This page is a split-off of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, as the discussion over this particular issue was being interrupted by other discussions, and fragmented over the archives.

- Please do not react above the #Continued discussion from talk page-section, since this was copied. -

— Xiutwel (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›

Remember that article talk pages are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.

Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11 Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The archives of the discussion of the September 11, 2001 attacks article may be found here:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21

[copied from archive21]

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

Link - I think this is important to add in the Responsibility section. I did add it, but someone removed it, please discuss as to why it should not be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.70.98 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 9 September 2006

Considering that Al-Jazeera recently aired the tape of bin Laden meeting with the hijackers, I think it's fair to say the two were connected. The Lizard Wizard 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)/The Lizard Wizard[reply]

Is there a credible source describing the quote in context? It appears, if it wasn't a simple mistake (or a misquote), that 'hard evidence' is being used in its technical meaning in police procedures. No-one thinks Osama bin Laden was one of the hijackers. It doesn't the diminish the body of evidence indicating his involvement. Peter Grey 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link a video of UBL with the hijackers, or someone like the FBI confirming the video? Thanks. I mean, if the FBI says that they have no hard evidence, then I doubt that the Wiki does, but I'm not sure. Also, a transcript of the video would be nice. --Slipgrid 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Just a quick note: I don't think the video of UBL with the alleged hijackers debunks the shadow government theory. --Slipgrid 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is my reply to the anonymous user's comment above, which he also copy/pasted into the Osama bin Laden discussion page:

The link and the meme don't belong because the link is to a guy ranting about his conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were the work of the U.S. government. He takes an out-of-context quote from Rex Tomb, and builds a case that the world's media are being controlled by some shadowy source within the U.S. government. He might be interested to find out what else Rex Tomb has to say about why 9/11 isn't mentioned on OBL's Wanted poster. Well, why isn't it?

| The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list.

| The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

The 9/11 case against bin Laden hasn't gone to court yet, so the FBI doesn't list it. The "muckraker" blog is making a ridiculous argument: The U.S. shadow government, which cunningly deceived and continues to deceive the world by painting bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has somehow consistently forgotten to add 9/11 to bin Laden's FBI poster--even after "truth seekers" and "muckrakers" have pointed out the absence.

Regardless, as a thoroughly biased piece, this blog link does not belong in this article. It might fit in 9/11 conspiracy theories, though. --Mr. Billion 00:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article indicates a lot from one side, and neglects a lot from the other… -- Lovelight 09:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "other side" you mention is not credible. The patron saint of the movement, Steven Jones, is now on paid administrative leave because of the lack of credible research and evidence for his claims. Morton devonshire 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant; Usama hasn't been put on trial for the other things listed under his name either. They haven't had a grand jury indite him yet, and the reason for that seems to be lack of hard evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence he did it, but it seems to me that 9/11 was kind of important and if they could indite him, they would, given they did in fact indite him for the attacks on the ebassies in Africa. Of course, they could suspect that they'll never catch him so putting 9/11 under his name would be an unnecessary cost. Conversely, though, I do think it is significant that the FBI does not have hard evidence conneecting him, and has stated such. However, the context should be clear. Titanium Dragon 09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they have the osama trial, they'll have to have another trial for the 1.3 billion muslims who, thru their silence, have supported and encouraged him.

What you say is just not true -- they do have hard evidence connecting OBL to 9/11. You just took one quote out of context. Morton devonshire 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely true that Usama Bin Laden has not been indicted for the 9/11 attacks; it is absolutely true that Usama's FBI wanted page does NOT list 9/11 amongst the incidents he is wanted for. Titanium Dragon 20:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the additional claims beyond that (that this is evidence that the US government, not OBL, was behind the attacks) are not true. I've already provided the explanation for why 9/11 isn't on the FBI's OBL Wanted page yet. --Mr. Billion 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[end of copy from archive21]

article bias

[deleted]

Accountability of U.S. government officials

I added short section as follows: - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "failed miserably in its duty" to alert the military of possibly hijacked aircraft (New York Times, August 13, 2006). Also, for more than two years after September 11, NORAD and the (FAA) provided false information about the response to the 9/11 hijackings in testimony and media appearances to the 9/11 Commission (Washington Post, August 2, 2006). NORAD and the FAA officials stated that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that fighter jets had been scrambled to intercept planes in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington, D.C. For example, Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the 9/11 Commission determined that the airliner was not even hijacked until 12 minutes later. According to later testimony, the military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. - The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the NORAD and FAA to release evidence such as audiotapes (Washington Post, August 2, 2006). - NORAD and the FAA's reluctance to release the tapes, e-mails and other evidence, along with their erroneous public statements, led some of the 9/11 Commission's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, said in a recent interview (Washington Post, August 2, 2006). No U.S. government official has been held accountable for their failures on 9/11 or for the subsequent false information they gave about the events of 9/11.

