Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:44, 2 February 2010

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:September 11 arbcom

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Misplaced Pages:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Misplaced Pages. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject September 11Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skyscrapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: invalid parameter Coverage and accuracy: invalid parameter Structure: invalid parameter Grammar and style: invalid parameter Supporting materials: invalid parameter Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Template:WP1.0 Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

	September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	September 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Former featured article, current good article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, and September 11, 2009.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Proposal to invoke WP:SNOWBALL: US Mainstream Media and Misplaced Pages overwhelming "Official Theory" consensus is unlikely to change

US Mainstream media is to close to the major political parties. Their is too much completion and therefore there are no budgets for Watergate style investigative reporting. Reporters are forced to rely mainly Republican and Democratic sourcing. Republicans do not want a possible conspiracy exposed for obvious reasons. Democrats do not want it for two reasons. Despite being liberal at heart they have been a scared and uber cautious party for many years. Therefore they will not do anything remotely risky. There are too many reasons for this to list here but a good start is that they think the country is to the right of them and the 24//7 attack dog political atmosphere. The other reason is their common belief that Bush and the Republicans are to stupid to even speak correctly never mind pull off a conspiracy. As for the media as numerous studies have shown that reporters are a largely liberal group so they share the "to stupid" belief. Their coverage of the 9/11 truth movement reflects this. You see a look of people who have been called to go to work just before their participation in an orgy. When the relevant issues are discussed in many cases it has the look of a quick read just before airtime. But most efforts are put into truthers mental state.

Since Misplaced Pages is about verifiability not truth of course this article will reflect the "official theory" consensus. The reliable source policy remains a good but flawed policy in bringing out the truth. While MSM standards have declined markedly it is still a hell of a lot more reliable on the whole then webpages. There are some great webpages but how does one figure it out without OR?. So wikipedia policy stays with a the sinking ship known as MSM. From the sarcasm that occasionally creeps in these talk pages it becomes clear that the majority of editors especially long time committed ones do not believe in the theories they write about. Not sure why. Maybe most committed Misplaced Pages editors do come from the academic world where things like citing reliable/expert sources is their life's work. In any case newbie "truther" editors do not stand a chance winning talk page discussions against veterans who know the policies.

America is a forward looking country, 8 years have passed Bush is not president etc. There is conspiracy theory fatigue which has caused almost daily lumping together of all "loony" conspiracy theories and theorists. There is always the "first impression" rule. Three or four years ago conspiracy theorists were limited to individuals on their webpages and professors whom not only knew nothing about physics but came from very unscientific disciplines such as philosophy. While reliable sources still by far agree with the the official theory, this has changed noticeably. How much this has changed is very arguable but the near unanimous reliable sourcing claims made here just are incorrect but they are also the consensus here.

For at least four years there have been attempts to change basic direction of the article to a more "truther" point of view and for four years they have failed. The basic points raised by both sides have not changed. We need to invoke the WP:SNOWBALL clause and just put our efforts into improving the article. 69.114.104.152 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of this is off-topic conjecture, get off the soapbox. 78.48.45.45 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not a forum RxS (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Estate CBC documentary

The Canadian CBC aired a documentary last week as part of their program The Fifth Estate. The episode is called "The Unofficial story". It mentions both the Official and the Unofficial versions in an unusually fair and balanced light —if anything, it has a definite favorable bias towards the Official story as evidenced by the smirky smile when host Bob McKeown mentions the conspiracy theorists.

All the same it is one of the rare occasions when both sides of the story are presented with a certain degree of professionalism and it constitutes one of the best documentaries to have aired on mainstream TV on the subject of 9/11. Would it be OK to post a reference to the Fifth Estate's website which is at:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009/11/the_unofficial_story.html

It is possible to view the entire documntary online, but apparently for Canadian viewers only. American and all other foreign viewers are blocked from the streaming video, I am told. But it is available on YouTube.

