Talk:September 11 attacks

THIS ARTICLES NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED

STOP REMOVING THE NEUTRALITY DISPUTED SYMBOL. You are not allowed until the issue has been resolved. And it has NOT. End of story. (MavereX (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

"I'm right and you are wrong and if you don't agree with me I will abuse my caps lock key" --Tarage (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let's resolve the issue. Start by identifying it. Peter Grey (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue. He deleted a cited, sourced portion of the article and then slapped a neutrality tag on it. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how we have Enlisted and Discharged US Military Personnel (VegitaU for example) Watching this page closely and reverting simple things like that the neutrality of this page is disputed. I did that because if you look at this talk page the NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED. But no, I get threatened that my editing rights will be revoked. This is ridiculous. SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA! Shame on you for having such a rigged article, and deeming it a "good article". This page is against everything Wikipedia stands for. Believing the Official story and only the Official story when it has more holes than the USS Liberty [1] I Am Deeply Disturbed that we have Biased US Soldiers hovering over this page protecting it. They should be removed THEIR editing rights. --MavereX (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be Deeply Disturbed if we listened to people who Capitalize Random Words in Their Sentences. (For what it's worth, I'm one of those who would have warned you about the 9/11 Arbcomm decision, and I have not had any military services. I don't think anyone threatened you.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called capitalizing words to EMPHASIZE MEANING. If that causes you to be deeply disturbed because you think its random, then you must have a severe issue. And yes, I was threatened that if I edit the page in such a way that says the POV is not neutral, that I would be revoked my rights of editing, as it says on my talk page. "This is your final warning" Is a threat. --MavereX (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean, there was meaning there? Perhaps you can explain some meaning which is consistent with Wikipedia policies, rather than your instance that your reopening a previously settled dispute allows restoration of the WP:NPOV tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote from WP:NPOV

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Well it is fairly obvious that there is a different viewpoint than from the official story.. and quickly it is growing to not be a minority. If you looked there is not so many hundreds of "conspiracy theories" anymore.. There has been research done and then there's plain facts that help bring this POV to light. It is simply amazing that in world history, no steel structure building has succumbed to fire. Yet we have 3 buildings destruct in virtual freefall, in their own footprint, due to "Fire". It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong there. Why are you admins collectively avoiding such reality? --MavereX (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of buildings which did not collapse from fire:

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. [2]

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. [3]

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.[4]

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. [5]

So we have a fire burn for 56 minutes and collapse WTC1.. simply amazing. Even when It was rated to withstand multiple Boeing 707 Collisions at 600mph[6][7][8][9][10]--MavereX (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait.. But what about an aircraft and fire? Empire state building had that happen.. oh look it still stands today! [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MavereX (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because copy/pasting talking points from conspiracy theory web pages is totally a reliable source. Request for archival of this. --Tarage (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

YES, bbc and cbs news are conspiracy theory web pages! Aren't you intelligent. Way to go brushing off such a deep issue!! --MavereX (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to reinforce ignorance; superstition and verifiable facts will not be put on an equal footing. Peter Grey (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name and opening sentence

Of course this article needs a name. However, in coining the name of the article, we do not need to use the name like a title of a TV episode for the introductory paragraph of this article. There is no uniform name for the attacks, unlike an editor who says that the War of 1812 is a name (which is true but differs from this, which has no uniform name yet).

Even the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/september11/ does not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". Also see http://www.whitehouse.gov/september11/index.html

To now degenerate the intro into a TV episode or a goofy news story where there is theme music and a made up title/name (tonight's episode "Standdown with Saddam" or "Inferno in Iraq") is not very encyclopedic.

Let's just say something like "On September 11, 2001, there was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in ......." Presumptive (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad suggestion. First, they're called the September 11, 2001 attacks and secondly, your proposed wording violates our manual of style. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of his suggestion violates what part of the manual of style, ICB? That's a pretty large article. -- Wowest (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the part that deals with article names, Wowest. And Presumptive, you may want to read this as well. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interim conclusion:
1. There is a consensus on the title, discussed in 2004 in archive 3. There is no opposition above.
2. There is consensus to follow the Manual of Style.

New information:
MOS says "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".

Archive 3 shows that there is no agreed upon title but that there was a vote on the best way to summarize the event. Furthermore, even the U.S. White House does not use the Wikipedia title name. the WP title is a made up title, much like a title of a TV episode. The use of the title in the introductory sentence is awkward and makes it appear like a TV episode.

As a result, I am changing the title temporarily until there is a discussion to why we want an awkward introductory sentence instead of a scholarly one. Presumptive (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the old intro was poor prose. Using the word to define the word is bad and very amateurish. "The attacks were a series of coordinated attacks..." Why not "A car is a kind of car"? Presumptive (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks is a commonly accepted name and should be bold. Point one of your "interim conclusion" is based on a discussion that took place three years ago, and point two is an amusing straw man argument. You've misinterpreted a portion of the manual of style and then suggested that we support it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The bad prose reason is a good reason. One should not use define a word using the same word.

"is a commonly accepted name" is not true. There was much debate in 2004 here. Rather than revert, think of alternate wordings. That's what I am doing. Presumptive (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Commonly accepted name" refers to reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors (although I suspect that the name is commonly accepted by Wikipedia editors as well). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

History:
There were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States often referred to as September 11, 2001 attacks, 9/11, or simply described without a proper name [1]

On September 11, 2001 attacks took place in the United States by al-Qaeda against high profile targets in the United States (often referred to as 9/11).

On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Presumptive (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to flat-out suggest the following and see where the discussion goes:

"The September 11, 2001 attacks were a coordinated series of four airline hijackings, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people from around the world. The attacks are so-named because they all occurred within the span of a few hours on the morning of September 11, 2001."

Yes, it's two sentences, and my punctuation may not be exactly correct, but let's work with that for starters. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the current version better. The first sentence should describe the attacks. Your proposed wording suggests that the attacks were the result of the hijackings, which is only partially true, of course. The "people from all around the world", although true, is misleading. The attacks were on the United States, regardless of the nationality of the victims. The second sentence is completely unnecessary. It would add nothing to the article.

It has been suggested that we are using the name of the subject to define itself. This is simply not true. We are not saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of attacks on September 11, 2001, which would be using the subject to define itself. We are saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks... We are describing the type of attacks that occurred on that date, which is acceptable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the opening sentence of this article, and the suggestions that there is something wrong with it have been nothing but silly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has a name. The name is the one ordinarily given to the attacks described in the article. To begin the article in a manner such as "There were a series of coordinated attacks... on Ssept 11, 2001" removes the specific focus of the article. Articles do not get written about events without names. The proper name of the article is the one it has & the article's task is to describe what the September 11, 2001 attacks were. --JimWae (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• RE:"::"The September 11, 2001 attacks were a coordinated series of four airline hijackings, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people from around the world."
  • Why not mention WHERE they happened? Why not mention what the clear target & purpose was? "Hijackings" barely begins to describe the event - There were no "hostages", the airlines were used as missiles against the financial, cultural, political & military centers of the US (and by extension, by threat & by action, the entire Western world - and more). The events of that day have produced changes that impact the lives of nearly everyone -- and definitely of every air-traveller. Why are people intent on minimizing an event that seems already to be a landmark event of the century, an event that also led to US responses that are covered in newscasts world-wide daily? Name 4 (or even one) other comparable "hijackings".--JimWae (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you on this point except to say that those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it. There was a great hijacking in the past. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings That was when there was simultaneous hijackings by the Black September group fighting for the liberation of Palestine cowardly hijacked a Pan Am, TWA, Swissair, ElAl, and later a (British) BOAC flight and later blew up 4 of the 5 planes. Guess what day the hostages were released? September 11th. This is their revenge. Presumptive (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Shocking? yes Dastardly? yes. Comparable in their effects? only slightly. --JimWae (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article's first sentence is original research and should be banned

{{SectOR}} This tag is in the article at the top.

{{RFC [topic] | section= Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks!! reason=Whether it is good or bad proses to use the word "attacks" to define "attack" and whether or not it is original research to use a wikipedia-created title in the introductory sentence rather than the terminology used by respected reliable sources such as CNN, CBC, CBS, and the BBC. !! time=02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)}}

I have looked at reliable sources, like the BBC, CBC, CBS, and CNN. They do NOT refer to the attacks as "September 11, 2001 attaks". Therefore, we are allowing original research. If one calls for OR too much, they can be banned from WP.

There needs to be a title of the article and a 2004 discussion chose the title. I do not dispute this. However, insistance that we use the title in the introduction (which is not required by the Manual of Style, just suggested in most cases) is Original Research as we are now calling the event by the artificial wikipedia name.

See the following:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/11/september11/main3250664.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/

None of these links refer to "September 11, 2001 attacks", just Wikipedia in an act of Original Research.

The proposed solution is to not use the original research title in the introduction. There are many, many ways to phrase the introduction in a NPOV way without OR. I will propose one way in the article. Presumptive (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really OR, there's plenty of news sources that use the phrase. [12]. (Just in the last 30 days) Please propose alternative wordings here. RxS (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Current wording:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Possible wording to eliminate OR:

On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Another possible wording to eliminate OR, use the title without "The", but it is awkward:

September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) using hijacked aircraft took place in the United States by al-Qaeda operatives.