Mongo, why did you delete? Please refrain from deleting without at least attempting to provide an explanation for your actions. I find actions like that dismissive and high-handed in violation of WP's consensus-oriented approach. --JustFacts 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton, why did you delete: However, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not list 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him ((http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm). Please read link. Please refrain from using language bordering on vulgarity. Instead, you may wish to engage in civilized debate in accordance with WP rules. I will give you a chance to respond before restoring contribution.--JustFacts 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the proposed material is hopelessly in violation of NPOV, accountability is an element of the overall story, although I would suggest the summary article might not be the most suitable place for it. (And the FBI, as previously discussed, is obligated to follow rules of police procedure.) Peter Grey 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, what are you saying?

bin Laden cannot be tried for the Kenya bombing, because this allegation has been on a FBI poster before he has had a fair trial?
the police cannot name wanted criminals and say why they want them?

I don't get it. I think bombing Afghanistan was a hint that the FBI suspected bin Laden? Wouldn't bombing Afghanistan to find him influence any Jury in his future trial?  Xiutwel (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is the explanation was provided earlier - look it up. Peter Grey 12:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "hopelessly in violation of NPOV" you mean what exactly? That it is critical of some government officials? I am suggesting the start of a section on accountability. If you have other sources on this you can add them for "balance." I do not see where in the article the info I added (or anything like it) is reflected. As an aside, can we agree that it is very impolite to remove fully sourced contributions without a decent explanation (you were not the one, I know)? With respect to the FBI procedures, what rules of procedure would make my contribution irrelevant? Please point to the discussion, if applicable. --JustFacts 14:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one, failed miserably is intentionally subjective. See WP:NPOV. Peter Grey 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "failed miserably" is the conclusion reached by the NYT based on the record of incompetence on 9/11. We could take out "miserably" and list the failings if necessary. But taking out the whole section? That's supposed to be NPOV, to remove the whole section? It shows POV to remove any criticism. By the way, is "hopelessly in violation" NPOV?--JustFacts 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the FBI poster, I am assuming you're referring to this discusion: [[1]]. The "explanation" of why the FBI poster for OBL does not list 9/11 is that OBL has not been charged with that crime. But that explanation begs the larger question quite relevant to the 9/11 article. How could the US gov't have sufficient evidence for charges for, say, the USS Cole bombing, but insufficient evidence against Osama for 9/11? How could the gov't be sure enough about Osama's connection with 9/11 to proclaim it publicly and attack and invade a sovereign country (Afghanistan), yet have insufficient evidence for filing criminal charges? Either they have sufficient evidence, in which case why not file charges as they have with his other bombings, or they do not, in which case invading Afghanistan and declaring a global War on Terrorism was factually baseless. As far as our article is concerned, since the article has a whole section on Osama in the responsibility section, the facts of the lacuna on the FBI wanted release and the lack of criminal charges are quite important, I would think. --JustFacts 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. The removed section, though it contains some dates and the names of some newspapers, it is not exactly well-cited. No doubt there were a great deal of security screwups in the leadup to 9/11 and there was a lot of ass-covering and intentional and unintentional misinformation afterwards, but it is not reasonable to take these happenings and spin them into a theory that the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11 (which, forgive me, appears to be your ultimate purpose). Anyway, provide credible citations that the rest of us can verify (I don't happen to have a copy of the August 2 Washington Post handy, and anyone who did would be leery of going through the whole thing to try to figure out what article you were talking about) and then some of these things could go in the article.

