Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2

I would like to report this site:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

and the NIST confirmation about UPS:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting material, although it may not meet the standards for reliable sources and if not, it won't be suitable for addition to this article. (However, there is a more specific article, September 11 conspiracy theories, where this material would seem to be more appropriate, and this blog may be quite reliable enough compared to the sources used on that page.) It may be worth discussing this on the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss the matter, particularly if the author is known for writing anything other than this blog. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a WP:RS source. However, it could possibly be considered as a relevant WP:SELFPUB source. In my view, it is relevant within the scope of the appropriate Wikipedia article if (a) WP:RS sources have reported on this source, or (b) the author can be established as a prominent proponent, opponent or commentator on the subject of a given Wikipedia article by WP:RS sources. Note that the opinions of Wikipedia authors on how WP:SELFPUB sources should be treated differ, especially with regard to controversial topics, such as 9/11-related issues.  Cs32en  16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you can read something about the author:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Henry62

The author is a forensic ballistic expert, he worked also in the trial against Pacciani, "the Monster of Florence"; he is a consultant of Italian National Broadcasting Corporation and his English articles are in the most important sites about 9/11. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37

Why is the "Official Story" the default position?

I'm not suggesting ANY account should be the default position. But it is, frankly, absurd to conclude that one account, lacking in just as much conclusive evidence as many other accounts, should be the point of all questioning. Do you not see how ridiculous the opening paragraph is, or is presumed doctrine, a betrayal of reason, a way of prematurely easing our conscience of all doubt? 62.56.54.45 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is the mainstream position. The term "official story" is almost exclusively used by conspiracy theorists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Occam’s razor? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's also excellent The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories[1] but even still, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. As the definition of mainstream is a set of beliefs accepted by most people with no requirement that these beliefs are true the article rightly uses the official account as the "default" position to inform the reader this is the majority belief. The minority beliefs have their own articles. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The "terrorists came through Canada" myth

I added this new section (repeated here below) since it is an important part of the response to the attacks and the fact that senior US politicians (eg: Napolitano, McCain) have repeated this myth as late as April 2009. One editor reversed this section, but I put it back. Are there other opinions?

After the 911 attacks, some US reporters and political leaders claimed that some of the hijackers had come into the United States via Canada, possibly with the help of lax border controls. However, a 9/11 Commission report released in 2004 determined that all of the hijackers had visas issued by the United States, and had arrived in the US from countries other than Canada.[172] Despite this, US sources and even high level politicians occasionally repeat this error. On April 24, 2009 US Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain said in a press interview "Well, some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."[173] McCain was speaking in reference to a press interview U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano held in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2009, in which she made the same mistake:

JN: [...] Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there. NM: Are you talking about the 9/11 perpetrators? JN: Not just those but others as well. So again, every country is entitled to have a border. It's part of sovereignty. It's part of knowing who's in the country.[174]

Facts707 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the amount of material we have to cover in this short article, I would suggest it needs to be shortened. Rmhermen (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me to belong in the top-level article. It might go better in Rumors about the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is really not about the attacks - it's not as if al Qaeda tried to frame Canada or as if Americans weren't under-informed before the attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Doesn't seem to belong in the top-level article"? Better read that again. U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY JANET NAPOLITANO and US SENATOR AND 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOHN MCCAIN both blatantly repeated this myth just last month!! Secretary of Homeland Security!! And yes it is certainly about the response to the attacks just as much as anti-terrorist legislation. If this does not go back in the article I'm taking this to arbitration.Facts707 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. They may find the capital letters and exclamation points persuasive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more emphasis of how they did legally enter the US (which *is* legitimate content for the article) would suffice. Wikipedia can't possibly keep up with every ignorant statement by a politician. Peter Grey (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tom and Peter. The information is notable, but much better suited for Rumors about the September 11 attacks than here, and this article should clearly state how the attackers did enter the US. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be called a "rumor," since it is coming from official sources in the same political party which is accused of facilitating the attacks for the terrorists. Wowest (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes because a minority of people believe the Republicans facilitated the attacks, we should totally include it in this article. No, no, a thousand times no. Keep this garbage out of here. You know better than to push that dribble Wowest. --Tarage (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The thesis statement or opening sentence of the article is unreferenced and contradicts part of the official record.

According to the FBI, there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

The statement takes for granted that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attack, without referencing it's assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead doesn't need references to support assertions which are referenced in the rest of the article. The main body of the article cites plenty of references for these claims. Hut 8.5 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the main body of the article, while containing references, does not cite any assertions of proof, and neglects to reference refutations of the citations, neglecting to cite direct statements and government-provided negations of the references to Al Qaeda's involvement. Finally it neglects to cite Bin Laden's own repeated denials of responsibility.

