Upload 249 files

.gitattributes

@@ -56,3 +56,9 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 # Video files - compressed
 *.mp4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.webm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+E_talkPages/idPages_E_talk_2019.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+E_talkPages/idUsers_E_talk_2019.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+F_talkPages/idPages_F_talk_2019.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+F_talkPages/idUsers_F_talk_2019.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+G_talkPages/idPages_G_talk_2019.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+G_talkPages/idUsers_G_talk_2019.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/idPages_EFG_WikiDemoCorpus.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+idno	MultiLingualTitle	lang	title	article	subTyp	nbFils	nbPosts	nbMots
+28035	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 2	september_11_attacks	archive	6	124	7370
+186210	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 1	september_11_attacks	archive	20	70	5848
+433583	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks	september_11_attacks	current	5	10	439
+529488	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 3	september_11_attacks	archive	12	157	6095
+529505	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 4	september_11_attacks	archive	7	66	4900
+529516	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 5	september_11_attacks	archive	4	78	5138
+529521	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 6	september_11_attacks	archive	3	55	5985
+1049649	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 7	september_11_attacks	archive	15	147	12451
+1069640	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 8	september_11_attacks	archive	16	51	4638
+1086269	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 9	september_11_attacks	archive	8	27	3659
+1212324	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 10	september_11_attacks	archive	5	14	2333
+2335674	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 11	september_11_attacks	archive	52	269	21161
+2659113	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 12	september_11_attacks	archive	8	25	1709
+3886915	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 13	september_11_attacks	archive	77	448	38554
+4391159	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 14	september_11_attacks	archive	41	340	24470
+4578892	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 15	september_11_attacks	archive	35	409	31654
+4899159	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 16	september_11_attacks	archive	42	406	29917
+5174078	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/archive8a	september_11_attacks	archive	1	1	409
+5208587	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 17	september_11_attacks	archive	41	360	36465
+5452817	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 18	september_11_attacks	archive	26	189	12477
+5891139	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 19	september_11_attacks	archive	38	433	35850
+6746629	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 20	september_11_attacks	archive	62	343	24248
+7024739	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 21	september_11_attacks	archive	46	312	23787
+7505234	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 22	september_11_attacks	archive	32	267	25018
+8158473	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 23	september_11_attacks	archive	40	265	23637
+8199958	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 24	september_11_attacks	archive	22	212	18635
+8694946	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 25	september_11_attacks	archive	45	487	37796
+8823372	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 26	september_11_attacks	archive	12	217	13105
+9118946	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 27	september_11_attacks	archive	28	335	27237
+9578747	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/archive28	september_11_attacks	archive	9	59	4657
+10829165	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 28	september_11_attacks	archive	43	362	27203
+11176984	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 29	september_11_attacks	archive	36	348	25962
+12202714	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 30	september_11_attacks	archive	34	355	22591
+13013653	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 31	september_11_attacks	archive	32	276	27129
+13183212	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 32	september_11_attacks	archive	30	461	39205
+13312632	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 33	september_11_attacks	archive	32	430	17693
+14035992	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 34	september_11_attacks	archive	49	457	39012
+14700304	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 35	september_11_attacks	archive	15	113	9337
+15154252	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 36	september_11_attacks	archive	21	315	22590
+15513617	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 37	september_11_attacks	archive	14	121	9816
+15820325	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 38	september_11_attacks	archive	38	348	32680
+16651069	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 39	september_11_attacks	archive	62	902	69446
+17201488	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 40	september_11_attacks	archive	24	343	25457
+17221255	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 41	september_11_attacks	archive	28	350	20869
+17506759	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 42	september_11_attacks	archive	33	359	27107
+18952786	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 43	september_11_attacks	archive	11	149	9311
+19725035	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 44	september_11_attacks	archive	41	381	22710
+21172778	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 45	september_11_attacks	archive	20	227	16006
+23685192	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 47	september_11_attacks	archive	8	124	6570
+24052003	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 48	september_11_attacks	archive	12	82	5731
+24685587	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 49	september_11_attacks	archive	8	57	3685
+25076351	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 50	september_11_attacks	archive	11	106	6646