(FYI: To "beg the question" is to presuppose the answer to a question.) --Mr. Billion 18:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billion, here is a link you requested: [[2]] . I will ignore your guess as to my "ultimate purpose" as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and is inappropriate in this forum. Please see my comment to Golbez about mind reading. For all you know I believe NASA faked the manned lunar landings. --JustFacts 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else has any further objections I will repost section on "Accountability" (see text above) to the article. I note that the editor who deleted my contribution with no explanation has so far not stated his objection in response to my query. I find that discurteous.--JustFacts 03:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question of accountability and lack thereof are important and should contribute to the article. Nonetheless, the problems of WP:NPOV and in particular WP:NPOV#Undue_weight remain unresolved, and singling out the FAA and NORAD would be misleading. Peter Grey 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since we agree that accountability is an important issue, we should create the section. In terms of singling out NORAM and FAA, we have to start building the section somehow. It might as well be with the lead US agencies in charge on the day of 9/11. I heartily agree that other agencies and possibly specific officials with those agencies should also be covered. But we should not hold up the accountability section if we are off to a good start simply because it is not yet comprehensive. There is only so much I can do at one time. Conversely, if I spent the next few weeks finding sources and proposed on this page a full blown section on accountability, it would be even more difficult to reach concensus on adding it because there would be quibling on various details. Any section on accountability will be susceptible POV charges. How do you discuss accountability without doling out some potential blame. IF we water it down we could also err on the other side of POV (POV: the US agencies acted reasonably well or at least with no flaws worthy of mention)--the current problem with the article. --JustFacts 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that "accountability" is necessarily needed as a new section. It is probably enough to state breifly how air traffic is handled and who/what was tracking the specific flights that day. How they were tracked and who was in charge of judging the threat. The wikipedia should definitely avoid doling out "accountability" rather discuss the facts, chain of command, who made what calls regarding threats, what proposals were made, what hijacking protocols are, etc. Accountability lends itself to POV problems. The article can even state what experts suggest should or could have been done and should definitely cite the 9/11 report and what it concluded were problems with the events of that day leading up to the acts of terrorism themselves. Wikipedia is not really the place to "hold people/organizations accountable" and that idea should be avoided. But, wikipedia should definitely discuss the facts of the day and specific instances that have been reported to be poorly handled and why. If it remains factual and avoids the less credible claims of what happened that day I think a section like this would do just fine (and of course it will be hashed over by editors for a while). !@#Rtrev 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read (or re-read) my proposed contribution on accountability near the top of this section and tell me whether your comments are still valid. I think we are in agreement. My proposed contribution makes statements about federal shortcomings (and misrepresentations after the fact) based on reliable major news accounts.--JustFacts 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muckraker reports

Hi Tom, you reverted two edits which both stem from the Muckraker Report. I do not see your point yet. I revert and reformulate, for starters. Could you please, on this talk page, elaborate on your view concerning: ...

inuendo

...

reliable source

...

continued

...so that we can al work together on this article, in stead of "fight" ? Thank you! — Xiutwel (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are discussed elsewhere. I think most people understand innuendo; if not, the better way to make it clear will be by demonstration, rather than by explication on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What fact exactly do you feel you need a reliable source for? Could you not use the {{fact}} template, to make sure a reliable source is provided, in stead of reverting?
I have a grasp of the term Innuendo. What I would like you to specify is: what you think is "suggested" and why such "suggestion" would be inappropriate. So, please demonstrate rather than explain. / Xiutwel (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"no thanks" FBI poster dispute

. Despite this fact, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not specifically mention 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him <ref>''"other terrorist attacks"'' http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm </ref>

(cur) (last) 10:36, 22 September 2006 Golbez (Talk | contribs) (no thanks. the only point of these edits is to push the pov.)
(cur) (last) 10:19, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // reformulation ; SEE Talk page PLEASE)
(cur) (last) 01:36, 22 September 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rv - not a reliable source; rm innuendo)
(cur) (last) 00:54, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // ref // Morton please be more precise in your comments)
(cur) (last) 00:26, 22 September 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (revert to version without unsubstantiated bullcrap)
(cur) (last) 00:25, 22 September 2006 JustFacts (Talk | contribs) (/* FBI "wanted")
(cur) (last) 00:22, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - Muckraker)

Golbez, I'm sorry you feel this way. Similarly, one could argue that the only point to remove this neutral, unbiased, information, is to push the government POV. The dispute flag goes up. If anyone would like to point me to previous discussion / consensus, please provide a date (from your own edit history?) or link to the talk page, because I don't see it.