Unfortunately, it is cut up in 5 ten-minute segments:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYlbpS-vVI

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4xhrJyKGQ8

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=femgO-ZYDm0

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjxrGUujXVc

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcaORNbh4A

The link to the Fifth Estate website, which also contains other elements besides the video documentary, could be added to the Exterior links section at the bottom of the page. Oclupak (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'd suggest you take discussion this over to the appropriate article 87.166.106.43 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the discussion page for if not to discuss the September 11 attacks? That CBC documentary deals specifically with a single subject: The 9/11 attacks. It does not lean one way or the other. Well OK, it is a bit biased in favour of the Official story. But basically, this documentary belongs here more than anywhere else it seems to me. I am baffled by the kind of logic that seems to prevail here. Oclupak (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for discussing the September 11 attacks. It's for talking about improving the article on the attacks. See RxS (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete the WP:SNOWBALL Proposal Section and this section soon after

That proposal was made by me for the 9/11 Conspiracies Theories Article and was dragged here by another editor without my knowledge. It was never intended for this article. There is no need for this proposal in this article. This article has been written based on the strong editor consensus that the article should reflect the "mainstream account" for years. Edkollin (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is quite possibly dead

There is a considerable section on Osama's videos since 911 - but no apparent mention that huge numbers of people believe him dead - most likely in Dec 2001, 3 or 3.5 months after 911. This would totally invalidate the section on videos, and needs adding. Something like this, or at least a cut down version of it:
Vague reports of the death of bin Laden started circulating in Dec 2001 eg the Pakistan Observer quoted an unnamed Taliban official claiming that he had died of natural causes and was buried in an unmarked grave in Tora Bora on December 15. The Egyptian newspaper AlWafd - Daily reported a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban stated that Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13: A videotape was released on December 27 showing a gaunt, unwell Bin Laden, prompting an unnamed White House aide to comment that it could have been made shortly before his death. On CNN, Dr Sanjay Gupta commented that Bin Laden's left arm never moved during the video, suggesting a recent stroke and possibly a symptom of kidney failure. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, Bin Laden required two dialysis machines, which also suggests kidney failure. "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a... kidney patient," Musharraf said. If Bin Laden suffered kidney failure, he would require a sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists, Gupta said. FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson and President Karzai of Afghanistan also expressed the opinion that Bin Laden probably died at this time. In late 2005 the CIA disbanded "Alec Station", the unit dedicated to Bin Laden.
On 23 September 2006, the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, DGSE) stating that Osama bin Laden had died in Pakistan on 23 August 2006, after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs. According to the newspaper, Saudi security services first heard of bin Laden's alleged death on 4 September 2006. though French President Jacques Chirac declared that bin Laden's death had not been confirmed. American authorities also cannot confirm reports of bin Laden's death, In an essay published in The American Spectator in March 2009, international relations professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University argued that Osama bin Laden had been dead for many years. In April 2009 Pakistan's intelligence agencies were said to believe Osama bin Laden may be dead. and on the 8th anniversary of 911 the UK's Daily Mail said that the theory that Bin Laden died in 2001 "is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts" and notes that the mounting evidence that supports the claim makes the theory "worthy of examination".
1.^ a b David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, pp. 3–5.
2.^ "Report: Bin Laden Already Dead", Fox, 2001-12-26.
3.^ a b Reid, Sue (September 11, 2009). "Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?". Daily Mail. Retrieved October 25, 2009.
4.^ a b "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis", CNN, 2002-01-21.
5.^ a b "Musharraf: bin Laden likely dead", CNN, 2002-01-19.
6.^ "Bin Laden 'probably' dead", BBC, 2002-07-18.
7.^ "Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead", CNN, 2002-10-07.
8.^ "C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden.". New York Times. 2006-07-04. Retrieved 2007-08-21. "The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said."
9.^ "Officials, friends can't confirm Bin Laden death report". CNN. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
10.^ "23T075358Z_01_L23801953_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BINLADEN-FRANCE.xml French paper says bin Laden died in Pakistan". Reuters. 2006-09-23.
11.^ Sammari, Laïd (2006-09-23). "Oussama Ben Laden serait mort" (in French). L'Est Républicain. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
12.^ "Chirac says no evidence bin Laden has died". MSNBC.com/AP. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
13.^ "Information sur la mort de ben Laden: Washington ne confirme pas" (in French). Le Monde/Agence France-Presse. 2006-09-23.
14.^ Anna Willard and David Morgan (2006-09-23). "France, US, unable to confirm report bin Laden dead". Reuters.
15.^ "Osama bin Elvis". Retrieved 2009-03-15.
16.^ "Pakistan's President says Osama bin Laden could be dead", Telegraph, 2009-04-27.