+25624311	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 51	september_11_attacks	archive	25	343	30617
+26876616	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 52	september_11_attacks	archive	26	198	16824
+28710159	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 53	september_11_attacks	archive	44	304	29162
+29159163	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 54	september_11_attacks	archive	39	496	37670
+31665860	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 55	september_11_attacks	archive	20	482	39477
+32440306	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 56	september_11_attacks	archive	54	495	39236
+33746200	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 57	september_11_attacks	archive	10	418	30287
+34695548	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 58	september_11_attacks	archive	48	432	29911
+38054126	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 59	september_11_attacks	archive	36	326	28395
+42364830	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 60	september_11_attacks	archive	22	323	24385
+44547043	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 61	september_11_attacks	archive	35	347	29999
+49229029	0911attacks	E	September 11 attacks/Archive 62	september_11_attacks	archive	63	279	18038
+197022	chiro	E	Chiropractic	chiropractic	current	6	13	2154
+1053940	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 1	chiropractic	archive	4	51	4421
+4108572	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 2	chiropractic	archive	7	62	5747
+4108741	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 6	chiropractic	archive	58	333	32869
+4108817	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 3	chiropractic	archive	15	82	6697
+4108834	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 4	chiropractic	archive	6	11	2977
+4108857	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 5	chiropractic	archive	6	30	2536
+4999260	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 7	chiropractic	archive	69	487	54605
+5414713	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 8	chiropractic	archive	62	666	67704
+5924183	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 9	chiropractic	archive	24	297	29433
+7042005	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 10	chiropractic	archive	44	429	46300
+7972077	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 11	chiropractic	archive	42	362	34061
+10904388	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 12	chiropractic	archive	17	104	10046
+15562023	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 13	chiropractic	archive	35	404	43455
+15801389	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 14	chiropractic	archive	24	232	22739
+15973178	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 15	chiropractic	archive	87	1118	88034
+16321783	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 16	chiropractic	archive	65	605	50481
+17001252	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 17	chiropractic	archive	61	618	45711
+17093278	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 18	chiropractic	archive	63	935	76906
+17465963	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 19	chiropractic	archive	31	491	35155
+17662609	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 20	chiropractic	archive	64	837	71183
+17915736	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 21	chiropractic	archive	69	598	62376
+18304969	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 22	chiropractic	archive	21	256	27742
+18305032	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 23	chiropractic	archive	18	217	24739
+18305244	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 24	chiropractic	archive	26	412	44048
+18305350	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 25	chiropractic	archive	73	800	72745
+19082624	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 26	chiropractic	archive	45	528	52919
+19450081	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 27	chiropractic	archive	55	822	82145
+19621627	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 28	chiropractic	archive	61	814	74528
+20202507	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 29	chiropractic	archive	103	906	76060
+20302884	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Mediation/Archive 1	chiropractic	archive	23	194	23327
+22972367	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 30	chiropractic	archive	80	729	53458
+28472584	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 31	chiropractic	archive	53	507	49236
+29269468	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 32	chiropractic	archive	48	461	47416
+30877405	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 33	chiropractic	archive	52	397	46967
+34768883	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 34	chiropractic	archive	55	428	46216
+38340304	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 35	chiropractic	archive	83	453	44071
+39410121	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 36	chiropractic	archive	64	390	42678
+42039539	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 37	chiropractic	archive	52	521	43878
+47666710	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 38	chiropractic	archive	59	500	41002
+54353436	chiro	E	Chiropractic/Archive 39	chiropractic	archive	29	187	20360
+11193	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 1	feminism	archive	2	100	8221
+312812	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 2	feminism	archive	1	43	6167
+1622412	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 3	feminism	archive	2	72	5050
+3417891	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 4	feminism	archive	41	236	19771
+4553080	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 5	feminism	archive	22	128	16053
+5574523	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 6	feminism	archive	24	112	11616
+9149104	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 7	feminism	archive	24	76	6742
+10793776	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 8	feminism	archive	19	65	5925
+11108165	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 9	feminism	archive	26	103	13958
+13420787	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 10	feminism	archive	41	282	30967
+13734638	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 11	feminism	archive	23	145	21364
+20913824	fem	E	Feminism	feminism	current	7	31	2509
