
|
|action13result=not listed |
|
{{OnThisDay |date1=2004-09-11|oldid1=9955831|date2=2005-09-11|oldid2=23006719|date3=2006-09-11|oldid3=75188318|date4=2009-09-11|oldid4=313246231}} |
|
|
|
|action13oldid=437810140 |
|
{{AutoArchivingNotice |
|
|
|small=no |
|
|
|age=30 |
|
|
|index=./Archive index |
|
|
|bot=MiszaBot}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=GAN |
|
== Carried out by al-Qaeda - Fact? == |
|
|
|
|action14date=20:05, 25 July 2011 |
|
|
|action14link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3 |
|
|
|action14result=listed |
|
|
|action14oldid=441341484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action15=PR |
|
This Article seems to say that it is a known fact that it was carried out by al-Qaeda. I agree that it is widely believed, especially in the Intelligence Community, and most likely true, but to be a fact doesn’t it needs to be proved beyond doubt. No one creditable has directly taken responsibly or convicted of this crime. |
|
|
|
|action15date=11:51, 23 August 2011 |
|
|
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action15result=reviewed |
|
|
|action15oldid=446303582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action16=FAC |
|
The planning part is almost pure speculation most of this is based on reports by the US government, which are credible but not a fact as they themselves reply on third hand and unclear sources. As we know, we had many creditable reports for US agenesis about WMD. |
|
|
|
|action16date=14:43, 30 August 2011 |
|
|
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action16result=not promoted |
|
|
|action16oldid=447487536 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action17=GAR |
|
If there is a murder, and you probably know who did it, the Police may write many reports on who and why, but until that person is convicted in a court of law or admits his crime, you always have to be careful about reporting it as a fact. I think this article needs to qualify a lot of the "facts" its layout by naming sources directly. |
|
|
|
|action17date=16:23, 25 September 2011 |
|
|
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 |
|
|
|action17result=delisted |
|
|
|action17oldid=452181614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action18=GAN |
|
To be a true academic source for the event we need to state facts proved beyond doubt, otherwise qualify statements we make. e.g. "Widely believed.." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|action18date=May 24, 2013 |
|
|
|action18link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4 |
|
|
|action18result=not promoted |
|
|
|action18oldid=556498139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action19=GAN |
|
Very good point. The FBI has stated it has no evidence to tie Bin Laden to the attack and does not name the WTC attacks as one of the crimes he is accused of. In addition, several of the alleged hijackers are still alive as reported by many world news agencies. To say that the official version of the conspiracy behind this attack is an established fact is completely false. Furthermore, while NIST did say that it found no evidence for explosives, this article fails to point out that it admitted it did not even look for it. Moreover, the article fails to mention the empirical evidence published in scientific journals that confirm highly engineered explosive material was found in the debris dust or other published studies that refer to EPA studies which also presented evidence for explosives. |
|
|
|
|action19date=July 13, 2015 |
|
|
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5 |
|
|
|action19result=promoted |
|
|
|action19oldid=671152132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=World history |
|
] (]) 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|action20 = FAC |
|
|
|action20date = 2018-10-27 |
|
|
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2 |
|
|
|action20result = failed |
|
|
|action20oldid = 865779234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2003-09-11 |
|
:Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. We say what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources overwhelmingly say that al-Qaeda was responsible. As for the FBI stating they have no evidence, and the hijackers being alive, you are going to have to back these up with reliable sources, because this is not what the majority of sources say. You two are new editors, so please take some time to search the archives, because the points you are attempting to make have already been addressed and dismissed. --] (]) 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=1418792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd2date=2004-09-11 |
|
The 9 11 attacks were carried by Al-Qaeda. There is no scientific, reliable evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, in addition to Bin Laden's own admissions, there is tons of audio, video, and scientific evidence to show Al-Qaeda carried out this attack. We could say that global warming "might be true" because a few people do not believe this; however, because every credible scientific source has confirmed global warming, wikipedia states it as a fact. The same applies with dozens of articles, we can mention conspiracy theories, but their presence cannot affect the entire tone of the article.] (]) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2oldid=9955831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd3date=2005-09-11 |
|
A bunch of cheap-shotting anti-freedom Muslim extremists with links to other cheap-shotting, anti-freedom Muslim extremists attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001. Write the article that way, because it is 100% truth. You might want to add that they killed over 2000 innocent civilians and not a single soldier on active duty during their "holy war". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|otd3oldid=23006719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd4date=2006-09-11 |
|