What a waste of our energy this is, wikipedia !!! Should we not have a broad discussion on how to allow for several 'POV' facts simulataniously in order to make all 911 articles NPOV?

e.g.: Wikipedia_talk:911 POV disputes

— Xiutwel (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this fact is incorrect, since it is not in contradiction to the previously discussed rules for the most wanted list. Aside from questions of fact, I would suggest as a matter of style that the relevant section is already too long and is not improved by adding a critique of the wording of a fugitive notice. Peter Grey 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment in the previous section. Let's continue the FB poster discussion here. Tom, please explain why on the question of what is contained in the FBI "wanted" poster the FBI's website showing the "wanted" poster is "not a relialbe source" and is "innuendo." Golbez, you seem to possess a degree of mind reading skill in identifying the intent of the editor making an edit. You then seem to take the position that you can decide that such an intention is inapproriate based on some unidentified set of criteria. The final step seems to be to decide that you have been empowered to remove any contributions, no matter how relevant, compliant with WP rules, and fully sourced, because it is incompatible with the intention you decided existed which you decided was inappropriate. --JustFacts 20:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fugitive notice is being misrepresented to create unsubstantiated doubts as to the identity of the parties responsible for the attacks. "Mind reading skill" is not necessary when the intentions, even assuming good faith, are so transparent. Peter Grey 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only point of this edit is to attempt to insinuate that the government doesn't think Osama did it. False. The 10 Most Wanted list requires someone be indicted, and the Justice Department has not yet, for whatever reason. My mindreading is skillful - you are subtly trying to express a POV not entirely supported by the facts. I can indeed decide, because five years of precedent has told us that such implied stuff isn't allowed here. --Golbez 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason for not indicting Bin Laden may be how the Bush administration views terrorism and 9/11 (acts of war), versus the Clinton administration which handled terrorism as more of a law enforcement and criminal matter. Also, consider the Moussaoui and other cases, where significant amounts of evidence were derived from intelligence sources, such as al Qaeda detainees. To file a criminal indictment, requires disclosing intelligence information and perhaps sources/methods. With the ongoing "War on Terrorism", the administration probably doesn't want to do that. Nonetheless, this document from the U.K. government outlines evidence that makes them confident that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. They also note "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources." To ignore all these reasons why Bin Laden hasn't formally been indicted and simply insinuate that the government doesn't think Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is disingenuous. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Golbez 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The only point of this edit," Golbez, is to inform the reader of the facts. The US claims OBL is behind 9/11. The US has not indicted OBL and his FBI poster does not list 9/11. If you can cite sources to disprove or cast doubt on the foregoing, let me know. Until then, these facts should not be suppressed. My POV, Golbez, and what I am trying to express are of no concern of yours, and frankly, I am not that interesting. As long I am contributing factual, fully sourced info that is relevant and sheds light on the state of facts, and is compliant with WP rules, you and others are not empowerd to remove it because of any agenda you have for the article, or because you want to cultivate a certain view in the readers. Please cite the precedent. In any case, it cannot overrule WP rules. Aude, we can speculate about the reason the US has not indicted and we can cite evidence for OBL's guilt. It is quite irrelevant to the factual assertion I added. BWT, if you were to try to add much of your thoughtful reasoning it would probably constitute OR (unless you cited sources that set forth this reasoning explicitly). --JustFacts 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Peter, please state the "misrepresentation." My contribution in no way "critiqued" the FBI notice. With respect to the last sentence of Aude's comment, the sentence I proposed never implied that the US doesn't think OBL did it. It simply asserts the state of the FBI notice.--JustFacts 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you yourself are asserting it fails relevance? Anyway, the mention would clearly fail WP:NPOV since, even on this talk page, it has caused confusion about the role of the list in law enforcement and the role of law enforcement in the overall response to the attacks, so the result (whether or not intentional) would be to make the situation less clear to the reader. However, there probably is a suitable sub-article that could stand to have more detail about how the response to the attacks fits with the criminal justice system. Peter Grey 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you don't think the fact of whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL is relevant to the 9/11 article? I do and I think most reasonable WP editors would agree. I agree that a sub-article should explore these issues further. I pledge to help on that if you will work on it. --JustFacts 02:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it does seek him. The FBI seeks him. He cannot, however, be on the 10 most wanted list because he has not been indicted. Lack of indictment does not mean they seek him. So... --Golbez 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL (which they do) is not the proposed edit under discussion. Peter Grey 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...the fact of whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL...