+23013999	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 12	feminism	archive	35	174	16952
+24171830	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 13	feminism	archive	39	164	16843
+29138220	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 14	feminism	archive	9	63	17172
+29394552	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 15	feminism	archive	4	58	18514
+29535128	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 16	feminism	archive	6	164	23317
+31236666	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 17	feminism	archive	13	146	23759
+31554436	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 18	feminism	archive	17	115	16279
+32027164	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 19	feminism	archive	54	191	32316
+39238399	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 20	feminism	archive	70	308	28137
+48889409	fem	E	Feminism/Archive 21	feminism	archive	56	185	15649
+12340	GMO	E	Genetically modified organism	genetically_modified_organism	current	11	56	6576
+27434088	GMO	E	Genetically modified organism/Archive 1	genetically_modified_organism	archive	46	213	19553
+42550401	GMO	E	Genetically modified organism/Archive 2	genetically_modified_organism	archive	13	102	15709
+47657371	GMO	E	Genetically modified organism/Archive 3	genetically_modified_organism	archive	37	139	13116
+195261	psy	E	Psychoanalysis	psychoanalysis	current	2	2	94
+2798092	psy	E	Psychoanalysis/Archive 1	psychoanalysis	archive	26	37	7844
+30755054	psy	E	Psychoanalysis/Archive 2	psychoanalysis	archive	40	121	13489
+42150424	psy	E	Psychoanalysis/Archive 3	psychoanalysis	archive	23	145	14340
+42150425	psy	E	Psychoanalysis/Archive 4	psychoanalysis	archive	20	129	14579
+53718870	psy	E	Psychoanalysis/Archive 5	psychoanalysis	archive	13	63	5309
+46415358	refugeeCrisis	E	European migrant crisis	european_migrant_crisis	current	51	141	11769
+50647479	refugeeCrisis	E	European migrant crisis/Archive 1	european_migrant_crisis	archive	57	265	23661
+326226	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 3	vladimir_putin	archive	48	298	24139
+13584978	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 1	vladimir_putin	archive	103	464	39277
+15658598	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 2	vladimir_putin	archive	45	248	22361
+19053483	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 4	vladimir_putin	archive	36	271	22798
+19544263	VP	E	Vladimir Putin	vladimir_putin	current	3	4	1257
+26025358	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 5	vladimir_putin	archive	57	290	24154
+35510940	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 6	vladimir_putin	archive	30	253	22452
+35975328	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 7	vladimir_putin	archive	19	270	23510
+36358596	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 8	vladimir_putin	archive	54	227	20561
+41753783	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 9	vladimir_putin	archive	91	329	19962
+49497659	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 10	vladimir_putin	archive	20	282	21734
+49818154	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 11	vladimir_putin	archive	24	378	21690
+49893748	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 12	vladimir_putin	archive	19	251	20219
+50165368	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 13	vladimir_putin	archive	22	286	22735
+50294377	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 14	vladimir_putin	archive	32	291	19011
+53092723	VP	E	Vladimir Putin/Archive 15	vladimir_putin	archive	54	282	19345
+226984	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda/Archive 1	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	21	113	10737
+6911456	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda	the_legend_of_zelda	current	16	55	3871
+8169827	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda/Archive 2	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	39	185	11629
+15473319	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda/Archive 3	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	43	183	11239
+16822006	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda/Archive 4	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	11	33	2467
+28893526	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda/Archive 5	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	46	232	16071
+52578366	zelda	E	The Legend of Zelda/Archive 6	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	25	73	5458
+747457	0911attacks	F	Attentats du 11 septembre 2001/Neutralité	attentats_du_11_septembre_2001	npov	1	1	23
+3394966	0911attacks	F	Attentats du 11 septembre 2001	attentats_du_11_septembre_2001	current	56	432	40320
+4046600	0911attacks	F	Attentats du 11 septembre 2001/Archive 1	attentats_du_11_septembre_2001	archive	40	201	20510
+4046605	0911attacks	F	Attentats du 11 septembre 2001/Archive 2	attentats_du_11_septembre_2001	archive	44	557	72814
+808	chiro	F	Chiropratique/Archive1	chiropratique	archive	8	32	7559
+770707	chiro	F	Chiropratique/Neutralité	chiropratique	npov	1	1	19
+4094797	chiro	F	Chiropratique	chiropratique	current	17	208	25955
+57476	fem	F	Féminisme	féminisme	current	38	162	15971
+1360139	fem	F	Féminisme/Archive	féminisme	archive	34	298	25809
+30901	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 3	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	66	594	64751
+599401	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Neutralité	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	npov	1	1	21
+2189373	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 1	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	42	184	17551
+2704878	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 2	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	12	50	6547
+2794380	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 7	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	93	930	103079
+2845923	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 4	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	43	322	28174
+2990630	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 5	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	29	322	27958
+3918746	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archives	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	1	1	35
+6665007	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié/Archive 6	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	archive	49	461	46372
