Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 26 September 2004

Hi Alberuni, and welcome to Misplaced Pages.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

• Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
• The help centre and FAQs
• The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. Some people do not pay attention to unsigned comments. An important note: Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Misplaced Pages articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

-- TPK 00:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Grand Mufti

Contents moved to Talk:Grand Mufti --iFaqeer 19:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

But don't be be too bold

Like taking truths out of factual articles, cf September 11, 2001 attacks Matt Stan 19:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Misplaced Pages and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. Matt Stan 19:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was trying to edit for readability. The article is over 30kb and I believed the long section on Previous Revelations needs to be broken out to other pages. The conspiracty stuff like Michael Moore's comments need to go to the conspiracy section or conspiracy wiki. Just MHO. Feel free to revert. It's a 💕!Alberuni 19:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What article are you folks talking about? Maybe others can help?--iFaqeer 20:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

9/11 Report

You mentioned that I may have been confusing the two 9/11 reports in a recent edit. I've made tons of edits today regarding the 9/11 Commission Report; which edit were you referring to? Thanks, – Quadell ] 17:19, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hamdi

You did a great job on Hamdi, very quick, too. Maurreen 03:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So? Is this NOT neutral enough for you?

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

see http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

You appear unclear on the concept of Neutrality. It is neutral to state that a poll of New York City residents indicates that nearly half believe U.S. government leaders knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. It is not neutral to refer to a site reporting those results as a "campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup." You see, the cover-up is not a neutral fact. It is an opinion. Surely, you can make more of an effort to be polite and to separate opinions from facts, can't you? Alberuni 05:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Insurance claims 9/11

Nice detail that you've added here (and pretty quick as I only put about insurance claims on there a few mins ago - I know my wording wasn't up to much, so I was hoping someone would replace it with something better asap (especially as I think the financial aspects of the disaster are worth mentioning in the article, albeit that they're much much less significant than the loss of life). Out of interest, where did you get your info from, or are you just v familiar with it all? Jongarrettuk 20:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The insurance disputes are an interesting issue but, yes, a sideshow to the main issues of direct loss of life, geopolitical wars and macroeconomic shifts caused by 9/11. I found this and this as sources for the info. Alberuni 20:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)