References to the alleged perpetrators and their association with the Jihadist movement should not be made without also referring to their association with American military and security intelligence agencies, of which there is as much if not more weighted proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources repeating the above claims then they may be suitable for inclusion in the article. "Does not cite any assertions of proof" is clearly wrong, as it cites his confession of responsibility. Hut 8.5 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, but this is a sideline for me :) Government statements as covered in presumably reputable news sources repeatedly state the lack of evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm

"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks."

Dick Cheney: Sadam not involved, Osama not involved;

These could once be found on the White House site,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

but have since been moved or removed by the Obama work-over of the site. The statement can still be verified at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5486702338652678634&ei=QkEeSrCIHZjw-QHDoOSLAw

Tony Blair:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially..."

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1961476.stm

"US intelligence officials have admitted they failed to unearth any sort of paper trail leading to the 11 September attacks."

More specifically:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html

"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."

So basically they all state no proof, and proceed to state a conviction, a belief, or other nonsensical assertion of culpability. I don't believe this is a forum, and have found the verifiability of Wikipedia to be a great relief in research. I find the blank assertion that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks on 9-11 to be uncharacteristic; I specifically refer to the USS Cole Attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing as an example where though AL Qaeda's involvement is even more evident than the Setpember 11 attacks, the article does not open with that assertion.

Actually, you mean some guy who has blog claims that he called the FBI and that they told him that there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to links I've posted above; there is more than "some guy" making claims on behalf of unverified or non-public FBI statements concerning the lack of evidence regarding the hijackers, their coordinators and ultimate responsibility for the attacks. Ultimately it's very suspicious that no one has claimed responsibility, and the one video of Bin Laden commending the attacks is not worded or in any explicit way a confession, unfortunately, even if you can verify the translation accurately.

Please do the research as it is not that simple. Lord Robertson (head of NATO) said you don't need evidence because bin Laden's guilt was obvious. Canada's PM, Jean Chretien, said the same. Britain's PM, Tony Blair, said the evidence of guilt wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Even President Bush when asked what the evidence was said There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt and Attorney General John Ashcroft said there is no evidence. These statements are all supported by reliable sources. The FBI website does not list an indictment for bin Laden for 911 and in regard to the most wanted list states: The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 so it is a fair statement to say the FBI is either still investigating to strengthen their case and do not wish to release the evidence they have or that the evidence is insufficient to indict. The only publicly released evidence I'm aware of is his confession which would not be admissible in court and the links the hijackers have with al Qaeda. That he is guilty is the mainstream belief based on what we know but the question is if the available evidence is sufficient for a nuetral court to convict. Wayne (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In defense of Jean Chretien, I must say that despite his statement/s (edit: or perhaps because of them), Canada didn't join the war in Iraq. As for the rest, you're right; there are more statements and documented assertions of non-evidence which, if you follow Mueller's line of reasoning for example, could implicate half the Middle East and most of the immigrant populations of North America as potential perpetrators of the attacks.

The one statement made about "following the pattern" of Bin Laden however is misleading, since his attacks always involved government and military targets, whereas the WTC was neither of those; one has to wonder about the pattern of logic used to make the assumptions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my contributions aren't worth comment since they do not confirm the popular point of view... too bad, wikipedia used to be a verifiable and sourced resarch tool. But "tool" it seems can mean many things...(talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs)

The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[123][124][125]

This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and extrapolates this to conclude that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere".[125] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."

I think that "and extrapolates this to conclude" needs to be reworded, if it is true, to something that is more solid-sounding.

Congratulations! & Thank You

To all who contributed to this,

I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the articles, materials, and various lists related to the September 11, 2001 attacks; and I want to thank, and to congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job!

Sincerely,

Marc Riddell, Ph.D. --- Michael David (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article constitutes treason against whole humanity.