+7373185	GMO	F	Organisme génétiquement modifié	organisme_génétiquement_modifié	current	37	406	48636
+923975	psy	F	Psychanalyse/arch1	psychanalyse	archive	37	103	16021
+3847930	psy	F	Psychanalyse	psychanalyse	current	12	50	5307
+4929211	psy	F	Psychanalyse/Archives	psychanalyse	archive	1	1	4
+6274306	psy	F	Psychanalyse/arch2	psychanalyse	archive	25	171	15570
+6869723	psy	F	Psychanalyse/Neutralité	psychanalyse	npov	1	1	19
+7033980	psy	F	Psychanalyse/arch3	psychanalyse	archive	31	234	28684
+8731087	psy	F	Psychanalyse/arch4	psychanalyse	archive	31	209	21894
+8731091	psy	F	Psychanalyse/arch5	psychanalyse	archive	3	9	1000
+8768585	psy	F	Psychanalyse/arch6	psychanalyse	archive	9	43	4829
+9394134	refugeeCrisis	F	Crise migratoire en Europe	crise_migratoire_en_europe	current	29	105	9708
+117744	VP	F	Vladimir Poutine/Archive 1	vladimir_poutine	archive	81	446	56918
+1115635	VP	F	Vladimir Poutine/Neutralité	vladimir_poutine	npov	1	1	20
+12324468	VP	F	Vladimir Poutine	vladimir_poutine	current	2	6	593
+144242	zelda	F	The Legend of Zelda	the_legend_of_zelda	current	29	93	6663
+9068046	0911attacks	G	Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001	terroranschläge_am_11_september_2001	current	2	2	52
+10040013	0911attacks	G	Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001/Archiv/1	terroranschläge_am_11_september_2001	archive	138	554	47602
+10040025	0911attacks	G	Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001/Archiv/2	terroranschläge_am_11_september_2001	archive	96	514	44748
+10040051	0911attacks	G	Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001/Archiv/3	terroranschläge_am_11_september_2001	archive	91	364	34875
+10040058	0911attacks	G	Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001/Archiv/4	terroranschläge_am_11_september_2001	archive	21	117	8374
+10040075	0911attacks	G	Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001/Archiv	terroranschläge_am_11_september_2001	archive	1	1	11
+123956	chiro	G	Chiropraktik	chiropraktik	current	3	6	437
+7266592	chiro	G	Chiropraktik/Archiv/1	chiropraktik	archive	26	120	13388
+12253	fem	G	Feminismus	feminismus	current	3	5	395
+438636	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/001	feminismus	archive	74	309	25780
+3875454	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/002	feminismus	archive	25	330	34280
+5697813	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/004	feminismus	archive	29	264	19947
+5699223	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv	feminismus	archive	2	2	19
+5699332	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/003	feminismus	archive	43	485	34082
+5699342	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/2009	feminismus	archive	3	3	22
+7712946	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/005	feminismus	archive	13	199	18825
+8144626	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/006	feminismus	archive	33	355	28772
+10544804	fem	G	Feminismus/Archiv/007	feminismus	archive	8	26	2230
+1066824	GMO	G	Gentechnisch veränderter Organismus	gentechnisch_veränderter_organismus	current	2	3	206
+4839983	GMO	G	Gentechnisch veränderter Organismus/Archiv/1	gentechnisch_veränderter_organismus	archive	21	33	3487
+73285	psy	G	Psychoanalyse	psychoanalyse	current	5	17	1290
+1734540	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archiv/001	psychoanalyse	archive	24	103	11751
+2409433	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archivübersicht	psychoanalyse	archive	1	1	18
+2410254	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archiv/2006	psychoanalyse	archive	3	3	22
+2675002	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archiv/004	psychoanalyse	archive	41	312	32129
+3441034	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archiv/002	psychoanalyse	archive	45	327	39713
+4448166	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archiv/003	psychoanalyse	archive	31	287	37202
+6602146	psy	G	Psychoanalyse/Archiv/005	psychoanalyse	archive	29	195	15762
+8962182	refugeeCrisis	G	Flüchtlingskrise in Europa ab 2015	flüchtlingskrise_in_europa_ab_2015	current	5	10	692
+8967849	refugeeCrisis	G	Flüchtlingskrise in Europa ab 2015/Archiv/1	flüchtlingskrise_in_europa_ab_2015	archive	52	568	32757
+9004327	refugeeCrisis	G	Flüchtlingskrise in Europa ab 2015/Archiv/2	flüchtlingskrise_in_europa_ab_2015	archive	82	684	40770
+9222268	refugeeCrisis	G	Flüchtlingskrise in Europa ab 2015/Archiv/3	flüchtlingskrise_in_europa_ab_2015	archive	50	326	26815
+9762462	refugeeCrisis	G	Flüchtlingskrise in Europa ab 2015/Archiv/4	flüchtlingskrise_in_europa_ab_2015	archive	49	416	29241
+10193069	refugeeCrisis	G	Flüchtlingskrise in Europa ab 2015/Archiv/5	flüchtlingskrise_in_europa_ab_2015	archive	65	601	49252
+150459	VP	G	Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin	wladimir_wladimirowitsch_putin	current	3	8	865
+4085891	VP	G	Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin/Archiv/001	wladimir_wladimirowitsch_putin	archive	69	164	10741
+8303069	VP	G	Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin/Archiv/002	wladimir_wladimirowitsch_putin	archive	57	449	33890
+8849243	VP	G	Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin/Archiv/003	wladimir_wladimirowitsch_putin	archive	30	365	31693
+9451381	VP	G	Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin/Archiv/004	wladimir_wladimirowitsch_putin	archive	34	262	18520
+342485	zelda	G	The Legend of Zelda/Archiv/1	the_legend_of_zelda	archive	76	394	24634
+1787404	zelda	G	The Legend of Zelda	the_legend_of_zelda	current	8	79	6760

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_1069640.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,349 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 8</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">1069640.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>KslotteBot et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 8</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%208" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">1069640</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2010-09-22T00:39:48Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 8</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_1_1">
+            <p> Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.</p>
+            <p> Old talk archived at:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive</item>
+              <item>Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive2</item>
