User talk:Acebrock/9/11

Edit 1

Massacred and murdered to killed

Comments

Removed all mention of terrorism per WP:WTA

Comments:

• WP:WTA does not state that you cannot use the word terrorism and I think this is gongi to prevent anyone from actually accepting this rewrite, personally this is the only issue I have with the rewrite. As noone has really come forward denying this was a terrorist incident it defeats the point of WP:WTA to not call it one. Further if we were to follow WP:WTA by the book and not the spirit, then that would cause us to list every nation in the UN / NATO before we cite it as a terrorist attack, instead of just accepting its the general world view with noone disagreeing that I have ever seen, even Al Jazeera called it a terrorist attack. --NuclearZer0 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is why we have discussion. I'm planning on adding the changes that are accepted. those rejected are thrown down the memory hole--I need a vacation 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reworded pentagon hit a bit (probably going to be challenged come game time)

Comments:

Edit 2

Expanded conspiracy theory section and provided reliable sources

Comments:

• The following should be rewritten more encyclopedic "and that the beams got rubbery with the burning jet fuel everywhere." --NuclearZer0 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed.--I need a vacation 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits 3 and 4

fixed typos and added info I forgot about.

Comments:

Edit 5

Massive additions to the 9/11 conspiracy theory section. Kept it fairly neutral and cited the media (and MSNBC is a reliable source)

Comments:

Issue

Probably in the original as well but the WOT section needs sources, the view of most US citizens? that kind of comment definatly needs sources and the rest of that paragraph as well.

Final paragraph in "Fatalities" before "Damage" needs sources.

"The hijackers" this section needs sources. Is "Arab men" appropriate? Doesn't Arab refer to Saudi Arabian only?

"9/11 Commission Report" Should be expanded.

--NuclearZer0 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Definately from the main article. I'll see what I can do in the space of an hour. After that I'm signing off--I need a vacation 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do not take these as remarks against your rewrite, just notes that I will move to the other talk page as well. --NuclearZer0 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd focus on npov stuff before hitting existin citation problems. npov problems are huge. --SoLittleTime 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Much improved

how timely? just visited talk page to say that this article misses bad on NPOV policy. Then i see your post at bottom. this is much better than what's there. i couldn believe how pov the current one is. one other suggestion. "conspiracy theories" seems a bit off too. even more than 'terrorist'. after all isn't that just used to dismiss dissenting viewpoints? how bout something like 'further evidence or 'dissenting viewpoints'. Seems much more encyclopedic to me. --SoLittleTime 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not accept that, the truth is most are conspiracy theorys, stating the US government took down the buildings and covered up the fact is a theory on a conspiracy ... --NuclearZer0 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

so is stating a worldwise cabal of moslem extremists conspired to attack the financial and military symbols of the united states. its all a bunch a theories bout conspiracy. but the phrase 'conspiracy theory' means somethin else. also it sounds like you're not up to date on your familiarity with the literature on this topic. you can't just read popular mechanics to understand this stuff. sorry. don't mean to insult you but its true. --SoLittleTime 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish consopiracy nuts

should add citation of a specific prominent theorist who thinks the jews coordinated the attacks. otherwise the quote from the adl looks way too defensive. the way it is now it just comes out of nowhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SoLittleTime (talk • contribs)

Care to provide a name so I can get a source? You're right, prominent theorists should be named but I cant find him/her in my google search--I need a vacation 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, afraid i don't know any. if you can't find anything i'd just strike the whole thing. --SoLittleTime 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I wonder if you would mind putting a colon inside the brackets for categories on this draft page, so that it does not show up in the category? e.g. September 11, 2001 attacks. If you later copy the content to the article, remember to remove the colon. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)