Clearly, this is not simply a rumour, it's a lot more than a conspiracy theory, and is much more than marginally notable. If true, the whole video section would need re-assessing. In fact, it looks most like something most people recognise but many people are afraid to say. Misplaced Pages is not censored, some mention of this needs inclusion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that bin laden most likely is dead. But if he is dead or not is irrelevant for this article. The Videos are mentioned because how they indicate bin Ladens involvement. His likely death doesn't change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on Osama bin Laden refers to the "October Surprise" Video of 2004, partly because it's the only real admission from Osama that he carried out 911. There are serious doubts about this tape - it's particularly worrying if it's an invention from whole cloth, with some sources convinced that Osama could not have been involved. Not mentioning the possibility of his death leaves doubts and is bound to lead some readers to imagine there is some form of concealment going on. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The doubts about the video is not that strong, and the authenticity of the 2004 video does not make or break that section. The earlier videos also hints at bin Ladens involvements, although he there doesn't claim that he ordered them. I don't see how this invalidates the section or warrants a long discussion about his possible death, which continues to be mostly irrelevant to this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with OpenFuture. The doubts about the videos are much stronger than what is being claimed. For instance, both Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and Francesco Cossiga, the former Prime Minister and President of Italy, have publicly stated that Ben Laden was dead. It is even mentioned, on Misplaced Pages's own page on Cossiga, that in an interview with the reputable newspaper Corriere della Sera, he claimed that the Bin Laden tapes were produced in some of Silvio Berlusconi's TV studios in Milan. In fact, the only video that everyone agrees was made by Bin Laden himself is the one of September 16, where Osama stresses that he was not involved in the attacks of 9/11. Therefore, I strongly support Malcolm MacDonald's efforts to bring some objectivity to this article. Oclupak (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Up until you claimed the video was made at a Berlusconi studio I took you seriously. Let's keep out of cuckoo-land in this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not claim that the videos were made in Berlusconi's studios. Francesco Cossiga does. I take this opportunity to correct a mistake I made: the September 16 declaration by Bin Laden was not a video but a statement which was broadcast by Al Jazeera. Oclupak (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You take that claim seriously. That maes it hard to take your viewpoint seriously. Discussions need to stay in the real world. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Francesco Cossiga was Prime Minister of Italy (1979-1980), President of the Senate (1983-1985), President of the Republic (1985-1992) and has been Senator for life since 1992. If you do not take him seriously, please let me know what are your criteria for reliability "in the real world". Oclupak (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mostly not who says something, but what they say that is relevant. And referring to Zionist world conspiracies is not reliable. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to deal with facts. You cannot dismiss facts for the sole reason that they are contrary to your point of vue. The point of view of an article should be neutral. As it stands, the article is one gigantic soapbox for the official version, which is, in itself, a conspiracy theory. As you are aware, the official dogma is challenged by a increasingly large percentage of the world population, if not the majority. You are clearly out of line with your systematic obstruction to any edit that would bring some equilibrium to the subjet. MalcolmMcDonald obviously did some extensive research before proposing his revision of the Videos section and he deserves to be treated with respect. Oclupak (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no fact in what you have written so far, merely speculation. You appear to have a history of pushing fringe POV, though. 78.49.80.209 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Oclupak, you are completely correct. Misplaced Pages should be fact-based, and NPOV. And that is exactly why you should ignore crazy paranoid fantasies with absolutely no factual basis. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians should not insult each other. Your characterization of opposing views as "crazy paranoid fantasies" is undignified and contrary to basic rules of Misplaced Pages as well as basic rules of human behaviour. The question here is whether the Bin Laden videos are authentic or not. Obviously, if Bin Laden has been dead since December 2001, all ensuing audio and video recordings attributed to him are necessarily fakes. That is what MalcolmMcDonald has painstakingly documented and I feel he should be given an opportunity to enlighten us with his reserach which is based on what seems to be reliable sources. Oclupak (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Iif you feel that the requirements of factual basis and NPOV standpoints are somehow insulting to you, then I suggest you probably have come to the wrong Wiki. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I worry there is a political element creeping in here. Many "important" people and entire nations believe bin Laden to be dead. Any mention of him must include that fact.

Many other people are on a man-hunt for Osama (not the CIA, who wound up their team in 2005) - giving them reason to want to censor articles and conceal the fact they're on a wild goose chase. Misplaced Pages is not censored and (provided we comply with WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS etc) then, by WP:NPOV we must include the fact that some people believe him dead. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about the political element, but I can guarantee you that there is no political element to this from my side.