+              <item>Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive3</item>
+              <item>Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive4</item>
+              <item>Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive5</item>
+              <item>Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive6</item>
+              <item>Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive7</item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_2">
+          <head>Naming of 7WTC</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-05-31T04:59+00" who="WU00001190" xml:id="i.1069640_2_1">
+            <p> The latest edit changed the name of "Seven World Trade Center" to "World Trade Center Seven"; I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, as nearly all references I see for the WTC complex buildings have the number before the letters.  1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC, etc.  If the editor (User:Milk) can justify this change, please do.  In fact, the editor should notice that the exact paragraph he edited has the phrase "One and Two World Trade Center."  Should 7WTC be treated differently because it wasn't technically part of the WTC development? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>04:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_3">
+          <head>MEMRI</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-06-01T18:12+00" who="WU00264055" xml:id="i.1069640_3_1">
+            <p> Why the hell are we using MEMRI as a source? They are obviously heavily biased against Arabs and Muslims, and could almost be considered a hate group.</p>
+            <p> If there *are* any other sources for the same information that come from groups besides, say, FLAME or any other sort of thinktank-like organization (whether it is pro-israeli or pro-arab), then I'd not object to its use here.</p>
+            <p> But MEMRI? Come on, people.</p>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:68.110.71.34"><name full="yes">68.110.71.34</name></ref><date>18:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-22T17:58+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_3_2">
+            <p> MEMRI is controversial, but it's what they choose to include is controversial. It seems as if their translations are accurate. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_4">
+          <head>Pictures</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00002883" xml:id="i.1069640_4_1">
+            <p> I have a number of pictures of Manhattan, including by the sealed-off area around GZ, taken a week after the attacks. I've released them under CC-BY-ND, and they are available at http://www.jerky.net/~romulus/nyc/pix.html. HTH, <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KeithTyler"><name full="yes">KeithTyler</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_5">
+          <head>If You Were President on 9/11?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_5_1">
+            <p> Something I wonder about is how other, "ordinary" Americans would have reacted if they were President of the United States on 9/11?  Say what you want about Bush, and I can say quite a bit.  But there are a lot of people on this Earth who should thank whatever deity they worship that I was not President of the United States on 9/11.  My response would have been "Biblical" in proportions.  It would have been the stuff of legends.  Osama bin Laden most certainly would not be free by now.  Some nations would probably only be a memory.  And I would not have cared what the rest of the world thought of my actions.  That's how mad I was on September 11th.  It scares me to think of what I would have done if I were in Bush's position.  You think Bush is a reckless cowboy, just consider what oridinary Americans, myself included, would have done in his shoes.  What would you have done?</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-12T02:46+00" who="WU00004673" xml:id="i.1069640_5_2">
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesster79"><name full="yes">Jesster79</name></ref> JesseG <date>02:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-12T03:47+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_5_3">
+            <p> JesseG, this ain't about opinion. Wikipedia isn't meant to be POV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-22T15:53+00" who="WU00005137" xml:id="i.1069640_5_4">
+            <p>You're right in many ways (though this is nothing to do with the article). I don't know what I would have done. However it disturbs me that what was actually done (among other things) was to continue sitting reading a children's book for several minutes after being told about the attacks. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJ%20Clayworth"><name full="yes">DJ Clayworth</name></ref><date>15:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_6">
+          <head>US/Eurocentric Article Pieces</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00010933" xml:id="i.1069640_6_1">
+            <p> I find the article to have many moments that are worded from a perspective of the US and it's allies in a tone that is for an audience of the US and it's allies.</p>
+            <p> Examples:</p>
+            <p> "'Earlier revelations"'</p>
+            <p> ... The setting of that open-ended standard was treated as a refusal based on sympathy with and dependence on Al Qaida, and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.</p>
+            <p> "I am concerned that this could be interpreted as meaning the world community held that opinion by someone reading it some considerable time removed from now. I feel we must make sure this doesn't sound like the world was against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but the U.S.  the majority of the U.N. at this time."</p>
+            <p> "'Effects"'</p>
+            <p> ...As well as the invasion of Afghanistan, claims of a strong link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the argument that the attack demonstrated the need to preemptively strike at forces hostile to US and western interests, were used by the US Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and although prior to the 9/11 attacks it was conventional wisdom that such links existed, the issue was hotly questioned afterwards. The official panel investigating the attacks reported that, while contacts were made, it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda</p>