Using "The" makes it original research by creating a title for the event, a title that is not uniformly used. This use of a "TV episode name" is a common mistake in WP. It happens because some editors are interpreting the MOS too restrictively and combining it with a made up title. Presumptive (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The title is not uniformly used because it is a compromise of multiple styles. Check the archives. Peter Grey (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As it is, this RFC is invalid to begin with - the issue is being presented in a way which promotes the original poster's point of view. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look here, I'll let you win the revert battle as I won't put back the OR tag for now. Removing it without resolution is a "no-no".

Google "September 11, 2001 attacks" and see what you get. The top article is Wikipedia. That's an indication of OR. Then look down the first page. Nobody else uses that phrase. There is no link to BBC, CNN, CBC, CBS, NBC.

The fact remains that we have to create a title. However, we need not use the exact title in the article as that creates original research because others don't use the exact phrase. Presumptive (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, see the link in my comments above. [13] Plenty of uses of that phrase (BBC for example). Not original research. RxS (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They sometimes use "September 11 attacks" which is different. They also use it as a description, not as a title. For the home page of the event, they do not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". Presumptive (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They "sometimes" call them a lot of things. And as I've shown, many times they call them September 11, 2001 attacks which makes your claim of OR inaccurate. RxS (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By your non-existant "first google hit" original research test, the following article titles are OR: Niccolo Machiavelli, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Holocaust, 1992 Summer Olympics, Margaret Thatcher, Bread. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that "to Kill a Mockingbird" is not a news topic. September 11th is. Presumptive (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this one? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBC DOES call them Sep 11 attacks - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/03/24/binladen040324.html --AND http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/04/08/condoleezza_911_040408.html JimWae (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of these links prove my point. They are NEVER referred to in these 2 links as "September 11, 2001 attacks". Only WP made this up...original research. You see, I am for precision and attention to detail...that will make WP great. Sloppiness and "almost accurate" is not good enough for WP and has no place here, just in myspace and facebook. Presumptive (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the only editor who has a problem with title, and now you've resorted to making the same points over and over again. Please just drop it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the title. However, given the original research creation of the title, we must abide by the Manual of Style and not require that the title be used with such bad prose. We must also not require that the original research phrase infect the introduction.

Sometimes in history, it is one man or one person who brings about positive change. If Jimbo Wales was run over as a kid, WP would probably not exist in its current form. One editor, Jimbo Wales, making a fuss created Wikipedia. So one editor is not all bad as you suggest. Presumptive (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, Wikipedia did not make the phrase up, it's in general use (as shown in links I provided above). It is not original research, period. You ignore the links given to you and focus only on the links that support your position. If you keep going down this road and continue to waste good editors time you'll end up topic banned (or worse). These articles are under very tight restrictions. RxS (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The links do not show the phrase "September 11, 2001 attacks" so it is original research. The few places that use this phrase use it as the object, not as the subject. Using it as a subject turns wikipedia into a parody of TV episode titles. The bottom line is that I have no objection to the article name but using the article name in the introduction is bad prose and inserts subtle original research. There are many, many good ways to re-word it. Threatening to ban people is just incivility. Others should look to productive ways and make suggestions. If we have a dozen suggestions, we could see which one is best. Likely, it will not be the current version. You see, I am flexible. Not pushing a specific version, just pointing out how to improve the article and taking out original research. Presumptive (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another link for you.[14] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm speechless. Did you click on the link? How can you possibly say "The links do not show the phrase "September 11, 2001 attacks"? I'm done with this subject but do yourself a favor and read the link Ice Cold Beer provided. RxS (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Links that you provided refer to "9/11", "September 11 attacks", "September 11 terrorist attacks". Both links do not use the WP term "September 11, 2001 attacks". WP made it up in a WP vote so it is OR. It caught my attention because it is such awkward prose that it didn't fit it. Then, I discovered the subtle OR. Keep the title, I agree with you 1,000,000%. However, let's follow the manual of style which doesn't require use of the exact title in the intro sentence particularly if it is descriptive. Presumptive (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "both links". I linked to (several times) a google news search that shows multiple uses of the exact phrase September 11, 2001, attacks. RxS (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive, you're the only one who has a problem with this title. Your argument has been refuted by the consensus of every other editor. Stop pasting POV tags all over the article. -- Veggy (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The title and lede appear adequate to me, if a little wordy. The current wording is likely less common than shorter versions such as "9/11" or "September 11th", but our more specific version may be preferable here. I'm not seeing evidence of original research. Fletcher (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not research - Their date is widely known, but "September 11, 2001" is an inadequate title because that article should be about more than these attacks. Adding the word "attacks" sufficiently disambiguates the phrase, as well as being a common term for the attacks. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: The title is not in dispute (I accept that we must make up all titles). The use of the title in the first sentence is the dispute. This is because we are introducing a wikpedia made-up name different from the more common names. But say what you want as it's your opinion.Presumptive (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

new section on first sentence

In view of the debates, I propose that we list some recent sentences. Starting on July 28, 2008, we can comment on those listed. We can decide which ones are awkward and which ones are good. Before July 28, 2008, you can list some proposals. These dates are just suggestions. You can comment earlier and leave proposals later than the dates suggested. Presumptive (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

• Poor choice of words/unacceptable prose. Technically correct but comma is unusual and makes the bolded part not the exact title. However, removing the comma creates a grammatical error, which is forbidden. Also defines "attack" with the same word which is bad prose. Presumptive (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Best choice As I've outlined above, there is nothing wrong with the prose. The possible title change is another matter. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2. On September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) took place coordinated by al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.

• Acceptable, not preferred. Technically correct but comma is unusual and makes the bolded part not the exact title. However, removing the comma creates a grammatical error, which is forbidden. Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Bad Awkward prose. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3. (Title of article remains the same) On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States took place.

• GoodPresumptive (talk)
• Bad Violates WP:MOS, awkward prose. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

4. A series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States occured on September 11, 2001 and have been referred to by various names such as 9/11, September 11th attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks, etc.

• Very good, however suggest reversing the order of prose so "Various names such as 9/11, September 11th attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks, and other names has been used to describe a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda in the United States on said date." Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Extremely bad Violates WP:MOS, poor prose, terrible language use for the first sentence of an article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

5. (Title of article remains the same)
On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated hijackings by al-Qaeda operatives occured using hijacked commercial airliners to destroy high profile buildings in New York and Washington.

• Excellent Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Bad Violates WP:MOS. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

6. The September 11, 2001 attacks and 9-11 are one of several terms used to describe a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.

• Outstanding and preferred Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Terrible The first sentence is the most important sentence in an article. It states, clearly and concisely, what the subject of the article is. In this case, the first thing a reader learns is that The September 11, 2001, attacks is a term. This is an awful and unacceptable way to start the article. Also, there are two terms, not one. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

6b. The September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11th, and 9/11 are several terms used to describe a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.

• Outstanding and preferred This proposal incorporates some suggestions by Mr. Grey (below). Presumptive (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Terrible per my response below 6a. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

7. variations of the above with consideration of a discussion several sections above to whether "upon the United States" is proper.

Have you read WP:LEAD? -- Veggy (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#First_sentences mentions that there are times when the lead sentence will not contain the exact article name. Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And how does this article fall under those exceptions? Are you just commenting on your own suggestions? -- Veggy (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting the article title, which is effectively simply a date, into the narrative genuinely does seem to be awkward in this case. Perhaps it would be best to not bother trying, with something like: The September 11 attacks (often referred to simply as September 11th or in the US as 9/11) were the al Qaeda suicide attacks on the United States which occurred on that date in 2001. Peter Grey (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After 13 days of discussion, version 6b, which incorporates added suggestions by Peter Grey, is now used as the introductory sentence in the article. To avoid edit warring, please refrain from changing the introductory sentence unless there is an adequate discussion of 10 or more days. We can change it but must not repetitively or frequently change it without discussion. Presumptive (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see NO discussion of this since July 30th, no consensus for change, and several objections to proposed changes --JimWae (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Several proposals were made (above). One was added incorporating the opinion of Peter Grey. No objections were made. No new proposals made. If you have a proposal, mention it. There were objections to the current version, some not liking the comma and some saying that it is grammatically correct to have it. I am not opposed to change. Make some suggestions! After a week or more, we can change it to a new agreed version. That's better than one person changing it and another changing it 5 minutes later. Presumptive (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there have been numerous objections to changing the first sentence, and I don't really see consensus for the new opening sentence. I am reverting. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this, Presumptive. Stop changing it. You obviously haven't read WP:LEAD. -- Veggy (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". Ask 100 people or 100 sources for the name of the event and only 0-1 source will say "September 11, 2001 attacks". Therefore, your comment proves that the other listed alternatives are acceptable. Presumptive (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus over the comma and other things. So now that there is finally discussion, let's decide. Let the discussion begin. Please be civil. Presumptive (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is: The sentence is fine as is. That's why no one else has any issues with it. Maybe the article title needs to include the comma, but that's not what your problem is with. -- Veggy (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The current page protected version is far from fine. The comma must be restored to be grammatically correct if that version is to be used. The current version is not fine because it defines a word with the same word and also uses a term that is rarely used. Using the rarely used term as the title is ok with me but not to use it in such an awkward manner in the lead. Furthermore, there is no explanation on why the alternate compromise versions cannot be used. Presumptive (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've outlined above why the whole "defines word with same word" thing is a myth. I've explained above why each proposed new version is bad, and why the current one is the best. There comes a time when you'll have to accept that you won't get consensus for your changes. That time should be now. You've been told, repeatedly, that you have no consensus. You've edit warred against consensus, and as a result the page is now protected. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Warring requires two parties, therefore you edit warred because you claim there was edit warring. I simply changed to the consensus version. Your version had no consensus. The page protected version bucks consensus because the admin did not follow the consensus for the comma. Presumptive (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim consensus when it appears that you are the only editor in support of your change. The comma issue is separate from your push to impose changes which stand in the face of the long agreed-upon version of the lead. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's you agains 4 or 5 editors, so, although edit warring requires more than one editor, you are the one who should be stopped. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not insult Newark

I changed the name from Newark to Newark International as all the other airports were given the same courtesy except Newark. (near the beginning of the article).