No, every mention of Bin Laden does not have to include a statement that many people (including me) believes that he is dead. It only needs to be mentioned when it's relevant. It is not relevant for this article. Bin Laden has his own article, and that's the place to bring up theories about his eventual death. Many of the videos have their own articles as well, and that's the place to discuss their authenticity. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Every mention of what bin Laden did after December 2001 must note (with link?) that some serious sources believe him to have died in that month. Otherwise, we're deliberately misleading people, leading them to think that bin Laden really did support John Kerry, for instance. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

May I sugest that you take this up with the bin Laden article itself? --Tarage (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Osama bin Laden article correctly reports, in quite some detail, that many people and nations think he's dead. The section is entitled "Conflicting reports of his death vs: his survival since 9/11" and (correctly, in my view) puts reports of his death above the reports of his survival. That's where I got the information I first posted in here, above. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we're fine. As OpenFuture pointed out, not every mention of Osama bin Laden needs to contain information about the speculation of his death. It's linked to in this article, and people who are interested can investigate further in his article. Anything further than that would be undue weight. --Tarage (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear (if the writings above are complete, and I have no reason to think otherwise) that all Middle Eastern leaders and nations who've commented consider Osama bin Laden to be dead, along with many Asians, Africans and some Europeans. The leader of France seems to be the only person prepared to say he's alive. Parts of the USG claims to be still looking for him but can't confirm or deny the possibility of his being dead and parts tasked with finding him abandoned the effort years ago. Under such circumstances a confession of 2004 treated as definitive risks being very misleading. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, take it up with the appropriate article. Not here. --Tarage (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to say that the confession of the alleged perpetrator is contested, and go further. There is a deal of RS to say OLB was dead 3 years earlier, and no RS (?) that says he's still alive (some sources say they're still going after him, but not that he's still alive). The reading public doesn't need more Rumsfeld saying "We know where the WMD are" when he didn't. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely that bin Laden is still alive and that most of the videos and tapes produced since 9/11 were fakes, or hoaxes. I therefore reiterate my support for MalcolmMcDonald's proposal to modify the article accordingly. Oclupak (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough soapboxing. Tarage (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not at all NPOV

I am baffled by the editors' attitude all through the discussion section. Not only do you remain clearly oblivious to any but your own account of the facts, but the general tone is bullish and alarmingly disrespectful. I would suggest any reading of this article to remain seriously skeptical about the contents being presented, since only one side of an on-going and important debate has weight in the events being described. The editors should bear in mind that they never bother to answer issues being raised with arguments, just dismiss them in a fully self-satisfied way: to any neutral reader, these editors come across as hooligans, sorry to say. You can erase my comment as I am sure you will, but that does not make you any better wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkyardmusic (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:NPOV; we give opinions weight according to their real-world weights. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe, and should be treated as such in this article, although they do have their own articles and are mentioned here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can´t agree with that. There are full controversies that put very reasonable question marks on a lot of aspects of the whole issue. I am not saying whether you should believe them or not, but giving the scope of the official story which as some argued is in itself a "conspiracy theory" with total disregard to the controversies arised by this view is in itself wanting in impartiality: just providing a link to "9/11 conspiracy theories" is not enough. You should account for the controversies, give an account of them when they are credible -and many are- and quit acting as an un-oficial loudspeakers to a one sided account of the story. it is your duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.1.140 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that all alternative explanations of the damage and deaths are nonsense. There is no reason to think explosives were used as well as aircraft. Even the 911 A&E petition (architects and engineers) looks less and less credible when you examine it.

There are some problems, the article should be treating the "conspiracy theories" better, no matter how ridiculous. More mention of Building 7 would be valuable, for sure I'm not the first person to do a search and only find it under "Notes". There's a really big hole treating bin Laden as alive when, by RS, bin Laden is most likely dead.

And it is not the fault of the writers of this article that none of the conspiracy theorists have studied who might have wanted Americans to think OBL supported John Kerry. Who could have faked a video to influence an election? If you wanted to do something useful you'd do something useful. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only do you remain clearly oblivious to any but your own account of the facts This is completely false, but I think the statement is based in a misunderstanding A hint of that is in the phrasing "account of the facts". Facts are facts irrespective of "accounts". The problem is figuring out what the facts are, and for that the editors here do not rely on their own accounts at all, but they rely exclusively on other peoples accounts of the facts. But facts do not become facts just because you say them. Facts can generally be verified. It's not a matter of accounts, but of evidence. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts?

Fact is, there are numerous unanswered questions about 9/11 attacks.