Isn't logic reliable reference? There are bunch of testymonies from employees, architects, firemen and investigators. Bah, they all are lying. The official explanations, tough disputed with logic and literaly no proof are allways right, just like goverment. "Conspiracy theories," tough make more sense, are NOT right as they are just conspiracy theories. They are wrong by nature. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdS_0DdEL0s <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:31, June 13, 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|otd4oldid=75188318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd5date=2009-09-11 |
|
:There is a lot of testimony, but ''some'' of it must be mistaken, as it is contradictatory. We must accept the mainstream view as to which testimnny is mistaken, with some reference to minority views. (Youtube videos are rarely even suitable for external links; even more rarely can they be used as evidence supporting '''anything'''.) — ] ] 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd5oldid=313246231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd6date=2012-09-11 |
|
:Youtube is not serving as evidence, it is just point of my sarcasm. So, mainstream view of Jesus is, to be born on June 25, youl 1. Does that make him realy born on that day? On pictures of crash site from flight 93 there is wow, a piece of window, a piece of engine and a piece of metal... That's some hard evidence. And so on. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:32, June 15, 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|otd6oldid=511650593 |
|
::I don't know why I'm replying to you. Suffice it to say that the mainstream view is that "alternative theories" do not explain the facts, and hence should not be considered. We, on Misplaced Pages, are constrained to report only what is said in ], not repeating gossip or implausible theories. ''If'' you can produce a theory which is accepted by ''some'' reliable source, we can report on it in this article. And, if it's not about youtube, why do you add youtube references? — ] ] 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yotube was NOT a reference. Let me explain a "cospiracy theory": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2428170847743595902# There's bunch of book reference about it on end of full movie. That looks totaly plausible to me. And I will not bother with it any more. I am starting to feel like a 3-year-old. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd7date=2013-09-11 |
|
== Good article reassessment == |
|
|
|
|otd7oldid=572507707 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd8date=2017-09-11 |
|
See ] |
|
|
|
|otd8oldid=800113517 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd9date=2018-09-11 |
|
== Not all alternative theories involve conspiracies == |
|
|
|
|otd9oldid=859078369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd10date=2020-09-11 |
|
In fact, the mainstream theory for the attacks is a conspiracy theory (a conspiracy between Arab terrorists). Isn't it a bit of an ], or Spotlight fallacy, to call all alternative theories "conspiracy theories"? |
|
|
|
|otd10oldid=977871368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd11date=2023-09-11 |
|
It seems to me that the page would be a bit less biased if the "Conspiracy theories" section were renamed, "Alternative theories", and that lines such as "Some conspiracy theorists claim" be changed to "Some claim". ] (]) 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd11oldid=1174521963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn1date=2001-09-11 |
|
:Just out of curiosity, what alternative theories aren't speculated to be the result of a conspiracy? Or is there a theory that says all these buildings fell down on their own? ] (]) 12:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn2date=2002-09-11 |
|
::You don't have to explain who did something to disagree with one part of the mainstream theory. For example, to claim that it was a controlled demolition is not the same as claiming that it was an "inside job". ''Who'' caused it is an entirely different question from ''what'' caused it. It doesn't matter if it was done by a group of people working together within the country, out of the country, or by a magical wizard.] (]) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd12date=2024-09-11|otd12oldid=1245107774 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Intel=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ |
|
|
| author = Noam Cohen |
|
|
| date = 11 September 2011 |
|
|
| month = January |
|
|
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Brian Keegan |
|
The reasons given by the mainstream media and government agencies for the total collapse of the three buildings is unreasonable. There are many people who think that there were bombs in the buildings who are very credible, and likewise mainstream investigations do not adequately explain the cause of the collapses. |
|
|
|
| title2 = How 9/11 Shaped Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/wikipedia-september-11-breaking-news.html |
|
|
| date2 = November 17, 2020 |
|
|
| quote2 = |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author3 = Stephen Harrison |
|
The use of the term "conspiracy theory" is biased and really reflects the lack of neutrality of this article. Since there are two major opinions both should be addressed appropriately and fairly. Naturally, if 9/11 was orchestrated by members of certain governments, Misplaced Pages should have room for logical arguments against the mainstream theory. ] (]) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title3 = How Misplaced Pages Grew Up With the War on Terror |
|
|
| org3 = ] |
|
|
| url3 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-september-11-20th-anniversary.html |
|
|
| date3 = September 8, 2021 |
|
|
| quote3 = |
|
|
| archiveurl3 = |
|
|
| archivedate3 = |
|
|
| accessdate3 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author4 = Alex Pasternack |
|
|
| title4 = How 9/11 turned a new site called Misplaced Pages into history’s crowdsourced front page |
|
|
| org4 = ] |
|
|
| url4 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90674998/how-9-11-turned-a-new-site-called-wikipedia-into-historys-crowdsourced-front-page |
|
|
| date4 = September 11, 2021 |
|
|
| quote4 = |
|
|
| archiveurl4 = |
|
|
| archivedate4 = |
|
|
| accessdate4 = September 13, 2021 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=tpm|consensus-required=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