Now, it is obvious that I don’t share opinion of Mr. Riddell, if you would be so kind and provide an explanation of not allowing such opinion? Would you like to hear the reasoning behind such perspective and/or did you ask Mr. Riddell for one? Also, did you leave a notice at Mr. Riddell's talkpage where you explain to him that this discussion space is not intended for unwarranted praise. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about four freedoms, but you must be referring to misconduct, you can examine it in history, freely. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And what's so wrong with this article that it constitutes treason against humanity? --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It breaks some of our basic policies, such as WP:CON or WP:V, it lacks scrutiny as well as WP:NPOV, it doesn't recognise current events... would you like to examine it fruther? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can fix it since you now what's supposedly wrong with it. --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no he can't, because he is wrong. I suggest TheFourFreedoms soften the way he approaches editing this article, and applying labels, lest he finds himself unable to find anyone to listen to him. Also, I am highly cautious about interacting with him, as he is showing all the signs of a single purpose account, and even a sockpuppet. Tread lightly. --Tarage (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

You must have meant, we can fix it. Why is there no section about 'public doubt' with regards to events transpired? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant there is nothing to fix. You must be ignoring the section labeled "Conspiracy Theories", with a link to the appropriate page for such, 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article has withstood numerous attempts to insert NPOV, and will likely survive yours as well, unless you decide to play ball, and not call an article that has taken years to construct and numerous dedicated editors to maintain "treason against whole humanity". --Tarage (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll call it as it is. You are exchanging your thoughts with a citizen, constitute if you wish. Why is there no section about 'public doubt'. Think thoroughly, tread lightly, if you will. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest changes but you'd better step back from the "treason" business. Keep it up and I'll block you with no further warning. RxS (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a right. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the moon, your words hold no more importance than mine or anyone else's. I suggest you drop the ego, as well as the name calling. --Tarage (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are already entire articles dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'd suggest you drop loony talk. Who called you names? And who is speaking about conspiracy theories? I'll heed upon your advice RxS, as time allows. Thanks. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop my loony talk when you drop yours. Sound fair? Apart from Conspiracy Theorists, there isn't much to say about "Public Doubt". The brief paragraph already in the article suffices. --Tarage (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing games. Could someone please compare this user's style to User_talk:Lovelight. If it's not obvious enough, i'll start an SPI case. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix memo

I'd propose that we add a note about Phoenix Memo to the section about investigations. Any objections? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it's a little detailed for a main article on a topic. Probably belongs in an article or section about intelligence failures somewhere. It's not really about a part of the investigation so it doesn't really belong there. RxS (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional multimedia resources

How is it that the New York Times' Portraits of Grief are not mentioned in the multimedia resources section? Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/portraits/

Also the Times' 102 Minutes Inside the Towers would be a good addition: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html

I'm just stunned that there's no reference at all to the Times in the resources, considering there's a ton of material that the Times produced on the subject. I have a print copy of the Times' Magazine that was an unbelievable overview of 9-11 and it's impact not just to New York, but to the whole country.

I write this as a former New Yorker, who used to work in 2WTC and lost several friends in the towers that day. CountryMama27 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic failure of NPOV / BLP ?

I'd suggest we open discussion with some very basic issues, such as narrative. I'll try to illustrate the POV forks in narrative with chapter about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and I'll presume that editors involved are well rounded with regards to various topics. If we examine this chapter closely we see that the section is in clear contempt of court, Mr. Khalid could have confessed from 'A to Z' but he is still 'alleged mastermind of the attacks'. The key word here is alleged, and this word is missing. If we take reports of the most reputable mainstream media sources, as we should, it is easy to see this impartiality which is lacking here where such careful neutrality should count the most. I would therefore suggest a change in narrative which would recognize the factual state of ongoing, or rather, suspended proceedings and state the fact that we're still dealing with 'alleged mastermind'. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have several sources, including Mohammed, verifying his involvement in the attacks. We do not need to rely upon a criminal conviction to state his involvement; Wikipedia is not a court of law. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good day to everyone. Factual accuracy, verifiability and neutrality interest us all. You're alleging that we have sources which verify his (self-described) statements about his involvement, at this point in time, such allegation is not true. I'm proposing a change to the article, in interest of neutrality and factual accuracy article should clearly state that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is 'alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks'. You will find this formulation in every decent and professional MSM report and with that in mind our section here is neither decent, nor professional, on contrary it is biased as well as factually inaccurate. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP issue. Not to use alleged is a violation of BLP. You can't waive WP policy just because he is an Arab or because the article is Amerocentric. Wayne (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment of course implies that we are dealing with a BLP here, which may or may not be true. But I fully agree that we should follow the BLP guideline and adjust the wording to what reliable sources say.  Cs32en  14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue, he admitted involvement himself and there are plenty of reliable sources that state that he was behind the attacks. [2][3][4]. RxS (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