Fact is, this articles omits verifiable and reliable information and that is not merely a failure in following our policies, it is omission by definition, to serve as an example, editors here marginalize or omit information about 'Able Danger', deliberately failing to provide 'advance knowledge' section insisting that it is better suited in 'shape shifting reptilians article', editors here marginalize or omit information about peculiarities behind unprecedented fall of WTC 7, failing to notice growing controversy surrounding the collapse. If mainstream outlets recognize the weight and notability of such groups as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it is not acceptable for the editors here to ignore or omit such information. This article deceives while it fails to note deception, or give due weight to '9/11 trials', especially so when it comes to the fact that all of the alleged suspects are 'tainted by torture', as 'defined' by the MSM sources. It completely fails to represent or it simply misrepresents the work, findings and controversy surrounding 9/11 Commission.., one could go on and on, yet what needs to be said and what needs to be dealt with if we are to overcome the 'status quo' imposed here are some disturbing underlying issues. To name a few:

A group of editors here indulges into sticking libellous labels on contributors who are seeking NPOV for the article, it appears that this group of editors has a really hard time discerning between unanswered questions, disturbing facts and conspiracy theories.

It is notorious fact that at least one of the editors whom hijacked this article works for US Department of Homeland Security; 'conflict of interests', by admission, if not by definition.

It is a sad, sad fact that this is the umptieth time the neutrality of this article has come to question, and we have seen for umptieth time that we're not dealing with contributors willing to seek consensus, we're dealing with contributors who are trying very hard to spread propaganda, who are doing their very best while trying to establish 2+2=5 as a fact. We have more than 50 pages of searchable history here, it is throughout this history that the failure to establish NPOV was questioned, yet editors involved wouldn't even let the warning tag stand. They'd rather have this article locked for eternity, to serve as a mockery, a spit in the face of whole humanity. So there you have it, some harsh opinions for sure, along with some easily verifiable, well documented facts, carry on. Praxidikai (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To take just one of those points, the "mainstream outlets" article you refer to above seems to be part of a series on conspiracy theories. Even if it were a news article, as opposed to commentary, it just notes the opinion of 9/11 A&E, and not necessarily favorably. Some of the other points possibly could be considered for inclusion, but mentioning the mistakes about the pre-announcement of the collapse of WTC 7 as a serious indication of controlled demolition is <censored> <censored> absurd. See, for example, BBC denies 9/11 conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point on the claimed USDHS employee editing the article is a bombshell. Thousands of individuals have edited (or attempted to edit) this article. Among all of these editors, this particular person has a larger count of edits to this article than all but two. Effectively, a self-claimed employee of USDHS has been dominating the editing and content of a controversial article which has significant relevance within the topic of United States security issues. This should qualify as a very serious conflict of interest, and it does raise a significant cause for concern about the neutrality of the article. Wildbear (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is this lengthy, ongoing call to recognize our failure to meet NPOV. Would you kindly share your opinion? Do you think that article meets NPOV? That is, if there is a will to move on, editors involved should reach consensus and place appropriate warning at the top of the article. If no such effort is to be made, there is little or no need for further discussion. We can discuss possibilities once we recognize there is a (strong) need for improvement. Praxidikai (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a continuing statement, usually by at most two editors at a time, that the article fails NPOV. WP:CONSENSUS is that it doesn't, and that it's disruption to add the tag. Although consensus can change, you at least need to provide an argument which hasn't been rejected when last discussed, in order to consider adding the tag. It's a lot of work to go through the 50 archives to find which arguments haven't been rejected, but it seems necessary to avoid edit wars.

'Consensus' reached by identifiable group of editors that support each others beliefs is not consensus, see WP:GAME.

Regardless, with hope and inclination of being refreshing and with extraordinary amount of good faith, I'll point out that that the narrative of the article is POV itself.

Example:

When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, which led to the crumbling of the east penthouse at 5:20 p.m. and to the complete collapse of the building at 5:21 p.m. – we say.