:That statement has been rejected by ], many times. If you have ''evidence'' relating to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which would support a change in consensus, please present it. — ] ] 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
|
|
== Why No Discussion of Norad Training Exercises on 911 == |
|
|
|
|
|
It has been reliably reported in many news media that the Pentagon was conducting as many as 5-6 war game drills on 9-11, one of which involved simulated slamming airplanes into buildings to blow them up. Why does the article not have a section on this? |
|
|
--] (]) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:War games yes, simulated slamming airplanes into buildings maybe, but not at '''that''' date. See ] and ] — ] ] 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FAQ == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've edited the FAQ to take out the Yes/No answers, while taking care not to alter the meaning of the response. I believe that these did more harm than good. Most reasonable people who disagree with the yes/no answers will understand the more detailed rationale, if they are prepared to take thirty seconds to read it. By contrast, glancing at the questions and reading those yes/no's could lead a reader to think that there is some sort of agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't watchlist this page, but feel free to contact me on my talk page if you would like me to return here to explain further. Regards, ] (]) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Under the damage section, the article states that the Twin Towers are the only example of progressive collapse of steel framed buildings. WTC 7 should also be noted. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== This article is not neutral == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are plenty of reasonable sources which could support the possibility of the attacks themselves to be a ]. This tactic is well known and used deep into history. I'm just pointing out that the word "conspiracy theories" and the like are actually derogatory and very insulting to the serious nature of the event, and the use therefore constitutes to the biased nature of the authors of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot come to a consensus amidst so much debate, and those who participated in such consensus only constitute a minority. Those who refute reliable sources and logical arguments with a single line of "conspiracy theories" simply prove their lack of understanding of not only world affairs, but the phrase itself. Or they represent a body of people who knowingly participate in the spreading of disinformation and inaccurate assessments. |
|
|
|
|
|
We cannot allow personal feelings to interfere with facts here. |
|
|
|
|
|
As well what gives user 2over0 the right to censor my comments? That clearly wasn't trolling, I left after writing it. You people are insane; there's something called democracy...] (]) 03:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you for your comments. Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia, which means we present the mainstream account based on ]. Yes, there are alternatives theories to 9/11 but Misplaced Pages's policy on ] requires that we present mainstream accounts. ] (]) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I was trying to make a point that there are, in fact, mainstream sources which could really be used to strengthen the article, including books. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will give some examples and tell me what is wrong with them: |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
The 9/11 commission has been critically discussed in foreign parliaments and media, including the ] on January 10, 2008, Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Democratic Party of Japan. |
|
|
|
|
|
These are all mainstream sources; of educated and experienced, professional people who chose to write books and articles about the subject in recent years. Jesse Ventura is a mainstream figure and has appeared on many shows. |
|
|
|
|
|
The 9/11 Commission and the NIST report conclude that fire can implode three steel-frame buildings, of which the World Trade Centre buildings were the first and only in history to completely collapse due to a fire, in such an organised and swift manner.] (]) 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. We run on reliable sources. Your arguments are stale and have been presented many times before. They have all been rejected. Please do not use this talk page as a soapbox. --] (]) 10:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Please read ], and also ] and ], which, as you will see, are not synonyms. ] (]) 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Given the number of eye witnesses who support the "mainstream" view (not to mention the overwhelming physical evidence), it's reasonable to conclude that other views are conspiracy theories promulgated by utter morons or people by people with political agendas. And the phrase "conspiracy theory" is how these theories are typically classified. Since these views have become notable, we have articles on them. However, we don't need to make the mistake that many media outlets make and give them equal standing within the main article. We simply allow the article to branch into other articles in case folks are curious. ] (]) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::174.89.56.140: For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, people are not considered sources, only '''published''' works are considered sources. And not all published sources are considered reliable, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Basically, this meams mainstream news sources. ] (]) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Rklawton, your assertions are both incorrect and deeply offensive. Please refrain from posting this kind of personal commentary, and stick to discussion which relates to improving the article. ] (]) 00:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Are we particularly concerned about offending morons or people who have come here to push their POV? They tend to cause us a lot of extra work. Or have I managed to offend productive editors somehow? If so, I didn't mean to. ] (]) 01:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::We're still supposed to be ] and ]. ] (]) 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Alas, you're right. My bad. ] (]) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