+            <p> "There is not enough clarity that the inferred relationship between Iraq  the hijaackers was held mainly by the US and future coalition partners."</p>
+            <p> Also calling the acts terrorists without qualifying that term as being the US  it's allies' perspective infers that the world-at-large considered it a terrorist attack. There are many people that view the attack as terrifying, but can understand the view from the attackers that it was an unconventional attack in a war they declared. By not being careful in stating it is the US  Allies' view we run the risk of misrepresenting the act.</p>
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed">
+                <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duemellon">
+                  <name full="yes">Duemellon</name>
+                </ref>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-22T17:56+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_6_2">
+            <p>I think that the attack was viewed by most countries and people as terrorist - Nethertheless, we should clarify that it is "widely regarded as terrorist". <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-23T12:01+00" who="WU00010933" xml:id="i.1069640_6_3">
+            <p>However, whether it was popularly regarded as a terrorist attack or not, the terminology of calling it "terrorist" implies a degree of depravity, wickedness, and unwarranted cruelty. I feel that calling it  "terrorist" without further qualification of perspective, doees a great disservice to the global minority who refer to it as a revolt, revenge, or an act of war. In other words: An opinion held by the majority is still an opinion. So statements referring to it as "terrorist" without qualification of who's perspective it is, associates an opinion. I think the word "terrorist" Needs to be plastered throughout this article, but it needs to be qualified as a perspective. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duemellon"><name full="yes">Duemellon</name></ref><date>12:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-18T02:53+00" who="WU00221898" xml:id="i.1069640_6_4">
+            <p>I certainly agree with the need to create a more NPOV.  I removed the part claiming that the Iraq-Al Quaeda link was conventional wisdom, and am also a little disturbed by the tone of the Arab/Muslim reaction segment.  Perhaps it would be best to flesh out those parts in more neutral wording, I don't think anyone would be against it as long as there isn't a tendency to slant things the other way. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yitzhak"><name full="yes">Yitzhak</name></ref><date>02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_7">
+          <head>Emotional &amp;amp; perspective response</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_7_1">
+            <p> I'm encouraged by the intentional inclusion of some mention of the emotional response to the events were included. I'm also encouraged that they appear to be properly noted for the perspective they have. However, I think we could elaborate more on the emotional/psychological impact of the event  perspectives at the time.</p>
+            <p> I feel this could be important to properly frame the context for future readers by including the sentiments floating around the event.</p>
+            <p> Something needs to include the increase in National pride, solidarity, support, concern, and sympathy expressed by the general US citizenry for the duration immediately after the attacks.</p>
+            <p> Something needs to elaborate about how much the event disrupted daily life throughout the land as fear of a follow-up attack caused widespread anxiety attacks, lost wages due to sick days, drop in all forms of travel, exacerbated an economic downturn, and innundation with information.</p>
+            <p> A later polarization of the populace into various groups some claiming victimhood of the US and others claiming it was painful retribution (or a range in between).</p>
+            <p> I think it's important to properly include the emotional reaction of the general population and the way it changed over time. But I'm terrible at writing those things, so I'm wondering what could be said.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-15T04:58+00" who="WU00236298" xml:id="i.1069640_7_2">
+            <p>I support this, as well. It would be highly valuable to convey to those too young to remember or those not in the country at the time, the widespread psychological impact it caused. It was unlike anything I've ever seen. Even more interesting would be a discussion of what impact it still has today. Any sociologists care to bite, please? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miss%20Puffskein"><name full="yes">Miss Puffskein</name></ref><date>04:58, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_8">
+          <head>Article's last paragraph</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_8_1">
+            <p> Hi,</p>
+            <p> The last paragraph of the articles is dubious. It not true that the theories of conspiracy are accurate.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-23T12:05+00" who="WU00010933" xml:id="i.1069640_8_2">
+            <p>I think the addition of the Arabic media's response is appropriate in general. However, I think the presentation of it in this article was not done very well. I propose a new section where we discuss or compare global faction's opinion  perspective on the events  their reaction to the U.S.'s reaction. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duemellon"><name full="yes">Duemellon</name></ref><date>12:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-23T12:45+00" who="WU00001086" xml:id="i.1069640_8_3">
+            <p>You're very right. But that last paragraph is a quote. It's a fact that the Egyptian publication said it, even if what they said is disputed. I'll make it clearer that it's a quote, and remove the dispute notice. (If you object, let me know.) <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell"><name full="yes">Quadell</name></ref> (talk) <date>12:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-07-23T14:13+00" who="WU00010933" xml:id="i.1069640_8_4">