As has been noted, they do officially seek OBL. There's no 'whether or not' about it. The thing that helps fuel conspiracy theories is that the Wanted poster doesn't mention 9/11. That doesn't mean the FBI doesn't acknowledge that Osama bin Laden is the leader of the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that he authorized and aided those attacks. It isn't just the nefarious U.S. shadow government that puts forth this story, it's also every other country in the world.
Maintaining the facade that all you're doing is just innocently "adding important factual information" isn't fooling anybody. Your history of edits indicates a design to promote a 9/11 conspiracy theory. This "JustFacts" account was created solely for the purpose of propagating suggestions that 9/11 was some kind of government hoax. Please don't insult everybody else with pretense.
Insinuating the moonbat hypothesis that the U.S. government was complicit in or responsible for 9/11 (and apparently that it destroyed WTC 1, 2, and 7 with explosives, and secretly hit the Pentagon with a missile instead of a plane) rather than just was incompetent and lethargic in antiterrorism efforts is a waste of yours and everybody else's time. There are many more productive (or at least less harmful) things to do with the Internet. --Mr. Billion 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my remark was not explicit enough: the fact of whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL FOR THE CRIME OF 9/11 is relevant to the 9/11 article. Given the context, I thought the words FOR THE CRIME OF 9/11 were understood. Golbez, I don't see how the FBI's 10 most wanted is relavant to this discussion. We are discussing OBL's FBI poster as it relates to 9/11. Hi Billion, I appreciate you taking such an interest in me and my views. If you would like to become friends I could tell you over tea what I think about the price of tea in China and you could tell me your views. In this forum however, as I tried to point out with the moon landing ideas (which I think you misunderstood--please do not attribute far fetched ideas to me) my personal views are quite irrelevant. WP rules prohibit ad hominem attacks. But not only are they against the WP rules (and fallacious), they are irrelevant. Again, one could be a convicted felon (Billion, please don't try to infer from this that I am) and believe that Elvis is alive (no Billion, that is not a "confession"), but each edit needs to considered on its own merits. In addition, since you seem so concerned about me, please dig a bit deeper and you'll find many edits quite unrelated to 9/11. --JustFacts 15:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with JustFacts that the missing 911-link on the FBI poster would not suggest anything. It might suggest the FBI is not convinced that OBL is involved. It might be that there is just some bureaucratic reason for it. But I would like to see that SOURCED. (see below) — Xiutwel (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my comment. We are in agreement, I believe.--JustFacts 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.  Xiutwel (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

continued dispute

I am sorry to notice that Aude has removed the dispute flag without acknowledging this clearly. I hope this was a sloppy mistake, not intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=77295791&oldid=77195278#Responsibility

So we seem to agree that:

OBL was not indicted for 911‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}
OBL was indeed indicted for e.g. the Kenya bombing‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}
people can only be announced wanted AFTER being indicted‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}
we can bomb a country back to the stone-age in the process of looking for a suspect, before indicting them (no source needed, self-evident)

Until we get Reliable Sources for the above three facts, the dispute flag has to stay up, I'm afraid... — Xiutwel (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're proposing the dispute flag because there's consensus? When bin Laden is listed by the FBI as the "MOST WANTED TERRORIST", do you believe that "most wanted" does not represent a high priority? Have you considered that police services do more to apprehend suspects than simply print posters? Bill Clinton, in his infamous recent interview, explained quite clearly and concisely that after the 1998 United States embassy bombings the pursuit of bin Laden had escalated far beyond law enforcement. The irony is that under President Bush, the pursuit of bin Laden by the US Government has been less than whole-hearted, and this is a noteworthy fact, but petty questions about details of police procedures only serve as a distraction. Distractions are not constructive additions to the article. Peter Grey 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, there is no consensus on the inclusion of this information into the article, only on the above three statements. However, I am not so convinced that all the explanations for the absence of 911 on the OBL FBI poster are totally correct. So I would like some sources, before I too agree that this information would be irrelevant to the article.

So please just answer the three simple questions: what are the sources? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacker Demands / Saudi Air Travel Exemptions

[deleted]

(rv poor faith insertion of tag to allude to content unsupported by consensus)

please explain "poor faith"? — Xiutwel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is inserted as a link to the talk page where you present your implications which have been clearly rejected by consensus. Dispute tags are not to be used as a run-around against consensus.--Mmx1 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I copy from your talk page: — Xiutwel (talk)

What, am I blind? Several editors have explained to you why a negative leading to OR conclusions of your own is not appropriate. --Mmx1 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting stranger and stranger.