According to our FAQ, "This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and WP:AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly." ] (]) 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis..." You just admitted to censorship there. The article is not NPOV at all if you can't even include the full mainstream story because it's so weak. |
|
|
|
|
|
:You can't omit details you don't like. What kind of ground do you have for this? Are you an educated engineer or architect? Were you or relatives of yourself there on 9/11? Have you even done research on the subject? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Clearly I'm not the only one who has come here to state this view, so you cannot say there is a consensus, but rather a small group of members who regular this article to impose their POV. |
|
|
|
|
|
:These events happened almost ten years ago, there are plenty of mainstream sources by now, including books. The 9/11 commission is not clear supporting evidence, and there will need to be more logical arguments made, including the trigger of the collapse, and the reason for such a catastrophic structural failure. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Like I asked above, how is the Japanese legislator not a mainstream source? None of you really did answer my question but dodged it. How about books written by the aforementioned people? |
|
|
|
|
|
:These are not fringe theories, these are respectable, mainstream people. You clearly did not look into the sources I presented here. There are more foreign and non-english sources though, and my point was that outside of the USA 9/11 is considered to be a fraud or a staged false-flag event. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is clear WP is not a democracy, but you simply cannot refute mainstream sources because YOU can't agree with them. By hiding or insulting the opposition you show weakness. I really doubt you even looked into the sources I was talking about, lest you could explain why they cannot be used in the main article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:A link or small paragraph for the opposition is not enough, especially when new mainstream sources are refused despite being used on other WP articles. Like I stated above, We cannot allow personal feelings interfere with the facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And Rklawton, I want to respond to you specifically: |
|
|
|
|
|
:You didn't produce a compelling argument at all. Your rhetoric is worse than mine (at least I use sources). If there is so much evidence to prove these buildings pancake-collapsed due to fire alone, why could you not provide any kind of example or details? The 9/11 witnesses and first responders started the 9/11 Truth movement, MORON (pardon me there, but he used it first). At least I can comprehend world affairs. You resort to name-calling because you can't handle the truth, kid.] (]) 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::174.89.54.33: I am trying to help you. Accusations of censorship and POV-pushing will not help your cause. I suggest that you take a break and familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on ], ] and ]. ] (]) 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Clearly not. You keep dodging my question. I'm not pushing my POV, I'm asking why certain mainstream sources aren't allowed to be used, after I already reviewed the rules about ] ] and ]. You are making inapplicable and off-topic remarks. Can you please address my original statements/questions. ] (]) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::174.89.54.33: OK, then I will give you the most direct answer that I can. You have not cited a single ]. ] (]) 03:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::HOW is the NATIONAL LEGISLATOR OF JAPAN NOT a RELIABLE MAINSTREAM SOURCE?? I am asking for a specific reason to be cited. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You can't just expect one-liners to be successful in a debate about facts. You need to explain, and use quotes.] (]) 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::174.89.54.33: He is just one legislator amongst thousands across the globe. What makes his opinion more important than everyone else's? Further, people aren't reliable sources, only published works are and only if they meet the qualifications set forth in ]. ] (]) 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Okay, thank you for responding though. Am I correct when I say video of the hearings do not suffice as properly published WP:RS? If certain points were translated, or at least acknowledged, that would be fine according to Misplaced Pages:Verifyability, even though it's not a book or anything, it's still on a public record. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Though he is just one legislator of that particular country, his opinion is not unique. There are many official people who publically questioned the circumstances, like Hon. ], and former generals. Then how is Jesse Ventura's book "American Conspiracies" not WP:RS? Unless Ventura doesn't use sources himself, that would be reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
|
There are other books too, I listed some authors above: |
|
|
|
|
|
*The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001 'Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, ISBN 0-930852-40-0, 400 pages, Media Messenger Books |
|
|
*The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism ISBN 1-56656-596-0 |
|
|
* Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste. Piper Verlag GmbH, München 2003, ISBN 3-492-04545-6 and 2004, ISBN 3-492-24242-1 |
|
|
* Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Revised & Updated Edition), Olive Branch Press, Paperback: 392 pages, March 2007, ISBN 1-56656-686-X |
|
|
* The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004, ISBN 1-56656-584-7 |
|
|
*9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA - Myth of the 21st Century (2005), Foreword by Thierry Meyssan, ISBN 0-930852-31-1, Fourth edition ISBN 0-930852-37-0 (April 2007). |