Any disputes to this, you may discuss it here. Presumptive (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the edit, I don't see why you think we've insulted Newark. Please assume good faith. Also, uncontroversial edits (such as the one we're discussing) don't really need to be discussed on the talk page; a comment in your edit summary will suffice. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

strange double standards

I am a little confused as to why the following two articles manage to refrain from using the word terrorist, especially as they have both been recently edited by both vegita and ice cold beer, who are both very vocal in this talk page, in favour of using the term terrorist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

The two above articles refer to the people involved as hijackers (as requested for this article) however the above two editors seem to have no issue with the use of the word hijackers, apart from this particular article.

How is it that these articles use the term hijacker but this particular article cannot?

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also one is a featured article the best you can get on wiki. BigDunc^Talk 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

even more strange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77 also refer to the people involved as hijackers - and both of those articles have also been edited recently by vegita.

Perhaps people understand that blatant POV would not be accepted on a featured article?

Can someone explain why the term hijacker seems to be totally acceptable in all four articles, but it not acceptable in this article? Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also one of them has been edited on many occasions by a certain admin, who is quite vocal on this article, in support of using the term terrorist. However the same admin does not seem to care about the use of the term on the United Airlines Flight 175 article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an important distinction you haven't noticed. In 9/11-related articles, we always (with one exception I know of) refer to the men who hijacked the planes as "hijackers" and members of al-Qaeda (which includes people who did not hijack the planes) are "terrorists". So, there really isn't a double standard here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I consider all sections that use the term terrorist, without attributing its use to a particular person or organisation to be in breach of wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.

The POV tag should remain until we have come to some form of consensus. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you making a new section when you've already stated your opinion on the matter above? There is no consensus to remove the word terrorist and we won't let you hold the article hostage with the NPOV template. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is used for a reason. The POV of the article is under dispute. BTW why did you not complain about the use of the term hijacker in the other articles related to 9/11 that you edited? feel free to take a look at the section above this one and give me an opinion. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My objection is to the removal of terrorist. I haven't complained about the use of the term hijacker. In fact, that word appears just three sentences into this article (and I don't have a problem with that). Of course, I don't need to tell you that; I'm sure that you've taken the time to read the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives. The issue has been discussed before and the consensus is that the word terrorist belongs. Furthermore, this article is a good article, having been reviewed for quality, neutrality, etc. Do not change the article unless you get consensus here on the talk page. I don't see any consensus for changing the article. --Aude (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the archives, the is no clear consensus, there is merely a history of edit waring. There is an ongoing discussion on this article at the moment relating to the NPOV (or lack of) in this article. The POV tag clearly states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." next time you see a POV tag, and there is a discussion in progress relating to POV, please do not remove it. It was not an attempt at vandalism, or me trying to prove a point it was use of a tag within the rules and spirit of the rules. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There IS a clear consensus for inclusion. There is a consensus that there is a clear consensus for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, consensus can change. It might be better to argue this one on its merits than refer to a previous consensus. --John (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur are you trying to say that you are right because you say that you are right? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW Arthur, if you feel the including the term terrorist improves the article, why didn't you push for its inclusion on the other 9/11 related article you were editing? Surely pushing for its inclusion, just because you think there are rules that back up your case, while not considering it to be the best term, would be gaming wikipedia? But then again, if you did consider it to be the best term for the article, why did you happily edit another 9/11 article that used the term hijacker instead of terrorist, without trying to change it? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this line of questioning is productive. This isn't a courtroom drama. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So Ice Cold Beer, if you consider the inclusion of the term terrorist to be so important, why don't you care about the lack that exact term in the other 9/11 related article that you edited? It does not matter if a term is removed, added or appears by magic, as far as the quality of the article is concerned what matters is only if the word is in the article or not. The word terrorist seems to mean so much to you on this article, yet you don't care if it is omitted on another 9/11 related article? Why is that? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would answer this, but this talk page is for discussing this article. What you're bringing up is totally irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This arguing over a single word has got completely out of hand. Clearly talk page discussion is going nowhere - if it's that important, consider pursuing Wikipedia:Requests for comment or the like.

I request that all editors who have a problem with the wording of the article provide arguments as to why their request should be given more weight than all the previous requests that have requested the exact same thing. If they cannot, they should step aside. --Tarage (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. I am baffled as to how this is a Good Article. It doesn’t follow the MOS in regard to the use the word terrorism so fails No.1b of the GA criteria. Also the use of terrorist is not neutral so this fails No.4 of the GA criteria. At the moment it is not stable as POV tag is being added and removed so fails No.5 of the GA criteria. So it fails 3 sections out of the 6 on the Good Article criteria. BigDunc^Talk 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed As explained on the talk page, the use of terrorist is acceptable on this page when so many sources have called the attacks terrorism. Unfortunately, the instability is a problem, although it could be argued that the current instability is the result of disruptive editing by those who do not belive in consensus building or do not know how to recognize consensus. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, for an article that has been at the center of so much controversy, this should be a community reassessment and not an individual one. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist BigDunc's argument is rather compelling. We do not state on Adolf Hitler's page that he was a mass murderer, nor do we state on Richard Nixon that he was a crook. Good encyclopedic practice is to give the sources, write the article in NPOV language, and let readers decide for themselves. --John (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• And use sources is exactly what we've done to establish this point. -- Veggy (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you still don't get it. --John (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you still don't get it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• By 'it', I mean WP:NPOV. It isn't a matter of opinion or explanation, it's a basic principle of Wikipedia that we don't describe Hitler as a mass-murderer, or bin Laden as a terrorist. We can quote reliable sources calling them those things, but, to retain an encyclopedic tone, we avoid being judgmental, instead quoting or paraphrasing the sources in fair proportion, and crediting our readership with the intelligence to make their own judgment. See also here. That example, from an official policy and a cornerstone of Wikipedia, seems very similar to the matter we are discussing here. I'm in favor of following policy on this one. --John (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any major sources that refer to these people as not terrorists?-Wafulz (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The consensus is that, on this article, "terrorist" is WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to you. --John (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to the major contributors to this article and the editor that promoted it to Good Article status, thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed BigDunc's arguments against 1b and 4 are terrible; it's a clear exception to 1b, and "terrorist" is neutral in the present context. And the instability is because of repeated additions of tags contrary to a clear consensus that the particular phrase in question is NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist Per John and BigDunc, I think the article fails primarily by violating WP:TERRORIST. As I've mentioned in sections above, I do not by any means believe this event was anything other than a terrorist attack. However, it's clearly not necessary to state that. Describing the attackers as "hijackers" is more accurate and avoids any accusations of POV. Given the discussions on Mohamed Atta and Osama bin Laden, which concluded that it was unnecessary to describe these two men as "terrorists", I don't see why we can't do the same here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Yeah, except the articles on those individuals all link to Islamic terrorism! So on Wikipedia, there's such a thing as Islamic terrorism, but there's no Islamic terrorists or terrorist actions. Yeah, that makes sense. -- Veggy (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed As we have exhaustively tried to explain, our use of "terrorist" is backed by reliable world-wide sources relating to the attack. Remember that WP:WTA refers to terms that are misused, it does not ban words altogether. -- Veggy (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist until original research removed, which is easy See the talk page for why the introductory paragraph contains OR. Easy to fix. Presumptive (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • What OR? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OR is that a WP created phrase is used in the introduction. See talk page for discussion and proof that respected reliable sources like the BBC, CNN, CBS, CBC do not use such phrases as the title for their summary of the day's events.

Also, lost of GA is nothing serious. It can be a nicely written WP article instead of a GA. Why not create a new category "NWWA"? Presumptive (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific/give us a link to this discussion?-Wafulz (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist Come on guys, all kidding aside, this just doesn't qualify as a good article. I'll break it down. A good article should meet the following attributes:
  • Is is well written: No, the terrorist thing is clearly written with a POV. I know what you are selling with the whole, Fox News, or whatever sources you find, call them terrorist, but I'm just not buying it. We should be better than that. Sorry to compare this to Fox News, or whatever Team America cable network you prefer, but I just don't buy it.
    • So one word destroys the writing of the entire article?-Wafulz (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • If that one word adds POV, then it makes the difference between GA and non-GA. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The one word reflects the opinions of the most reliable major sources.-Wafulz (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • It reflects my opinion too! The problem is, Wikipedia isn't the place for opinion. —Slipgrid (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • No, but it is the place to fairly represent the most relevant information as presented by reliable sources. If you want you can read through the archive index to see all the old arguments about this.-Wafulz (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • I'd really rather not. Every time I look at those archives, I lose my faith in humanity. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable: No, of course it is not. It is so absurd, that the article stands in a protected state, as it has for many, many years. Just to write on the talk page, you get threatened with this. There is no way that the narrow scope of this article is factually accurate, and verifiable. It is beyond absurd to believe it is. It's so absurd, that people who point out inaccuracies, are banned, no questions asked. The administrators know the problems; they just don't want to hear about it.