First, the dispute flag is removed without even mentioning it, and when I put it back, you accuse me of bad faith.
Second, there seems to be a misunderstanding. It is not so that when several editors give their side of the dispute, the dispute is resolved. You can read above the questions which I feel have not been adressed at all.
Third, I do not understand exactly what you mean by: why a negative leading to OR conclusions of your own is not appropriate. Could it be you are referring to "No Original Research"? Please explain!
Fourth: I agree dispute tags are not a for a run-around against consensus. I would never put a dispute flag up before trying to resolve the issue.

— Xiutwel (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmx1, I apologize for not referring to the talk page when replacing the dispute flag. You may have missed my statements there, since they were not at the bottom of the talk page. — Xiutwel (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it all. Your insistence on this original research that if someone was not indicted, then they are not culpable, is laughable. Where is Aidid's indictment? Or Hitler's? --Mmx1 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that someone who is not indicted, is not culpable. I just want to know why bin Laden is indicted for one attack, and not for the other.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Is this a problem to answer? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article, nor the talk page is not the Wikipedia:Reference_desk for answering your curiosities. Take your questions elsewhere. If you yourself cannot answer these questions, you are way out of line in inserting them into the article. --Mmx1 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proof what you claim

I have no intent of putting these questions into the article. Just the fact that the info is not on the poster, and anyone who thinks this is logical, should source that belief.

Do you agree with this?

Me, and several other wikipedians, feel that it is proper to include the information on the FBI poster into the article.
This is contested, this information would be irrelevant, because there is nothing strange about 911 not being on the OBL-wanted poster
we have provided adequate sources for the fact that the poster does not explicitly mention 911
should you then not be obliged to give sources for your claims, if you want to convince me not to include this bit of information, which complies with wikipedia standards?
This is not about satisfying MY curiosity, this is about substantiating YOUR claims.

I propose you give it some thought, if you cannot give arguments I will put the dispute flag back up tomorrow, making sure it refers to the right section this time - sorry! — Xiutwel (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel, I agree with you. I don't see why we cannot include the fact that FBI does not seek OBL for the crime of 9/11 or the fact that OBL has noot been indicted for 9/11. I have not received a decent answer from anyone why my contribution with respect to the first fact (fully sourced to FBI web page) was deleted.--JustFacts 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

summary FBI poster dispute flag

I am going to put the dispute flag back up (I've seen no response to my queries). To summarize:

OBL is on the FBI website, wanted for terrorism, stating explicitly: for e.g. the Kenya bombing but not for 911
at first glance, this might suggest he is not deemed connected to 911
according to the Muckraker report, the FBI stated they have insufficient evidence to support such a claim
many wikipedians claim that
1. the Muckraker report cannot be a reliable source
2. 911 is not on the poster, simply because of burocratic issues. OBL "has not been indicted for 911" yet.
This could be true. However, it could also be a total fantasy, grasping at straws. Who knows?
So I asked and asked again for substantiation of these claims regarding common burocratic procedure.
No reply was given, nor a link to a previous discussion on the talk page where these issues would have been addressed. (I can find none myself)
In conclusion:
1. if it is only logical that 911 is still not mentioned on the FBI poster/site, then this fact would not be very important (we could nonetheless include it, with explanation, to help our readers understand the issue when they might come across it elsewhere, outside wikipedia)
2. if the above claims re burocratic procedures are mere speculation, we are left with the facts. It is a reliable fact that 911 is not on the FBI website. It is sourced. It is not original research, because this was not found out by wikipedians but by the Muckraker report. It is interesting, because it could be an anomaly to the official story. So, why not include it?

This is all I can see and say about it. I hope we can come to a decision, so we can resolve this and remove the dispute flag.— Xiutwel (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks. Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the incidents.

With respect to the first sentence: it is a known fact that the US government stated this explicitly, over and over again. Whether all entities within the government believe it, is something else. The FBI matter needs resolving, and until it is resolved, this wording is not acceptable. I would at least replace determined with stated, but I think we should include something on the FBI website also. Suggestions on how to go about this are welcome! — Xiutwel (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second sentence, see at: #OBL admitted. — Xiutwel (talk)

what is the dispute?