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason as to why they would not be able to be used as WP:RS is if the books themselves contain no sources or citations. This has been mainstream for long enough, and really is not an extreme POV any more. |
|
|
|
|
|
Quotes from ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The word "source" as used in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability." |
|
|
|
|
|
"English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation" |
|
|
|
|
|
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" |
|
|
|
|
|
"Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources" |
|
|
|
|
|
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." |
|
|
|
|
|
Quotes from ] |
|
|
|
|
|
"All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. " |
|
|
|
|
|
""Neutral point of view" is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research."" |
|
|
|
|
|
"Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." |
|
|
|
|
|
"It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views" |
|
|
|
|
|
"Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." |
|
|
|
|
|
"The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." |
|
|
|
|
|
"if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Misplaced Pages is not" rules come into play." |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox: "Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. " I'm not advertising/promoting anything, and I"m not the publisher of these sources. The ones who decided to make this into a soapbox were the registered users. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook." So if you can't be constructive and need to resort to name-calling and insults don't comment at all. There have already been too many children posting nonsense here. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. ... Anyone can edit an article, and most changes made are displayed immediately" |
|
|
|
|
|
], 5.]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." |
|
|
|
|
|
Quotes from ] |
|
|
|
|
|
"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." |
|
|
|
|
|
"If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages." |
|
|
|
|
|
"NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas, so long as there are appropriately reliable sources." (9/11 Truth is not tiny) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context" |
|
|
|
|
|
"It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research — denialist histories, for example — should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." 9/11 commission, Popular Mechanics is not reliably sourced research |
|
|
|
|
|
"If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere." |
|
|
|
|
|
"One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Misplaced Pages, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Misplaced Pages's policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article" |
|
|
|
|
|
"The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. ... Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. " |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, you should read ]. This article is clearly not neutral. Both sides need to be addressed fairly, and integrated throughout the article. The primary sources should be observed with secondary sources to compare, of which the sources I provided should suffice. Your opinion DOES NOT matter here, only published sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a user to come forward and improve on this article to fix the NPOV conflict, by integrating reliable secondary sources to the main content of the article. The sources used in the main article are biased (even though they are mainstream "official" or government-sponsored), and thus there is a bias against the mainstream opposition. |
|
|
|
|
|
Users should avoid using weasel-words and insults with regards to properly sourced alternative, mainstream theories. The phrase "conspiracy theory" should be changed to "alternative theories" or "new evidence". |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|89}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 8 2013|Sep 7 2014|Sep 6 2015|Sep 4 2016|Sep 11 2016|Sep 10 2017|Sep 9 2018|Sep 8 2019|Sep 6 2020|Sep 13 2020|Aug 29 2021|until|Sep 12 2021|Sep 8 2024}} |
|
|
<!-- {{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}} --> |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Moved''', 17 January 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, '''Not moved''', 21 October 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, '''Not moved''', 14 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Procedural close''', 23 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ]. |
|
|
|collapse=yes}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks|date=22 October 2015}}<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slogans_and_terms_derived_from_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=687019474 --> |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 64 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
Well said, AQFK (and FAQ). Here's my take on it. Many individuals, myself included, simply want to know (accurately) what happened, and want truthful investigation and reporting by government and media. It's speculative (and inaccurate) to assume a political agenda or stupidity, as this is definitely not always the case. I ''want'' the official story to be true, but I have studied the evidence in depth over multiple years (from reliable sources and others), and the evidence simply doesn't support the official story in its entirety, much as I and others would like it to. Attention is seldom drawn to the inconsistencies by government or media, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not there. I accept that Misplaced Pages will generally only use material from media and government on this topic, but Misplaced Pages's editors should be cautious while using that information, and respectful of other editors. Rklawton, your response was honorable. Thank you. ] (]) 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hattop|]. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful. |
|