• • • This article is protected for the same reason George W. Bush is - it gets hammered to death by vandals.-Wafulz (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Vandals, or people with different POV, different facts, different evidence, and different sources? I ask, because I don't know. I'm assuming good faith. I'm assuming that the people who try to edit the article are doing it in good faith. Are they posting pictures of Goatse, or are these vandals just posting CT? Because if it's being protected against CT, as I imagine it is, then I don't believe they are vandals. And even if it is true vandalism, it's still not good for this article to remain under lock and key. Its been over two years. If the problems have not been worked out, they are not going to be. It's well beyond time to let the article settle into its natural state. GWB article is different, because it's a bio of a living person. Also, the quality of one article does not transfer to another article. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • No, it's vandalism. And even then, it's only semi-protected, so it's not like only admins can edit it.-Wafulz (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It is broad in its coverage: No, of course it isn't. There are many topics that surround the attacks that are not cover, mentioned, or acknowledged in anyway. The coverage of this article is not broad in scope.
    • The article is about 120kb long. It's longer than articles on World War II and Earth. For practical reasons, and keeping in line with undue weight, we can't include every pet theory.-Wafulz (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • If broadness were measured in kilobytes, then this article may broad. Also, please assume good faith. I'm not trying to insert pet theories, or anything else to this article. I was simply asked to give my opinion on the quality of this article, and that's what I'm doing. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I wasn't referring to you specifically. Articles like this seriously degrade if we don't include everything except for the most widely-accepted verifiable information - the prose falls apart, the presentation ends up turning into an argument, and the prose more or less doubles and becomes unreadable.-Wafulz (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It is neutral: No, of course it isn't. Every aspect of this article, from the images, to the wording, to the references, are chosen with surgical precisions, to hold up some sense that this myth is reasonable. I'll give a quick example. The second source, is used to make the point that "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11." Then look at the source. It says he claimed responsibility in a 2004 video. You got to explain that, because that would throw lots of visitors for a loop. But, the article doesn't mention when he claimed responsibility. And, that might be important to helping people understand the attacks. It's not neutral, because that cite works to confirm what people think they believe, but if one looks at the source, it doesn't confirm what people believe. I don't believe that's neutral; I believe that misleads visitors. It makes me want to scream out, what year did he claim responsibility and why doesn't this article answer that question?

