| Revision as of 18:46, 21 August 2009 editRoryridleyduff (talk | contribs)425 edits →September 11 Attacks - further discussion← Previous edit |
Revision as of 19:01, 21 August 2009 edit undoSyrthiss (talk | contribs)36,785 edits mv misplaced comments to talk pageNext edit → |
| Line 45: |
Line 45: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
== September 11 Attacks - further discussion == |
|
|
Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of aware about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Most citations are from the press (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article. |
|
|
|
|
|
The current set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that '''overall''' it is written from a neutral point of view. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only '''neutral''' course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11. |
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that many articles on Misplaced Pages are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced. |
|
|
|
|
|
Best wishes |
|
|
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff |
|