:Even assuming the anon is properly quoting the pillars, he is clearly misinterpreting the guidelines for deciding whether a source is reliable, which includes it having a reputation for accuracy. '''None''' of the conspiracy theory publishers have such a reputation. ''Some'' (but none of the ones mentioned by the anon) of the conspiracy theorists have a reputation for accuracy, and fewer have some reputation for expertise, per ] (or ]; My computer is at maximum capacity at the moment, and I can't reliably check which it is.) On the other hand, Popular Mechanics and their publisher have some reputation for accuracy. We can argue whether the 9/11 commission has a reputation for accuracy, but most of its members do. |
|
|
:As for your claim that there is an "official" story, that's bunk. Call it "mainstream", if you want to distinguish it from "alternative" theories. Any reference to "official" must refer only to the 9/11 commission and NIST reports. — ] ] 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I think you, along with the other censors, have been misinterpreting not only the guidelines but all of my discussion in order to push your POV in this article. The rules clearly state that if there is a minority or alternate view that it must be included in the body of the text. There are statistics which show that about one third of the American population think there was government complicity with the attacks. That is not a "tiny minority." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I'm not asking for the whole article to be rewritten, I'm just asking for more neutral rhetoric and the elimination of weasel-words and insulting phrases. If there are secondary sources which could be used to at least acknowledge the opposition that would be fine, but the article only has single sentences to imply there is some criticism. |
|
|
|
::Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam. |
|
|
::The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article. |
|
|
::I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. ] (]) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We go by what RS say we are not ] just to appease some people's feelings. ] (]) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hatbottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
::The main article, in order to meet NPOV guidelines must include the criticism of the 9/11 commission and NIST report. There are reliable sources which can be used, and as more time passes more will come out. According to WP:guidelines it can be allowed for these secondary sources to be used since they are the only ones who touch on that subject, and not all of them are self-published or original research. |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
::So until some members can resolve this NPOV issue, a NPOV tag should be included at the top of the article until the article is corrected. I would just like to mention that none of you have made a valid or constructive argument yet, and have resorted to off-topic remarks. Stop dodging the NPOV issue and just fix it already.] (]) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 terrorist attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 == |
|
:::174.89.53.226: Me and several others have tried explaining it to you. I'm sorry if our answers aren't to your satisfaction. There is no POV issue with the article as you describe. If there is a POV issue, IMHO, it's the fact that we mention 9/11 conspiracy theories at all. I doubt if any serious reference work on 9/11 would bother mentioning pop culture trivia. ] (]) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
== Intro to "Motives" section == |
|
|
|
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." ] (]) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Hatnote == |
|
Arthur Rubin: Do you have some concerns about adding an intro sentence to the "Motive" section? The ] article is more complete and lists five motives, and has more references. Omitting an intro sentence makes it harder for the reader to understand how the section is laid out. Also, why did you change "main" template to "see also"? --] (]) 21:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], the reason given for the addition of the {{tlx|Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== the truth == |
|
|
|
:I think otherwise, but whatever. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on lead collage of photos == |
|
When the plane crashed into the twin towers and started to burn. Why wouldn't one of the hundreds of people in the building pull the fire alarm? I ask of this because the sprinkler system would have went of. Putting out the fire. In this outcome the plane wouldn't have blown up. Also what a cowinscedance that the 911 towers got crashed into on the 9 month and eleventh day. Also to make a building fall in a fashion in which it falls straight down. You would need a structural engineer and a demolitions expert. This is because to make a bulding fall straigh down you would need to blow up each floor at a time. It is impossible for the plane to have done this. The reason for 911 was the united states government. They needed a reason in which to engage in war. Also in all the damage done they would have an excuse to increase taxs to help for repairs. Which gives them thousands of dollars in tax payers money. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}} |
|
|
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=92F7E6E}} |
|
|
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support'''. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – ] 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. ] (]) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ah, no worries. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. ] (]) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? ] (]) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Do you have any alternative suggestions? ] (]) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. ] (]) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Strongly oppose:''' There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. ] (]) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the '''exact moment''' the plane crashed into the WTC? ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. ] (]) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)