• The section on Bin Laden spells out the timeline of his admission fairly clearly.-Wafulz (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It is stable: Of course it's stable. It's been protected for at least two years. I imagine much longer. Anyone that proposes other information or a different point of view, is banned without questions being asked. So, yeah, it's stable, but that's not good.
  • It is illustrated, if possible, by images: It has images. I see an image of the Statute of Liberty. Really tugs at the heart. Who is that in the statue anyway? It's odd that American's don't wonder where their artwork comes from. I see an image of the Pentagon, which is another great work of art, after the wall collapses. The story is told with images. The problem is, if they showed an image of the Pentagon before the wall collapses, that would tell a completely different story. And, perhaps, it would really confuse visitors. The images have the same POV problem that the rest of the article does.
  • I'm not digging on the admins who worked on this article. They have to be some of the most dedicated people ever. This article is a lot of things, but I wouldn't call it good. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist I realise that with all of the political views and conspiracy theories, this is a difficult article to keep under control, however due to basic POV issues and the high levels of protection it cannot be considered to be a good article. Deal with the POV in a manner other editors claiming consensus - without actually showing that it is NPOV, remove the high levels of protection and let the article find its own natural state and it might be considered to be a GA. At the moment this article is merely showing how wikipedia should not work. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed, we don't de-list articles because a few bullies come around and demand it. RxS (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • response to the above statement by Rx StrangeLove - you seem to be concentrating on the editors involved rather than the actual article. Please remain civil at all times, and do not refer to other users as "bullies" - just because an editor makes an edit that you don't agree with, does not make them a bully and does not entitle you to breach wikipedia civility guidelines. Why not strikeout your comments, and comment on the actual article? Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have, over and over and over. But it doesn't seem to take. An editor that engages in debate, listens and takes reasonable positions isn't a bully. Editors that repeat the same arguments over and over without hearing a single thing anyone says in response are indeed trying to bully their way. I'm sorry...RxS (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I don't know who you are talking about, I personally have read every comment directed towards me, and given them all due consideration, unlike others, I have never dismissed comments and refused to discuss topics with others because of their POV, political feelings or tone. I do however appreciate the fact that you are sorry, apology accepted. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Don't demand civility when you've labeled everyone else. -- Veggy (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed. I passed this as a GA fairly recentlyand I am afraid that most of the delist arguments given above are nonsense. The person who created this reassessment has claimed that it fails three of the GA criteria because of the use of the word terrorist but in fact there is only one problem here: is the use of the word terrorist to describe the hijackers (and surely there is no dispute about that word?) on 9/11 appropriate. To defend the term, we have 1) for starters wikipedia's own article on Al-Quaeda, which says that it "is an international terroristic Sunni Islamic movement founded in 1998." on the second line. I think its fair that if someone wants to remove the implication that Al-Quaeda are terrorists they should probably start there. 2) Next and most importantly, the article provides extensive reliable sources (As checked during the recent FAC). The article's regular editors can confirm this for me, but I believe that while the vast majority of those articles use the word terrorist in relation to this event, very few make any use of "freedom fighter" or alternate terms (other than the strictly factual term "hijacker"). Claiming that the word terrorist should be removed in the face of this body of evidence is a clear misunderstanding of WP:TERRORIST. Terrorist should not be used perjoratively in any article, but it should be used factually (i.e. as according to the sources) where necessary, as it is here. I have not read the talk page completely but I would be surprised if the people complaining about the term have found sources that outweigh this body of evidence. 3) Finally, I see, somewhat with a sigh of frustration, that this problem began as a result of the endless dispute of the term as it relates to the Provisional Irish Republican Army. I even recognise some of the participants in this debate from those endless arguments that I abandoned over a year ago to spare my sanity. I have seen this all before and unless something is done soon to establish conclusively that is is or is not an appropriate term in this article this could drag on for years. I may say more on these issues later, but I see no reason to delist for any of the reasons given above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist: While overal the article is reasonable the problem is with the wording. There are too many hypothesis presented as absolute fact. For example the section on Osama bin Laden gives no indication that there are doubts as to the authenticity of his confessions and doesn't even link back to the Wikipedia article where the reader can find this out for himself. Admissions by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed under interrogation (experts are of the consensus that evidence given under torture is unreliable) are worded to imply they are irrefutable when in fact at the same time he also admitted to much that was false. While the claims and other like them are likely true they are not as absolute as the article makes out. Maybe it's unintended but it has the effect of the article pushing a particular POV on the reader. Wayne (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• In terms of presenting facts without analysis, the Bin Laden sections seems as plain as possible to me: He denied involvement, and then he claimed involvement.-Wafulz (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: I'm sure you have reliable sources that to back all that up, right? -- Veggy (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This article is full of reliable information:) Of course you can find all this information by doing a simple Google search, but less say it's a bit more tricky. There was widespread doubt over the UBL confession. That's the same source that is used for the video in the article. If you get a chance, I suggest you go back and watch some CNN video from December 14 and 15, 2001. Huge protest were videotaped and shown to America audiences. As to KSM, the CIA destroyed the tapes of his "confession." They were destroyed under the pretext of torture. You can find numerous sources that say this. My personal, unsourced opinion is that he was not tortured, and the confession tape was destroyed for other reasons, which you can find other reliable journalist editorialize on, but the story reported over and over is that his confession tape was destroyed because it shows he was water boarded. I found the first source for you. You can find the second one. —Slipgrid (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you have reliable sources, use them. You don't need my permission. -- Veggy (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Pardon me? What are you talking about? You asked for a reliable source to the information above, as if you didn't believe it existed. I assumed you asked in good faith, and was that you were interested in seeing the information. Was I mistaken? I really don't know what you are talking about. —Slipgrid (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for confusing you. Wayne made some claims about particular aspects of the article. I challenged to see if there were reliable sources for these. You provided them and I said you are free to use them. Since I don't have an issue with the wording, I wouldn't do any good addressing Wayne's complaints with them. If Wayne has these sources, he can use them at his leisure. -- Veggy (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, I'm confused most of the time. I misinterpreted you. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am a bit worried about some of the contributions to this thread. I am finding it hard to see were editors are assuming good faith. Accustations of bullies when editors voice valid concerns and issuing of warnings to editors who even contribute to the talk page. Could we just deal with the issue at hand thanks. BigDunc^Talk 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • We differ on what "a valid concern" might be. A concern about the article which has been discussed 20 times and rejected the last 15 doesn't strike me as "a valid concern". The name question is, has, at least, not be discussed that extensively. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur you keep harping back to the consensus that was reached but consensus requires special attention to neutrality this article obviously isnt neutral. Also being an admin I'm sure you are aware that consensus can change. Also there seems to be a certain amount of ownership attached to this article by a few editors. Removing non neutral terminology doesn't in any way change what the perportrators of this act did and I don't think any editor pushing for the removal of said items are doing so with an agenda apart from making this article more neutral. BigDunc^Talk 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is that "terrorist", on this article is WP:NPOV, not that it should be kept in spite of WP:NPOV. (That's more difficult to demonstrate than a simple verification that there's consensus to keep "terrorist", but it seems accurate.) It has been argued that removing "terrorist" is WP:POV. I don't recall who said that, and I'm not sure I would take that position now, but the arguments are certainly credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's, in my opinion, nonsensical. It's like saying there is a local consensus to disregard WP:BLP on a specific article. "Terrorist" can never be NPOV, by definition, hence the existence of WP:TERRORIST. It's one of these words, like "alleged", that should pretty much always be avoided. --John (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is clearly nonsense. WP:TERRORIST says "words generally to avoid". If you want to go through the archives to find evidence that the CONSENSUS to include "terrorist" was NOT based on the argument that this article is a clear exception to WP:TERRORIST while maintaining WP:NPOV, go ahead. However, it's quite clear that for "terrorist", as for the other examples in WP:AVOID, there can be exceptions to the guideline. If you want to argue that this, specific, article, is not such an exception, and you can provide new arguments, go ahead. If you want to argue that there can be no such exceptions, IMHO, there is nothing more to talk about. Consensus and policy are against you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, are you talking about when Senne called us meat-puppets? Yeah, that seems like a good faith argument to me. -- Veggy (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed. It looks like the main concern here is over the word "terrorist". From all the discussions, it looks like there is strong consensus among major sources that yes, this was an act of terrorism.-Wafulz (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion though concerns the Wikipedia article on September 11, 2001 attacks, not the event itself, which no-one disputes was terrorism. Likewise, a majority of sources regard Hitler as a mass-murderer and Nixon as a crook. Nevertheless, our respective articles do not state in the lead "Hitler was a mass-murderer" or "Nixon was a crook". This is because of a fundamental policy and key principle called WP:NPOV, which you may want to review in detail. --John (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit onflict) No one is saying that it wasn't an act of terrorism. It says right in the lead it was a terrorist attack, therefore the perpetrators are terrorists, but there's no need to hammer it home every third sentence when hijacker can be used. It is the use of words that breach the MOS and thus fails as a Good Article. BigDunc^Talk 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x3 )Actually, I agree with the objectors that that is not adequate for inclusion of "terrorism" in the article. What we need is to demonstrate that "terrorist" is WP:NEUTRAL on this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As John said above local consensus cannot override global consensus, It's not neutral on any article. BigDunc^Talk 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say "never under any circumstance use the word 'terrorist'".-Wafulz (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think things are getting a little overcomplicated at the moment. Let's make it simple, ignore the comments along the lines of "we cannot change it because I don't consider there to have been any new points made" also ignore "the last time we had an edit-war over this subject, when the dust settled the term terrorist was in use, so I claim consensus" - I consider those points to be borderline wikipedia-gaming and not within the spirit of wikipedia guidelines (you may disagree, it is your right) - you can ignore the two above arguments because of much more importance are the following two arguments - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5P - the make the stand on NPOV more than clear - and these take priority of any petty arguments about which term had consensus or if there are any new points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles also make good reading. People need to leave their personal beliefs at the door, when editing wikipedia - I got my ass handed to me on IRA related articles, due to me wanting to use the term terrorist, and despite growing up in the UK in the 80s, having a family member shot by what I would describe as an IRA related terrorist, I had to concede that to be truly neutral, the term could not stay. The term terrorist is the negative form of freedom fighter, as a negative term it cannot being anything other than POV, and what makes it worse is that there are terms which are perfectly suitable for this article, that are not used (or quickly reverted out by the editors who think they OWN this article). Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) You know, the best results come from everyone putting in suggestions instead of just arguing. Fine, what would you like to see here? How could we perfect the wording in your opinion? -- Veggy (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple - remove references to terrorists, and replace them with the word hijacker (unless someone else has a better word to suggest) apart from actual quotes. That would remove a lot of the POV issues, and edit warring. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That'll work for the nineteen men, but al-Qaeda isn't a hijacking organization and bin Laden isn't a hijacker. If you say it's militant Islam, be aware that links to Islamic terrorism. You'll be polishing the words superficially when (according to Wikipedia), the underlying issue is terrorism. -- Veggy (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed Perhaps if the arguments that are being presented were new, I would feel differently. However, they are not. EVERYTHING being said here has been argued to death in the talk page archives. Yet a subset of editors refuse to take the time to browse these, or refuse to acknowledge that the debate against this article has stagnated. Regardless of the reason, with an article like this, there will always be editors who attempt to hijack it for their own personal agenda. The GA criteria recognizes that such editors should have no sway on if something should be a GA or FA. I once again request that those against this article being a GA/FA re-read the archives and prove that their arguments have never been brought before this talk page before. If they cannot, I suggest that they accept that consensus is against them. We have used Terrorist for years. We have left out CT for years. Why is your argument somehow better than all of those that have come before you? --Tarage (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again I will say this but can editors please assume good faith. Tarage please see Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable. BigDunc^Talk 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. I can assume good faith all I want, but it doesn't change the fact that these arguments are well past stale. Not one thing the people arguing against the status quo is new. If you are suggesting that we change our successful GA simply because an editor wants to bring up the same old argument again, I will have to disagree with you 110%. Just because Wikipedia is not static does not mean we should bend to every whim we see. --Tarage (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • No personal agenda here. I am neither pro/anti-Muslim nor pro/anti-American, my only agenda is NPOV - and to be rather blunt - I couldn't care less what was discussed before, judging by the style of discussion that is going on right now, I doubt consensus was achieved by someone proving a valid point, it was just an exercise to see who was the most stubborn, when I have true consensus pointed out to me, rather that 2 groups of editors both reverting and making their point again and again (me included) then I might accept that there was consensus. If someone is trying to improve the article and remove POV, I don't see why I should care if it is a new point or not, what is important is the content of the article, not people being forced to "prove that their arguments have never been brought before this talk page before" - I really really don't care about the process, this talk page is wasting my time, what I care about this article sucking or not. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sennen has actually made some suggestions for improvement. How about you chime in, Dunc? And Sennen, address the point I made about Islamic terrorism. See, this is how things get out of hand. -- Veggy (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion Sennen goroshi made above is the one I made on the talk page about removing terrorist and replacing it with hijacker as I tried to do here can editors tell me which is more neutral? And forget about the citation tags, so as not to deflect my question. BigDunc^Talk 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you tried to impose a change that hadn't been discussed. And you're surprised at the result? Anyway, if you read what I wrote above, you'll see I have no problem calling the nineteen hijackers "hijackers". Where you run into a problem is what to call the incident as a whole, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden taking into account the fact that those articles link to Islamic terrorism. Now, I'm off for the day, so I hope the rest of the editors here can actually resolve this issue purposefully.

Personally, I recommend:

• Calling the nineteen men "hijackers"
• Keeping "suicide attacks" and noting that "the worldwide community has condemned the attacks as terrorism"
• Mentioning that bin-Laden is head of al-Qaeda, a worldwide Islamic terrorist organization. (Or address the issue with that article).
• Add any information regarding bin Laden's taped confession and criticism surrounding with reliable sources.

-- Veggy (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They are terrorists. We have many MANY RS calling them that. Many MANY of them aren't even from the United States. Calling a Banana a 'Yellow Fruit' because it is more politically correct will never fly in my book. Don't censor Wikipedia! --Tarage (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• The date of the argument does not work to invalidate the argument, but to show that there is a lasting problem. The archives are full of many other non sequiturs. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed Someone doesn't like a word choice, so they want the article delisted? This is not a serious arguement. The issues discussed here are exactly the same issues that have been discussed to death on the article's talk page. To treat article reassessment as an appeals court that you go to if you don't get your way on the talk page is an abuse of the process. Kauffner (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed WP:TERRORIST is only a style guideline, and the use of the word "terrorist" in this article suggests that the guideline may be in greater need of revision than this article. That a word has negative connotations, or is used prejoratively, is not a reason not to use it in proper context. For example, the article on mass murder lists the 9/11 attacks as an example of mass murder by terrorists. While the terrorism article does not list examples, the 9/11 attacks clearly fit the defining characteristcs listed there. We should call a duck a duck, if it is in fact a duck. While I agree that the frequency of use could be reduced, and alternative words like hijacker could also be used in places, there is no need to expunge the word "terrorist" from an article about a textbook case of terrorism. This and the other issues can easily be addressed through normal editinig, and do not rise to the level of delisting a good (but not perfect) article. Dhaluza (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist - easily fails 4 (WP:TERRORIST) and 5 (full protected because of a dispute) looking at the first screen. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Funny how people keep saying "WP:TERRORIST", but no one has been able to explain why WP:TERRORIST applies in this case or has been able to respond to the inquiries above. -- Veggy (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh but they have you have just refused to listen. BigDunc^Talk 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• ""Oh but they have!" Right. That's why most of the pro-"terrorism" arguments have gone unresponded. -- Veggy (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can you show me one that has not be responded and if I am able I will give a response. BigDunc^Talk 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Scrollbar not working for you, I see. Otherwise you'd notice that where the discussion reaches its points of farthest indentation is where no one has bothered to respond. Incidentally happens to be where the pro-"terrorist" argument has made a point. -- Veggy (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• (cricket, cricket) That's what I thought. -- Veggy (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of trying to be a smart arse could you tell me what has gone unresponded? BigDunc^Talk 07:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He did. Every far indentation, like this post, is an unresolved argument. Look for the furthest indentation before going back to the left to find the problems. It isn't asking too much to read. --Tarage (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• How does it voilate WP:TERRORIST? That style guideline only says that use of the terms should be avoided, where their use would be subjective and prejorative. Surely you are not suggesting that this article does not document a textbook case of terrorism? Dhaluza (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