I don't understand what presented fact you are disputing. That the United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks? That seems pretty well supported, to say the least. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know they say they believe OBL 'did it'. But, do they mean what they say? How can we be sure? I think the wording should change, AND the info about the missing FBI indictment should be included into the article. Since both have been repeatedly reverted, this forms a dispute. My solution for the dispute would be: replace with stated and add a footnote, explaining that the FBI fails to mention 911 on the list of crimes of OBL. If we can agree, great! If not, are there any other solutions?  Xiutwel (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logical conclusion to that kind of thinking is that we are all brains in vats but don't know it. If you want to imply that, "Oh sure the feds say they think he did it, but they don't really believe he did it; or do they? or is that just what they would have us believe?" then you need to find reliable sources who say that, and really believe it when they say it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've got a point there. Even if OBL did it, the word determined suggests that no one in the US government was involved. And that's exactly what we do not have consensus about. When we also leave out the FBI-poster issue, which strikes me as odd, the article becomes rather imbalanced/POV.  Xiutwel (talk)

I must conclude that no-one seems able or willing to give reliable sources for the theories I questioned above. Absent such sources, I must assume the whole indictment-is-necessary theory might be a total fantasy, and the Muckraker report may after all be right in its claim that (part of) the FBI deems the evidence inconclusive. So please, fill me in!  Xiutwel (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond.  Xiutwel (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You're demanding we provide sources to support your assertion. The absense of an indictment can be for many reasons. You claim it's because he's not implicated. The FBI and other U.S. sources clearly disagree. You're attempting to derive some sort of conclusion from the fact that he is not indicted that simply doesn't hold up. --Mmx1 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not identified what is under "dispute", only alluded to some minor points that could, in theory, be more thoroughly sourced, but in any case are mere technicalities regarding an event that is clearly beyond the scope of ordinary criminal justice. Bin Laden is a most wanted fugitive - there is no "beyond most wanted" category, and thus no constructive purpose to an additional indictment. Now, if bin Laden were apprehended and subjected to an extradition process, certain legal procedures might become important, but to date that is not the case. The claim no one in the US government was involved ('involved' meaning, presumably, as co-conspirators) does represent a consensus unless evidence to the contrary is produced. Peter Grey 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11-Iraq Link / Osama video tape / OBL admitted / Terrorist nomenclature

[deleted]

Continued discussion from talk page

First let me express my gratitude for your serious comments on the matter. I see we have problems understanding each other, but I feel we're getting closer. Mmx1, *I* did not start the claim that indictment was the key. Let me try to summarize using quotes.  Xiutwel (talk)

June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

This ^{talk archive 21} is a quote from Non-Reliable Source. So I agree we cannot use it, even if it is/were true.

Then look at this:

The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.
"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court." [3] (Sep 27, 2001)

Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant (again from archive 21, copied above)

conclusion

I suggest insertion of the following paragraph, just after the paragraph "the government determined...":

The US went to war with Afghanistan in trying to capture bin Laden. On the other hand, Bin Laden's suspected involvement with 911 is not on his FBI wanted poster‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}; this allegedly‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} is due to the fact that he has not been formally charged with the crime‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, which in general can only be done if enough evidence is found to confirm suspicions.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

I know some of you won't agree, so I'm not inserting this now, but I hope this illustrates the dispute. This is relevant information for our readers. It does at the least show a bit of a double standard when dealing in justice. I'm sorry, I can see it no other way. It is curious and we should dare present it. If we should not, please explain why it is irrelevant for the article that a country would go to war while at the very least neglecting to make formal charges judiciously. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fine to include, but it sounds biased the way you wrote it. A direct quote from him about it might be best, or a couple quotes. Titanium Dragon 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good suggestion! A direct quote from whom, exactly?  Xiutwel (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Yesterday, I added^{[into the main article /Xiut]} a direct statement from the FBI, regarding their position on links between 9/11 and Bin Laden (and Al Qaeda).

"evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable"

Above you mentioned dislike for the wording of the sentence [4]. I clarified it^{[by insertion of the new information /Xiut]}, with direct references and cited sources from the FBI. The FBI poster is a minute detail that isn't needed in the main article. --Aude (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aude, do I understand correctly: you think the poster and the indictment thing is no longer necessary now that we have some statement to the contrary? I beg to disagree, but am in doubt which article best to put the poster/war ambivalence in: 911, the war, or responsibility, or bin Laden... I think I would still prefer the 911 article.