This is simply not a true statement, it is a fallacy; we cannot have such construct, swaying readers into belief we're dealing with well established and undisputed fact. We have whole, substantially sized and well referenced articles that question and dispute such narrative, yet what do we have here? You know, the stunning fact that WTC 7 failed to enter Commission report deserves to be mentioned... To be honest, I'm not sure what some of the editors see, but it is safe to say, what's written in 'our article' is a postulate inaugurated into fact. Instead of controversy and debate surrounding the issue we have – well, we don't have a word about it... and you were asking? Praxidikai (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In the end it's all about if you are a believer or not. Believers are believers and skeptics are skeptics and never will the two understand each other. Ain't nothing we can do about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can, we can stick to the facts. Praxidikai (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we are doing. Read that article I linked to again. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The one about cognitive disorder? Just scroll up, read about the editors who are: 'sticking libelous labels on contributors who are seeking NPOV for the article'. You'll also notice something about reptiles… and few more remarks about the usual conduct here. Now, do tell, is it clairvoyance of a sort? Praxidikai (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, instead of reading about 'cognitive disorders', I'd rather see your opinion on why our article fails to mention any controversy surrounding the collapse of WTC 7? It deserves a section of its own, yet we have - nothing. Why is it so? Praxidikai (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We are sticking to the facts, in spite of OpenFuture's implication of cognitive disorders. There is still enough confusion (mostly spread by the Truthers) that a rational person might not come to the obvious conclusion, that Microsoft is responsible for the attack by encouraging Flight Simulator users to practice crashing into WTC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, now that we've had exemplary game of wits, can we try and stick to the subject too? How about that POV tag and our shameful one-sided and close-minded narrative? Any thoughts? Praxidikai (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the POV issue is already established and clear. OhNoitsJamie 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The "controversy" isn't mentioned, because the article sticks to the facts. And you may also note that the article on "True-Believer Syndrome" clearly states that it is not an established psychological term or generally recognized as a cognitive disorder, so they idea that I claim you have a cognitive disorder is overly paranoid. However, there is absolutely no doubt that there are loads of people which will continue to believe things not only without base, but even after having been thoroughly proven wrong. Who you chose to believe does that is irrelevant. The point is that some people involved in this discussion will not care about facts and not be convinced about facts. Therefore discussing the facts is pointless. You may chose to believe that I'm the one who doesn't care about facts if you want. Doesn't matter. You can't convince me, I can't convince you. And that's it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the POV issue is already established and clear. OhNoitsJamie 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, facts are true by definition. Of course, you can choose not to believe into... let's say Newton's laws of motion, but such beliefs hold no weight whatsoever, a bit like that link you're constantly pointing too. You can also refuse to use such tools as logic, but please, don't impose such irrationality on the rest of our kind. Consensus is being questioned Jamie, again, could you care to explain why we have mockery instead of NPOV with regards to WTC 7? Praxidikai (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my point: People choose to disregard facts, logic and laws of nature. How are we going to convince people like that? Can't be done. Discussing it further is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

People can choose whatever they want; we on the other hand have no such luxury. We record the history, if you will; it is plain to see that this particular record is heavily flawed and one-sided, there is really no excuse.., Praxidikai (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've seen all there was to see here, sad to say, it's same ol', same ol'… I'm signing out, with best wishes to all, as ever. Praxidikai (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have archived this days ago. We all should have. No more soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

9/11 was a inside job by the government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.232.2 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, pp. 3–5.
2. "Report: Bin Laden Already Dead", Fox, 2001-12-26.
3. ^ Reid, Sue (September 11, 2009). "Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?". Daily Mail. Retrieved October 25, 2009.
4. ^ "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis", CNN, 2002-01-21.
5. ^ "Musharraf: bin Laden likely dead", CNN, 2002-01-19.
6. "Bin Laden 'probably' dead", BBC, 2002-07-18.
7. "Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead", CNN, 2002-10-07.
8. "C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden". New York Times. 2006-07-04. Retrieved 2007-08-21. The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. "Officials, friends can't confirm Bin Laden death report". CNN. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
10. 23T075358Z_01_L23801953_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BINLADEN-FRANCE.xml "French paper says bin Laden died in Pakistan". Reuters. 2006-09-23. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
11. Sammari, Laïd (2006-09-23). "Oussama Ben Laden serait mort" (in French). L'Est Républicain. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
12. "Chirac says no evidence bin Laden has died". MSNBC.com/AP. 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2006-09-23.
13. "Information sur la mort de ben Laden: Washington ne confirme pas" (in French). Le Monde/Agence France-Presse. 2006-09-23.
14. Anna Willard and David Morgan (2006-09-23). "France, US, unable to confirm report bin Laden dead". Reuters.
15. "Osama bin Elvis". Retrieved 2009-03-15.
16. "Pakistan's President says Osama bin Laden could be dead", Telegraph, 2009-04-27.

• NPOV disputes
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Disaster management articles
• High-importance Disaster management articles
• GA-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• GA-Class New York City articles
• Top-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• GA-Class Skyscraper articles
• High-importance Skyscraper articles
• WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)