Let's try for an executive summary of the actual arguments:

Terrorist

Against inclusion: WP:TERRORIST (as an MoS guideline), WP:NPOV

For inclusion: WP:CONSENSUS that it's a specific exception to WP:TERRORIST, and that it does meet WP:NPOV (some have argued that it's required by WP:NPOV).

Edit warring

Against GA status: Well, there is edit warring on the article.

For GA status: It's being done against a valid WP:CONSENSUS (i.e., not in violation of any policies), tagging being done without presenting new arguments.

Unfortunate ungrammatical phrasing of the lead

Against GA status: Claim of WP:OR? Not well written.

For GA status: Claim of WP:OR disputed.

Have I missed anything? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No, I don't think you have missed anything, that was a good and a fair summary. If I can rephrase and add my own summary, it may well be that a consensus of those editing the article recently approve the wording used at present, but I don't think that this wording is consistent with the Good Article guidelines. This article can remain as it is at present, or it can aspire to GA status, but I don't think it can really do both at once. It would also be great if everyone could stick to debating the merits or otherwise of the article without impugning the motives of those with whom we disagree; arguments like this actually distract us from the job of improving the article. So let's assume, if we may, that everyone here has good intentions and try to move forwards, please. --John (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with your comments John editors are starting to go off on a tangent. BigDunc^Talk 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The stability of the article should be mentioned. If it wasn't for being protected for more than two years, and editors being summarily banned, this article would look nothing like it looks now. Lift the protection, and stop the bans, and the article would change rapidly. This article is not stable. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has been exceptionally stable since the arbitration decision got rid of the conspiracy theory editors. It's only recently we've had these issues come up again. The CTers were the major cause of stability problems. Outright vandalism doesn't count and that's why this article is semi-protected. Banning for violations of arbitration decisions is not a bad quality. In fact, it means the editors have taken steps to prevent recurring arguments through the use of admins. I figured you knew that—guess I was wrong. -- Veggy (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I fear that you may have misunderstood the intention of the ArbCom decision; there is quite properly nothing there about "CTers", and it would probably be better to avoid using pejorative terms like this about fellow editors in the interests of achieving consensus on how to improve the article. The ArbCom decision merely restates that we must all adhere to Wikipedia's policies in this area, and provides for streamlined enforcement of failures to do so. Indeed the last user to be sanctioned under this provision was no more a "CTer" than I am. Calling those you disagree with names may also lead others to think that your actual arguments on the content of the article lack substance and I would politely request that you avoid repeating this so that we can continue to move forward in a collegial manner. Many thanks, --John (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Name-calling aside, what I said is true. You're welcome. -- Veggy (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• It not CT that causes the stability problems, but the in inability to properly address the CT. People who believe the CT don't want to harm the article, they want to correct it. Agreements are not reached because of what I perceive as disdain, dismissal, and snark. For the article to be good and stable, you have to fairly and fully address the September 11, 2001 attacks in a convincing way. Frankly, many people are not convinced by the current article. Until that is done, the article is going to remain protected, and that's anything but good. —Slipgrid (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's clear you haven't had much time on this article to address that issue. Believe me and the rest of the veteran editors here, conspiracy theorists–oh, I'm sorry don't wanna poison that well–er, "alternative believers" constantly post unsourced information, slap neutrality, and disputed tags on the article without a clear reason and disrupt the factual, cited work on here with links to YouTube videos, blogs, and conspi–er, "alternative believer" webpages. We've spent years working to research and catalog this information from credible sources. We can't give undue weight to fringe theories–er, "alternative viewpoints" that fly in the face of fact-based research. If you have some specific issue, Slipgrid, that you feel merits more research, by all means let us know and we'll be happy to look them up. If you have tidbits of information from credible, factual, mainstream sources, by all means feel free to post them. Or if you think it may raise an issue, please bring it up on the talk page. Thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with YouTube videos? YouTube is not a source, but a medium. To prohibit links to works you believe are copyrighted on YouTube, you must know that the work is copyrighted and that Fair Use is not valid. You can't remove links just suspecting that it is not Fair Use. What's wrong with blogs? Some blogs present real news and real facts. Most is just personal dribble, but many reputable media organizations have high quality blogs. Again, you are attacking the medium, and not the source. It seems that is a major problem with this article. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are explaining is exactly what is wrong with the article. It is not always problematic edits by CT proponents. Although to a far lesser extent, it is also problematic edits/deletions by editors who reject CT's. I spent weeks to get some of my 911 edits accepted because they conflicted with the official theory despite them being actual quotes taken from the NIST report. Some quotes/copy paste edits were even at times reworded by editors to match the official theory more closely. One established editor added irrelevant material that did not apply to the towers to contradict factual material in the article with the comment "reduce propaganda" and this was only able to be corrected by rewording it to incorporate it in a way to allow the reader to determine it was irrelevant. In another case I replaced the word "rejected" with the word "concluded" which was actually used by the source (which was NIST). This resulted in a small edit war, on the basis that it didn't matter what NIST said because they meant rejected, which ended in the quote being replaced with a summary form which allowed the word rejected to be used. This type of surreptitious editing is common by both conspiracy supports and debunkers but unfortunately while the supporters are agressively reverted the debunkers get support for their problematic edits.Wayne (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• You have to understand, people who believe this, feel a patriot duty to correct the wrong they believe was caused, and they want others to know what they believe the truth is. Some are incredibly intelligent, and some are not. Most have no experience in dealing with the bureaucracy that is Wikipedia. We should assume good faith. In fact, it's their faith in doing good that makes them so passionate. And, when you mix that passion, with a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, you get the problems you used to see. Dismissing them, or using snark, or name calling, just makes them more passionate, and less willing to work through the Wikipedia system. So, now the article is at the point of just banning people, without questions, good faith, or any other ration. But, the true problem was always the inability of administrators to work with new users who passionately believe something that is outside of the mainstream. Telling someone to go read forty pages of archive, which are full of snarky comments telling them to go read thirty pages or archive, and generally not taking their concerns seriously, is why the article is locked, and why people are summarily banned. As to me suggesting changes, I personally don't have any interest in making major changes to this article. I just came back to do some work on Wikipedia, and I was reading the talk page, and decided to take a stand on the terrorist language. I believe that they were terrorist attacks, but I don't think that language is appropriate for the article. Since I made comments there, I was asked to give my view on this, which I did as honestly as I can. But, I guarantee, working on this article is of no interest to me. There is no passion from me, and no POV I want to relate to anyone. I am looking for other articles and topics to work on, but not here, beyond finishing what I already started. —Slipgrid (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I can totally understand what you're saying when we say "look in the archives". I wish there was a better way to address well-intentioned editors who come in not knowing what's going on. But then, understand where we're coming from. Edits like this, this, and this are not well-meaning or in good faith—they are disruptive. And many times, when we delete them, the talk pages fill up with "Why did you delete _____? This is proven information! Wikipedia is about everything and this needs to be on here!" It's a constant game of Whac-A-Mole. Unsourced, disruptive acts have no place on Wikipedia and we have to keep this article blocked to save ourselves from an assured onslaught of vandals and tweakers out to mess up what we've spent our time fixing up. I do see that you're a well-intentioned editor. Maybe the constant jarring of red herrings and such has hardened our hearts. Apologies if we didn't assume your good-faith. Wish you could stay with us—this article is in need of vigilant editors like Aude. -- Veggy (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as I say, some of them are not very intelligent. Perhaps they do not mean well. That second link is interesting, because he seems to have a user page that shows his location. Could relate to the terrorist language. Anyway, I'd spend more time here, but I don't have much free time, and getting a change on this page takes way too much effort. Won't even be able to access a computer for the next few days. As to dealing with the CT, perhaps you should view some of their lectures or films. It would help you understand their intent and their goals, and might help your interaction with them. If nothing else, it's entertaining stuff. Good luck. Out of the office for now. —Slipgrid (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing a big point. Repetition. Everything being presented here has been presented before. There is nothing fresh, nothing new. Editors like myself have gotten to the point where we don't want to hear it anymore. Consensus has been reached so many times that we don't feel like defending the same thing again and again. That is why the AbCom is there. That is why editors who refuse to take no for an answer find they can't edit here anymore. I've continually asked for something new, and I have yet to see anything. Please don't force me to view the same trite material over and over and over again. --Tarage (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tarage. Not trying to be mean, but you don't have to be here. You don't have to read anything, and you don't have to respond. If you don't like defending the same thing, that's fine. I just don't see any reason to complain about it. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Except if people like me aren't here, you'll make changes to the article that don't reflect consensus. It's happened before, and it will happen again. But lets look at it the other way. How about instead of making the same arguments over and over again, you read the archives and come up with something new to present? I think we'd all like that a lot better. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of "consensus can change" have you failed to understand? And if you don't wish to repeat yourself, then feel free not to contribute to this article or its talk page. If someone is new to this article, you cannot say to them "I'm sorry we have discussed this before, search the archive and don't consider bringing up any points that may have been discussed before" If you don't wish to view the same material again and again, that's OK, you don't have to, you can click that nice little "X" on the top right of your screen and it will all go away. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "We have discussed this before at .../Archive 473#POV. Please don't bring up any points that were rejected there." seems a perfectly good thing to say to a new editor. (To Tarage:We need that FAQ, or at least a global subject index to the archives.)