(I think we cannot take the statement of any government as the truth regarding their own opinions. Governments only tell you what is politically expedient. We (Holland) have had some hard guarentees from the US, that the USA would not condone torture (but rendition saves lives) and that Saddam has WMD. Didn't someone say he was financing Al Qaida, by the way? Our Dutch government fed these lies to our parliament and our press, knowing it wasn't the truth.)

I therefore prefer facts to government statements alone, and the absence of 911 on the poster is a fact. I know of four interpretations for that fact — only one of which is not damning for the US government. It is not upto wiki to find out which is the correct interpretation, but the fact itself should be there. Please Aude, would you work on an acceptable wording for the poster thing, in stead of saying we don't need it, even though you do not endorse it. I won't keep you to endorsement, even if you contribute in the draft. But when you help, we may get more clear what the core of our dissent is! See you after my break.  Xiutwel (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...cont'd

next attempt (28)

After the Taliban from Afghanistan failed to extradite bin Laden, the US and the coalition of the willing went to war. In the meantime Bin Laden has ~~never~~ not upto now been formally indicted for 911.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} (where the reference should point to the FBI poster and some reputable explanation for it  Xiutwel (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This is probably the only comment I'm going to make here, but 'never' has a finality to it. Say 'not', at most. But that doesn't mean I endorse even that. --Golbez 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Golbez! /X 06:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in late to this discussion but I'm wondering why this information is important in an article about the September 11 Attacks and why it shouldn't go into the 2001 war in Afghanistan article and provide a link. We shouldn't have information repeated on several pages that is not relevant to the main topic.

You have a point. My preference for the main 911 article is because it is not so much related to the war itsself as it is to the entirity of the situation surrounding 911. It would be relevant to the war if it were somehow established that OBL was not a suspect (quod non!); in stead we just have the curious thing of the government guarding due process on one hand, while at the other hand cutting corners.  Xiutwel (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want this proposed edit for a reason. The following does not improve the text nor does it give the reader any additional information:

The United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks. However, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not list 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him ((http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm).

If you want to provide the user with more information, what is it you want to tell them? Using implication or being vague does not make a good encyclopedia article and this is very vague. --PTR 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been a consensus then, at least, get the spelling of OBL's name consistent throughout the article. Bin Laden, bin Laden pick one and stick with it. --PTR 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest: Osama bin Laden and Bin Laden when his first name is not used. Make sense?  Xiutwel (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objections to Xiutwel's basic proposal (one can quible about the specific formulation). The 9/11 article states that the US gov't believes OBL is responsible. If for no other reason, Xiutwel's basis proposal provides balance to that claim. Re. PTR's objection--the add'l info provided to the user is that the confident assertions of the US on OBL's guilt have to be viewed in this light. It's not "implication" but fact: no US indictment and no wanted poster for OBL for Sept 11 crimes. One more point: PTR seems to wish to "insulate" or protect the reader from uncertainty about what we know about the world. That's not the purpose of WP. The article is here to inform about the state of current knowldge as we can know it based on RS, not to protect carefully cherished notions. All further objections should be based only on WP rules. --JustFacts 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just don't want it to be vague. If you want to say that the United States Government really doesn't believe OBL is responsible and here are the sources that back that up then say it. If you just want to say that no FBI wanted poster for OBL for the Sept 11 crimes exists, say that. Putting the two sentences together creates an implication. I was an editor and technical writer for years and the way it is written is what I was objecting to. That's why I was asking, "If you want to provide the user with more information, what is it you want to tell them?" --PTR 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, PTR, would you like to draft up a quick re-write of the proposed section in light of your comment?--JustFacts 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm still not sure what it is you want to say. I was addressing that with my question to Xiutwel when I asked "what is it you want to tell them?" That has been and is my only point. I'm unclear on what information you want the section to convey to the reader. --PTR 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

continued (conclusion)

Sorry, I'm actually on a wikibreak but could not help and peep.

What I want to convey to the reader is:

The US government publicly accused OBL and went to war to capture him dead or alive
The US government fails to mention OBL's suspected involvement on the wanted poster
This appears to be due (acc.to statements) either to a lack of evidence or a failure to indict (explained or unexplained)
After five years of war, there might be an inconsistency in the policies used in order to capture OBL: on the one hand, wage a war to arrest him, on the other hand, fail to indict. An inconsistency of due process on the judicial track, and cowboy-style action on the other track.

I actually feel this apparent inconsistency is rather obvious and perhaps need not be elaborated on so much as I did just now? PTR, can you work with this? Thanks. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]