216.80.122.223 (talk) Undid revision 614480761 by Tarage (talk)you've got no right to ask something like that. f... ... |
Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) Undid revision by 216.80.122.223 - Tarange is wrong only in that this thread should be collapsed whether or not you have an account. |
||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
==Conspiracy theories== |
==Conspiracy theories== |
||
{{collapse top|An anonymous IP attempting to game the system. This debate is over until the user decides to stop playing these games.}} |
|||
The associated conspiracy theories are not mentioned at all on this article, other than a brief one sentence acknowledgement of their existence under ‘Aftermath - Cultural’. This is despite the extensive [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] article and even an article describing how many people believe these ([[Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories]])). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally. |
The associated conspiracy theories are not mentioned at all on this article, other than a brief one sentence acknowledgement of their existence under ‘Aftermath - Cultural’. This is despite the extensive [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] article and even an article describing how many people believe these ([[Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories]])). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally. |
||
Line 260: | Line 262: | ||
::::::::There are many confirmed sources on disagreeing facts (i.e. those linked above) as well as conspiracy theories. In regards to polls, I thought that that was one way of figuring out what [[mainstream]] is: Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. Nobody here talks about inclusion of information from unconfirmed 'conspiracy theories', but only of inclusion of verified and well written about topics. Why is it that some users fail to observe this distinction? [[Special:Contributions/216.80.122.223|216.80.122.223]] ([[User talk:216.80.122.223|talk]]) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::There are many confirmed sources on disagreeing facts (i.e. those linked above) as well as conspiracy theories. In regards to polls, I thought that that was one way of figuring out what [[mainstream]] is: Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. Nobody here talks about inclusion of information from unconfirmed 'conspiracy theories', but only of inclusion of verified and well written about topics. Why is it that some users fail to observe this distinction? [[Special:Contributions/216.80.122.223|216.80.122.223]] ([[User talk:216.80.122.223|talk]]) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 15:13, 26 June 2014
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Toolbox |
---|
Bin Laden
There is a part of the article where it is said "Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks," This is quite irritating as there is no evidence of this. According to the documentary "Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11", it is said that the Osama Bin Laden HAS NOT been indited for the 9/11 attacks on the FBI website. This claim, which is highly likely to be credable based off the professionalism and research undergone to create the documentary, needs to be addressed. If not, then this article will have a very important piece of information which is highly invalid, hence rendering the rest of the article unreliable. This article is viewed a large number of the American Public and as such must be kept factual at all times to prevent the Shifting of hateful attitudes from passive to Aggresive racism towards Middle Eastern people. Both this comment i have made here and the "opinion" stated in this article are bias, however it is mine that is more valid and reliable as it contains actual factual information rather than ignorant or misguided information. Peace and love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Master Sage (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia uses mainstream reliable sources to determine the content of its articles. The documentary is a fringe source written with a specific agenda, and does not trump multiple mainstream reliable sources. It may be worthy of mention elsewhere, but is not a basis for rewriting the article. The documentary has been out for seven years and gotten little or no traction outside the Truther community. The media's response to the work has been tepid or derisive: see the Guardian, for instance [2]. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014
"other properties" is too vague. Change text to hyperlink pointed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center Todd Stiebinger (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- But that surely wasn't the only other property damaged. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Other properties refers to all the buildings described in the Damage section - not just 7WTC. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done - for reasons explained above - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
Ventura 97 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Bin Laden, Holy War declaration; deadlink + fake info
Fixed a dead link, no evidence info is "fake."
|
---|
Link 11 is dead, has been for who knows how long, the thing is the information is fake, the first one to call it a "Holy War" was Bush, which might sound hilarious but how many times did Bush embarass the US? Im not going to source but if you guys cant remember ill refresh your memories, Bush made the mistake of calling it a Holy War before Bin Laden used the term, it was taken as a declaration of fact, and the pope was quite displeased, since the pope is the only one with the authority to declare a war as a holy war, its a matter of religion and politics, point is either way its a deadlink and im sure someone else who cares twice as much as i do can find a source and erase the info. Im too lazy to do it but there it is, if someone cares do it. Darkuu (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|
silly question
how come WTC 1 and art center did not go down, but WTC 7 did which was further away? any sources that discuss this? 216.80.122.223 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- WTC 1 was destroyed in the attacks. The reasons WTC collapsed are discussed in more depth at 7 World Trade Center#9/11 and collapse. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's WTC 1, which was destroyed. The twin towers were WTC 1 and WTC2. Note that One World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center have since been built, you may be confusing the new building with the old. Acroterion (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- thanks! that answers the question.. because mostly twins and wtc7 are mentioned in discussions... 216.80.122.223 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories
An anonymous IP attempting to game the system. This debate is over until the user decides to stop playing these games.
|
---|
The associated conspiracy theories are not mentioned at all on this article, other than a brief one sentence acknowledgement of their existence under ‘Aftermath - Cultural’. This is despite the extensive 9/11 conspiracy theories article and even an article describing how many people believe these (Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories)). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally.
As an example, the article Assassination of John F. Kennedy includes both a section corresponding to Part 1 and a sentence in the lead corresponding to Part 2. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Response to part 1Response to part 2Threaded discussionNo, the single sentence in the article as of this revision is plenty. See also the FAQ and the (extensive) talk page archives. VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
|