+            <p>One more thing: It is probably prudent to avoid using relative temporal terms from a basis of contemporary time (In other words, using "recent" to describe the time the article was posted). In twenty years that article will not be recent. ;) --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duemellon"><name full="yes">Duemellon</name></ref><date>14:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_9">
+          <head>9/11 conspiracy theories</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-03T18:28+00" who="WU00016311" xml:id="i.1069640_9_1">
+            <p> Should we start a new article on kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories?  The supposed Israeli attack on the WTC is coming back again. - <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Texture">x</ref> T949;x<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Texture"><name full="yes">Texture</name></ref> ur949; <date>18:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-03T19:42+00" who="WU00001086" xml:id="i.1069640_9_2">
+            <p>It's less kooky to believe that Mossad was trailing the 9/11 terrorists to get information on what they were up to. It's well documented that a wide Israeli "art student" spy ring was operating inside the U.S., and was discovered and kicked out, while the 9/11 hijackers were also entering the U.S. Mossad is top-notch -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they were onto the 9/11 plot (or at least the fact that there were al-Qaida ops in the U.S. planning "something") while our FBI hadn't put the peices together yet. If those Israelis "were" Mossad agents, and that's at least plausible in my opinion, then you can see why the State Department wouldn't want to make a big fuss about it. No point in making our ally look bad. So those links aren't necessarily of the ""The Israelis done it!"" variety. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell"><name full="yes">Quadell</name></ref> (talk) <date>19:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-30T06:41+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.1069640_9_3">
+            <p>There is that September 11 rumours and misinformation page that would have some of the conspiracy theories that you have referred to. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>06:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_10">
+          <head>About the link to 911truth.org</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-04T17:45+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_10_1">
+            <p> Their onsite "'Editorial policy and disclaimer"' says enough, if you ask me:</p>
+            <p> "We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at 911Truth.org. Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best.</p>
+            <p> - We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur.</p>
+            <p> - Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion.</p>
+            <p> - Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones that might alienate potential allies."</p>
+            <p> It's called NPOV. That is why Wikipedia will not allow you to label that link that way. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>17:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-04T23:53+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_10_2">
+            <p> I disagree with <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref></signed>, this isn't about NPOV, this is about voting republican. He is one, that much becomes clear to us, and that is why he does not want to believe that things have been covered up. (Unsigned anon comment)</p>
+            <p> For one, I don't plan on voting for Bush at all -_- - I'm doing this in the name of NPOV. There are people who believe there is a coverup and there are people who don't, so to adhere to the NPOV principle, we must label the link in a factual manner. - And  please sign comments with four tildes! <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>23:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-05T02:44+00" who="WU00001086" xml:id="i.1069640_10_3">
+            <p>I'm an anti-Bush activist. I think much of what's on 911truth is probably correct. But I also respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and it is not acceptable to call the site "a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup and related facts" on Wikipedia. That's just the way it goes here, like it or not. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell"><name full="yes">Quadell</name></ref> (talk) <date>02:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_11">
+          <head>Some OverGeneralization</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_11_1">
+            <p> This article states that Sadam Hussein is a muslim. But it is not the case and Irak was a laic country.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-17T20:01+00" who="WU00002883" xml:id="i.1069640_11_2">
+            <p>While Iraq's government and law were ostensibly secular, Saddam was in fact a Sunni Muslim. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KeithTyler"><name full="yes">KeithTyler</name></ref><date>20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-18T04:57+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.1069640_11_3">
+            <p>I expect he still is a Muslim (not "was"). <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>04:57, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_12">
+          <head>WhisperToMe</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-30T06:24+00" who="WU00001190" xml:id="i.1069640_12_1">
+            <p> WhisperToMe, why do you think the assertion that al Qaeda was unquestionably involved in the attack should be removed from the lede paragraph? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>06:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-30T23:58+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_12_2">
+            <p> I didn't remove that. Come to think of it, I thought I added it back. Some other guy removed it and I added it back, I think. Maybe I made a mistake... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)</date></signed> (Nope, I didn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=5536845oldid=5536701</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-30T23:59+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_12_3">