They allege, it is allegation, they cannot state (claim) something which is yet to be proven. Neither can we. [5],[6],[7],[8],[9] TheFourFreedoms (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is established as correct by encyclopaedic standards, unless you can cite a reliable source that claims otherwise. Note this is not the same as the use of 'alleged' in the criminal justice sense. Peter Grey (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Word 'alleged' is suggested with the regards to MSM sources. Could you clarify what you mean with statement 'it is established as correct', who established it? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It’s common practise in the “MSM” to refer to criminal defendants as the “alleged” perpetrators of their crimes up until the point where they’re found guilty. Otherwise they’d be opening themselves up to lawsuits for libel or slander. I suggest w.r.t. KSM we follow the same policy; regardless of any confessions, he has not yet been found guilty as far as I can tell. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what we really need is a clarification of 'mastermind of the attacks,' especially since the plan was neither subtle nor original. Peter Grey (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chief planner: somebody who plans, organizes, and oversees a complex attack, do we have a consensus? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In general terms, yes, but if your meaning is a specific criminal offence, then no.

What do you mean, can we put word alleged per sources and where appropriate or not? Would you prefer word suspect? Can we please move forward with this… TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why we cannot add word alleged to the section although it is widely used by reputable MSM sources and why do long established editors insist on inserting POV? I'd also like to know at which point those 'discretionary sanctions' kick in? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and indeed this seems obvious that we should follow the sources and publish conservatively on a living person. If the sources say "alleged" then so should we. Pending a guilty verdict in a court of law of course. --John (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not say "alleged", however. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some seem to: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14] --John (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And many don't...we've been through this. This is not a BLP issue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted his role in the attacks and we have reliable sources that have reported it. That's the end of the story unless new information comes to light...if it does we'll make the appropriate changes. This is just an attempt to water down what's in the public record and what reliable sources report. RxS (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Quite a few don't use alleged, and neither should we. There is no credible BLP issue and we should be careful to avoid alleged because it is a weasel word. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent that the group of editors here cannot overcome their own POV and their coordinated actions serve nothing else but to disrupt normal editing processes. I've came to this conclusion after reading the ArbCome case which was closed on 8 April 2008. In this hearing, editors who've I've met on this and other related discussions leave no doubt about the immense strength of their POV. In my opinion, such strong disposition and predetermination cannot serve our common goals. Once again, reliable sources are clear, with regards to the point RxS made, the reports are unambiguous and all of the prominent sources will use derivates of following formulation 'alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks has admitted his role' [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and so on. Once again, these cherry pickings our fellow editors with their strong POV are suggesting are obstructing our normal editing processes. This discussion leaves no doubt, we are having basic failure of NPOV. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you TheFourFreedoms I came across the same editors who no matter what you say will in no circumstances change their POV some even go as far as to warn you about disruption but alas NPOV doesn't count on this article. BigDunc^Talk 11:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag from the article since there needs to be a more concerted effort to establish that the article is not in compliance. --PTR (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No that is wrong see here. I have put it back. BigDunc^Talk 13:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the tag page the tag should not be added unless, "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." There is not a problem with the perspective in high-quality reliable sources - this is adding weasel words. --PTR (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My belief is reasonable and are the BBC and the Telegraph and Washington Post not reliable sources or will you cherry pick here too. BigDunc^Talk 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

These do seem like high-quality reliable sources. --John (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is neither a POV nor a BLP issue. If some sources say "alleged" and some do not, then it's a simple conflict of reliable sources. And if the guy admits it (whether he's telling the truth or not) there is no issue of legal liability, and hence it is not a BLP issue either. It's just a wording issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So seeing as how there is a conflict of reliable sources, shouldn't that be noted in the article, if anything the more careful wording should be chosen rather than the assertive? Unomi (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated above we are not here to see if he did or didn't mastermind the attacks so could we use something like self confessed as a goole search "Khalid+Sheikh+Mohammed"+self+confessed"&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= throws up a lot of hits and it the is NPOV. Or do editors here just want this article to remain Amerocentric. BigDunc^Talk 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

<- I believe that this information needs to be restored, perhaps in a shortened form. Unomi (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you Unomi. BigDunc^Talk 13:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be some doubt as to the legitimacy of his alleged confession, given that it was obtained by torture. "A 2005 US Justice Department memo released in April 2009 stated that Mohammed had undergone waterboarding 183 times in March 2003.Waterboarding Used 266 Times On 2 Suspects --John (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