<snarky remark about the "block user" button being another way to avoid viewing this material over and over again removed> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Concluding remark: The people who have brought this issue up have not been able to establish a consensus against using the established terminology; especially in light of articles linking to Islamic terrorism. I have tried to engage them in constructive discussion to reach a compromise, but they have failed to successfully address my points with any meaningful retort and have ceased contributing here altogether despite our continuous replies and arguments. -- Veggy (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Lets archive this and move on. --Tarage (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As the one who started this I dont care at all if this is closed I stopped contributing to it as it was going nowhere as editors cant see the wood for the trees. You all believe it is a good article even though it fails the GA criteria so close away and rejoice in your hollow victory the only loser is wikipedia. BigDunc^Talk 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It fails none of the GA criteria discussed, except stability. Stability fails because a number of editors are unwilling or unable to recognize that the changes they want to make have been discussed and rejected by consensus dozens of times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That sums up exactly what is wrong with this article above, and from an admin, if it fails then it is not a GA. BigDunc^Talk 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Are you saying that a bevy of WP:VANDALS can remove an article from GA status?

• If so, I don't think you'll get consensus.
• If not, explain why this situation is different.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No and well you know that is not what I am talking about, but this is the response that editors get all the time when they attempt to make an edit to this article. I made one or maybe two and I get a big red hand warning saying I will be blocked from editing. You try to make an anology such as the one about Washington and editors are jumping around accusing others of wanting to call him a terrorist. This article fails criteria 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. In no way can anyone say that this sentence On that morning, terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked is NPOV, when a simple word change will make it so. ...terrorist and freedom fighter should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". That above sentence is the words of the editor who wrote it and doesn't indicate who is calling the hijackers by that name. BigDunc^Talk 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Except we have numerous reliable sources that do list them as Terrorists. We have consensus on this issue, as we have seen in the... on... 15+ debates we've had. A quick jog through the archives would show this. To remove an article from GA simply because a handful of editors don't like a single word is preposterous. None of the editors who have worked so hard on this article will let that happen. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But you dont for the sentence I have given there is NO reference to say who is calling them terrorists. It is the POV of the editor who wrote it. Also see WP:OWN and WP:CCC. BigDunc^Talk 11:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the archives. We've summarized them here, but the clear WP:CONSENSUS is that this article is an exception to the guideline interpretation at WP:TERRORIST. Consensus can change, but not often with the same arguments being presented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said above you are all welcome to continue the Masquerade of neutrallity here, you can't convice me that sentences like On that morning, terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked are neutral no more than I can try to persuade you that it is only the thoughts of the editor. Nobody is saying that the acts commited aren't terrorist in nature nobody wants the removal of the word just that it must have a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group terrorist. BigDunc^Talk 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And you can continue to plug your ears and scream at the top of your lungs. We have consensus. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it less valid. Either grow up and accept that there are some thing you cannot change, or continue to throw out your 'I'm right because I am' arguments and we'll continue to ignore them. --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

(copying interpolated comment which makes the next response comment meaningless) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with YouTube videos? YouTube is not a source, but a medium. To prohibit links to works you believe are copyrighted on YouTube, you must know that the work is copyrighted and that Fair Use is not valid. You can't remove links just suspecting that it is not Fair Use. What's wrong with blogs? Some blogs present real news and real facts. Most is just personal dribble, but many reputable media organizations have high quality blogs. Again, you are attacking the medium, and not the source. It seems that is a major problem with this article. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube videos are almost certainly copyright violations (for WP:EL, and placement of copyrighted material on YouTube cannot possibly be fair use, unless edited to include the commentary on the video), and cannot be a WP:RS unless the uploader publicly identifies itself, and it still could be a forgery.

Blogs cannot be used, unless the creator is, personally, a WP:RS, and is merely using the blog format to maintain his web site. If user comments are allowed, they cannot be referenced in our articles.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, you are mistaken. See WP:YOUTUBE, and note from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, that you must "know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright." You don't have to prove it's fair use to link to it! You have to prove it's not fair use before you remove the link to it! That's very hard to do. And that's just a link. You can use a source without a link. That is perfectly fine.

Furthermore, most video related to September 11, 2001, is fair use, because it's unique an unrepeatable.

Furthermore, you can cite a TV news source, by referencing the station, and date, and without linking to a video or article. Just because it's published somewhere other than the Internet, doesn't mean that it can not be referenced as a reliable source.

Where do you find a restriction on allowing sites that have user comments? That's just can't be, and I'll go edit it out of policy right now if you can reference it. The fact is, every story on the ABC News site allows user comments. That doesn't mean that ABC News is not RS.

Again, the medium, or lack of medium, does not define the quality of a source. If you can find somewhere in Wikipedia policy that states it does, that would be great! —Slipgrid (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:YOUTUBE:

• There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently).

(Emphasis added).

Most videos considered for inclusion in this article would violate WP:ELNO 2 (if they were to be suggested, the reason they would be suggested would almost certainly be that they were intentionally misleading) and 11 (a user's upload area could be considered a personal web site), in addition to copyright considerations.

Also note WP:ELNO 11, for blogs.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The "which would happen infrequently" part should probably be removed.

I don't buy that most videos are intentionally misleading.

It's a bit more than a stretch to say YouTube, owned by Google, is a personal website. It's a media platform. Furthermore, and most importantly, it's up to the person removing the video link to prove it's not fair use. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first two points are arguable, but that last is clearly wrong. It is policy that inclusion of links or information requires justification, particularly if there are copyright considerations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy clearly states, "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." If you don't know that the external website is carrying a work in violation of the creators copyright, then no policy exist to prevent you from linking to that page. Furthermore, you don't have to link to a source to cite it.

The "which would happen infrequently" language is POV, biased, and should be removed.

It is a fact that I don't buy the argument that there is something inherently misleading by the medium of moving pictures. This new technology is often used to mislead people, but it was invented for the exact opposite purpose.

The point is, video as a source is completely legitimate. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't prove any point at all. Any nut can make a video and paste it on YouTube. What vids are you interested in? Post the links. -- Veggy (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My interest is preventing administrators from arbitrarily removing good sources on poor grounds. All the administrators on this talk page, that I have witnessed, seem to believe a basic medium or tool is somehow banned. It's not the case. You shouldn't perpetrate that myth. When you say you are banning people, that you use a projective and non civil term to describe, because they "cited work on here with links to YouTube videos, blogs," it doesn't appear that you are working in good faith. As I have shown, both mediums (they are not sources, but mediums that host sources), are valid, welcome, and accepted. If you suggest otherwise, or you are telling editors otherwise, then maybe you shouldn't be an administrator. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering my question in the least. I think you should browse WP:RELIABLE and WP:SOURCE. Blogs and personal vids are almost unanimously frowned upon. Period. Dot. -- Veggy (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, blogs are still a medium, not a source, and not reliable on its own, because it's just software. It's a tool. I know this technology of moving pictures and article logging tools is confusing to some, but if you are going to administrate an online encyclopedia, you should learn about these tools, and learn the difference between a source and a medium.

I'm glad you changed YouTube videos to personal videos. That's a step in the right direction. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know this technology of moving pictures and article logging tools is confusing to some" That kind of sarcasm is not welcome here. Please cease and desist, or you will find your 9/11 related article editing privileges removed. --Tarage (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this interesting as, in regards to 911, a lot of YouTube videos that cover the topic are not reported in the media (RS) due to their reluctance to give credence to conspiracy theories. For example there is a recent video where a demolition expert claims the fact that the towers windows were not blown out PROVES there were no explosives yet videos of his own demolitions show that CD explosions almost never blow windows out. While the original claim can be reported in the article the YouTube counterclaim can't which can lead to bias by omission. I've seen it happen several times where a claim (pro or con) is made then it takes months, if at all, before a RS can be found to allow a rebuttal although it has existed on YouTube all along. I feel the context and reliability of the video should be the criteria for acceptance. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem related with YouTube. It's a myth. When a user uploads a video to YouTube, they are giving the copyright to YouTube. Read the YouTube policy. And, if that person was not the original copyright holder, the the original holder can have the video removed with a DMCA form letter. We are not lawyers here. And, even if you are, Wikipedia, or Wikimedia, did not hire you as counsel. It's urban legend that one can not link to YouTube; urban legend that's worst than any of the 9/11 CT. So, don't allow others to promote these absurd myths! —Slipgrid (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, you have just pointed out the problem with YouTube videos. Anyone can upload them. This makes them almost always OR. That is another reason we don't use them. The same with Blogs. --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA red flags, other than the obvious TERRORIST issue

1. Language and style. The overuse of the adjective "massive"; three instances, none of which is being appropriately used.
2. Date formatting; partial dates should not be linked, and autoformatting is no longer considered necessary. These contribute to the messy, overlinked appearance of the article at present.
3. More NPOV concerns; eg "...the hijackers used box cutters to murder passengers... ". Murder is a legal term that is not I think being used properly here.

   Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Overlinking in general. It is questionable what the links to, for example, GTE, airphone and mobile phone add to the article. For this example I think one link would be fine. --John (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   I took care of the overlinking in the example you provided, but there is more work to be done throughout the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   Nice work ICB! Definitely looking better. --John (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

   Now done. Thanks for the encouraging words, John! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, there's need to look over WP:NBSP and comply. I see some problems with this in the article. -- Veggy (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Someone might want to check my work here, sometimes those things are hard to catch. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• One problem I noticed while skimming the article: when we use "Mohammed" or "Mohamed", we should make it clear which of the three Moham(m)eds (Khalid, Atta, Atef) we are talking about. Otherwise, we risk confusing the reader. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We should use last names only. That would take care of Atta and Atef. On the Flight 93 article, I used Sheikh Mohammed to note KSM. -- Veggy (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to use Sheikh Mohammed in this article too. What do you think? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. -- Veggy (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept

In light of edits by the initiator like this as well as both a failure to turn consensus away from the use of "terrorist" and the lack of participation on the part of these users to continue the discussion, I am keeping the Good Article status. -- Veggy (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That Stupid Comma

Before I left for the day, I noticed a tiny edit that's actually indicative of a bigger problem. I've checked the Chicago Manual and Diane Hacker's Writer's Reference. It's true—a comma is supposed to go after a date in the Month DD, YYYY format. Not sure how to fix that besides changing the article title, (no, not to "September 11, 2001", Presumptive) but it is something that's technically grammatically incorrect. Maybe someone can point me to the proper policy regarding this. Peace out. -- Veggy (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me! I have no argument about the title. I only think this is a case that the lead sentence should not use the article title because of bad prose and because of subtle original research as the article title is slightly different from commonly used phrases and was made up by a wikipedia vote. Presumptive (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn that you only need the comma when the date is at the end of a prepositional phrase. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just skimmed through the manual of style and I didn't see anything regarding the use of commas after dates. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's normally problematic because of wikilinked dates; the comma is correct in one format and not correct in the others -- except in some cases where the comma always needs to be present (as in "Today, 24 July 2008, is a sad day!"). The code that munges wikilinked dates doesn't (and probably can't) take all the possible scenarios into account, so the traditional response is to punt and not say anything one way or the other. (Several discussions on the WT:MOSDATE talk page bear this out.) This situation is different, though, because the date is not wikilinked, so we know for sure that the comma belongs. Powers ^T 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that the title of this entry should be punctuated "September 11, 2001, attacks," you are correct. Here are some examples of reliable sources using that punctuation: The 9/11 Commission Report, Preface at xv: "September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States." New York Times, June 24, 2006, A3: "majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey . . . said, for example, that they did not believe that Arabs had carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States"; New York Times, June 19, 2006, A11: "The United States said a small cell of Al Qaeda, made up of foreigners, had set up shop in Mogadishu after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were being protected by court leaders"; New York Times, April 30, 2006, 44: "Mr. Deutch also began to require special approval for the use of unsavory characters as agency informants -- a policy suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when officers argued that only terrorists would know of plans for the next attack."

That usage is correct because the year is parenthetical in the Month/day/year American format. (See the wikipedia entry on Commas or any American usage manual.) The issue has been raised several times on this talk page (including once by me), but it was never resolved. I pretty much gave up on it, to tell you the truth. Other options would be to retitle as "September 11 attacks" or "11 September 2001 attacks" (the British format).Lowell33 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He's right. It looks to be an issue of WP:MOS > Chicago Manual of Style and Writer's Reference? -- Veggy (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a title change is in order. The "11 September 2001 attacks" doesn't work because it violates the manual of style regarding dates, in that American dates should be used for American subjects. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Someone should tell that to the 7 July 2005 London bombings people. -- Veggy (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nvm, American events, gotcha. -- Veggy (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The comma is undesirable, IMV—I'd remove it throughout for better flow, with utterly no sacrifice in clarity. The date format should definitely be US; may I suggest three good reasons for removing all date autoformatting: (1) autoformatting is now optional (see MOSNUM), and numerous articles do not use it now; (2) the title is iconic and well-known throughout the world in its US format (it looks very odd to see month and day reversed here); and (3) it crowds out the high-value links, especially in sentences that are already heavily linked, such as "Early in the morning on September 11, 2001, the hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to California from Logan International, Dulles International, and Newark International airports." Tony (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You may find it undesirable, but it's still grammatically correct. Powers ^T 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note, that you are trying to add punctuation that is usually applied to sentences, to a title. That is, if you are writing a sentence, and the sentence is about the September 11, 2001, attacks, you should do as I. For a title, I'd not worry about that, and instead worry about capitalizing the A in attacks. I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines suggest capitalizing the first and last words, but it would be correct grammar as I know it. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a huge issue. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this argument before, but it's never made any sense to me. Why should a particular principle of grammar apply in the body of an article but not in the title? Is there some reason to treat them differently?Lowell33 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not pull all the commas out from the title - "September 11 2001 attacks"? It's still a compromise of incompatible styles and just as correct/incorrect as the other variations. Peter Grey (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that, Peter. Right now it's missing one comma. If we change it so it's missing two commas, isn't that actually twice as incorrect?Lowell33 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's incorrect depends on the rules of style used and the interpretation. "2001 September 11th attacks" works with certain rules as well. The point is every variation is some kind of compromise. Peter Grey (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

suggested external link

The Ken Feinberg interview, 30 mins, ABC Radio National, 15 July 2008. The emotional and legal aspects of allocating the $7 bn compensation for the victims, under the Congressional act. The audio stream is online for another two weeks; the transcript is permanently downloadable. I don't hang about this page, so if people want to add it, please do. Tony (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive this now...

Congratulations, we have officially broken the boarder. I suggest we archive these more lengthy 'debates' and move on. I for one am sick of arguing about single words and commas. --Tarage (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If a debate is still ongoing, then I wouldn't archive it. That is, if it's gotten a comment in the past week, the debate should not be archived. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the border seems to be "broken" by mixed use of markup.

Some people use the following for tabbed bullets:

*This is a bullet.

**This is a tabbed bullet.

• This is a bullet.
  • This is a tabbed bullet.

Others use the following:

*This is a bullet.

:*This is a tabbed bullet.

• This is a bullet.

• This is a tabbed bullet.

I believe the top version is correct. That is, I believe you shouldn't mix the ":" and the "*." Anyway, when you mix the two, that is when two editors use two different version, the page gets broken. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my comments above does describe some bad formatting, but the reason the border is broken is because the code box does not word wrap. It's the statement "The official government report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is a notable event almost certain to take place," which is in a code box, which doesn't wrap. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The most commonly used name for this is 9/11

Even in the UK, where our dates are written the other way around, I think most people will know this as 9/11. It's the most commonly used term, which is what decides the name of a wikipedia article. Other terms become redirects. So, how did this article about 9/11 avoid being titled 9/11 ? No-one is going to put "september 11 2001 attacks" into the search bar, they're going to put 9/11. Feel free to post to my talk page instead of here if this is a complete noob question where this talk page is concerned.:) Sticky Parkin 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to bite your head off for asking a reasonable question in good faith (I hope!). I would not object to the article being moved to 9/11 attacks, although I am not 100% sure about the best punctuation to use (9-11?) - so let's see what other editors have to say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 3 is solely dedicated to this discussion. People felt '9/11' was too informal so they changed the title to a more "appropriate" 'September 11, 2001 attacks'. I have no issue changing it to 9/11, but I think we'd need to do things as formally as possible using straw polls and have a broad discussion. -- Veggy (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Ice Cold Beer (talk)

Yup, too informal. By the way, Stick Parkin, if a reader searches for 9/11, then they are redirected to this article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We have articles titled 9/11 Commission and 9/11 Commission Report because that is the common names for those things, which everyone uses, even though more formal names exist. "September 11, 2001 attacks" (with however many commas) is not the formal name of anything, and it's not the common name for the event. Jonathunder (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User deleting wiki-links, without using talk?

I didn't realize this was allowed, but oh well. Someone wants to delete a wiki-link saying its unrelated, or something. It's not clear what exactly. But that is why we have talk. I would like to see some sort of explanation before people delete my good-faith edits. I mean, I have yet to see even a proper edit summary on the subject. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was deleted because the advanced-knowledge thing is seen as a subarticle to 9/11 conspiracy theories. -- Veggy (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)