183 times in March 2003 alone? He must have got used to it by mid-month or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my suggestion about using self confessed, seen as alleged seems to meet some disaproval. BigDunc^Talk 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will take the silence from editors who took part in this discussion as agreement as some have edited this page since my post and I will insert self confessed into the article but I will wait for another few hours for any objections. BigDunc^Talk 08:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" is the proper term to use, for a variety of reasons. "Alleged" is what responsible reliable sources use, and what Wikipedia should use; especially prior to a criminal conviction. "Self confessed" should not be used, as a self confession in this instance is very weak evidence of guilt at best, and may give the reader an unwarranted feeling of certainty on the matter. We do not know the conditions under which the alleged confession was made; we do not know his motives for making such a confession, and we do not know the state of his mental health; particularly after being subjected to waterboarding 183 times in the space of a month, which could have caused significant oxygen deprivation to his brain, with consequential damage. Wikipedia should follow the lead of responsible reliable sources, and use "alleged" for those who are accused but not convicted, and not lead its readers toward premature conclusions. Wildbear (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of 'alleged' would work well if it is used together with a specific crime, which would probably make for a better statement anyway. Peter Grey (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Peter Grey’s comment above – already made one or two of the same points myself further up. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong IMO alleged should be used here but it met with some resistence so as a compromise I suggested self confessed. BigDunc^Talk 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If some sources say "alleged" and some do not, then what is the "general trend" of the sources? What about allegedly (!) liberal media like Time and Newsweek? What about U.S. News, which is or used to be considered a bit less liberal? What about conservative sources? I would expect them not to say "alleged", but if they do, that could be the clincher. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Global Dimming Research

Hiya, I once edited this page after watching a documentary about global dimming, where after the grounding of all flights for several days after the attacks, scientists got the chance they were looking for to examine the effect of short term pollutants in the sky on levels of sunlight. Apart from reading the wikipedia page on global dimming or recalling the content of the documentary from memory (I'm not a climate scientist), I believe that it is interesting that this rare event had an impact on scientific research. The global dimming page links back here, but not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought and taking a shot in the dark (and by that I mean I did not check on the other article regarding this): Maybe because 9/11 has nothing to do with global warming although "global dimming" occurred for a very very short time and is given as an example? BTW, Vulcan eruptions can cause the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Downing the U.S. flights for a few days should have had roughly the same effect on global warming as would a dust mite on the skin of an elephant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

December 27, 2001 bin Laden video.

Quick question: why isn't the December 27, 2001 bin Laden video mentioned in Videos of Osama bin Laden? Unomi (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

War on terrorism

War on terrorism title itself without quote is non neutral in the first place, because it allegedly presumption There was a "war" on "terrorism". It was just a neoliberal neocon Bush doctrine. Bush family was partner with Laden family in oil business as you all may know. Kasaalan (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have issues calling US President Bush as President Bush, he is not "President Bush" for rest of the world. Kasaalan (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Calling Bush a "neoliberal" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation. Anyway, we normally use the most common terms for things, be they right or wrong, and the ensuing worldwide campaign was/is called the "war on terrorism". Also, Bush was president of the United States, nowhere is it implied he was president of the world. King Abdullah isn't king of the world, but he is still referred to as a king, because it is factual and his common name. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It was my english, he is neocon, my fault sorry. Also anyone object quotes may read War on Terrorism#British objections to the phrase "war on terrorism". We don't use most common terms, we use most neutral terms, or most used terms most neutral way in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also object "King Abdullah" he is Saudi King Abdullah. Kasaalan (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What's it like to be crazy and nitpick the most asinine things when we have FAR bigger issues to contend with? --Tarage (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We also need to say US President Obama, to distinguish from all the other President Obamas out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "War on Terrorism" is the most common word for the military actions of the United States following the September 11 attack, not even in English speaking countries. Most often these are just being referred to as the "War in Iraq" and the "War in Afghanistan", and the assumption that these are both directed against a common enemy, i.e. terrorism, is not being shared by many reliable sources in the English-speaking world. As such, even putting both wars under a common section heading, other than some generic desciption, is probably not following the majority viewpoint as evidenced by reliable sources. On the other hand, when it is clear that an article is about the U.S. (or about Saudi Arabia), I think it's sufficient to write "U.S. President Bush" (or "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia") once, and then just write "President Bush" ("King Abdullah"), or simply "Bush" ("Abdullah").  Cs32en  16:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"War on Terror" is strictly a political term, used by certain commentators and politicians. Not by liberals, typically. O'Reilly went so far as to say that the "War on Terror" is actually World War III. No lack of hyperbole there. Arguably, this WWIII has been going on since the Crusades. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for words. Next thing you'll be telling me that "attack" is a political term, and we should call this the "September 11th Incidents". No, not in a million years will I let this POV pushing stand. --Tarage (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)