+            <p> Instead of removing it, I'd prefer phrasing it differently, but I was lazy at the time. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>23:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-31T01:33+00" who="WU00001190" xml:id="i.1069640_12_4">
+            <p>Well, er, either way, what you put in seems quite good. :) Sorry if I wrongly accused. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_13">
+          <head>Saddam an enemy of al-Qaida</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-08-31T16:32+00" who="WU00001086" xml:id="i.1069640_13_1">
+            <p> 195.7.55.146, while it's true that the Ba'athist Iraq government was not an ally of the Islamist al-Qaida network, this part of this article isn't the place to say it. If you look through the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the topic is fully covered there. Please stop engaging in a revert war. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell"><name full="yes">Quadell</name></ref> (talk) <date>16:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_13_2">
+            <list>
+              <item> But the opposite is implied in that sentence. Surely it should be noted that while one (afghanistan) was connected to Al-Qaida, the other (Iraq) was not - 195.7.55.146</item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_14">
+          <head>august 6th presidential briefing and CIA failures</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-06T08:59+00" who="WU00126092" xml:id="i.1069640_14_1">
+            <p> What I'm missing here is the briefing the president received on august 6th called 'Osama bin Ladin determined to strike US" Why does the text so far doesn't mention anything about the risk Al-Qaida was to US security? Why doesn't the text mentions anything about failures of the CIA and FBI? Maybe I overlooked something? A source for  the august 6th briefing can be found http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf here. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bontenbal"><name full="yes">Bontenbal</name></ref><date>08:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_15">
+            <head>What the article leaves out....THE WHOLE TRUTH!</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1069640_15_1">
+              <p> Learning from the September 11 Attacks</p>
+              <p> By Mark Weber - September 15, 2001</p>
+              <p> With thousands of victims and riveting images of death and destruction, war has come home to America with terrible, devastating suddenness. Together with our fellow citizens, we mourn the many victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building. But beyond the feelings of grief and fury must come clarity and understanding.</p>
+              <p> President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."</p>
+              <p> But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the U.S. was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."</p>
+              <p> In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these well-organized attacks of suicidal desperation.</p>
+              <p> These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.'" (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)</p>
+              <p> Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.</p>
+              <p> America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.</p>
+              <p> For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.</p>
+              <p> Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and warplanes in, for example, Iraq.</p>
+              <p> Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent." Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.</p>
+              <p> Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died as a result of sanctions against Iraq. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "... We think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996).</p>
+              <p> President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism."</p>
+              <p> But such calls sound hollow given the U.S. government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks -- in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.</p>
+              <p> American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.</p>
+              <p> Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11 attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new U.S. military action against Israel's many enemies.</p>
+              <p> In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the U.S. government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.</p>
+              <p> What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade," but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice.</p>
+              <p> In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them.</p>
+              <p> But the jolting impact of the September 11 attacks -- which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky -- will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world. More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.</p>
+              <p> In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.</p>
+              <p> Over the long run, the September 11 attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.</p>
+              <p> For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11 attacks, this work will be more important than ever.</p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-11T21:57+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_15_2">
+              <p> Published in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 2001 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pages 8-9. (This essay has been circulated worldwide, in English, German and Arabic, in print and on numerous websites.)</p>
+              <p> Bah, it's POV. We at Wikipedia use NPOV. Oh, and Al-Qaida has targeted places in France, Singapore, and many other countries. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>21:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1069640_16">
+          <head>Congo Civil War</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T20:39+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_16_1">
+            <p> User:Xed tries to put that Congo Civil War phrase in this article. I feel that all the sentence is doing is marginalizing September 11 in a POV manner. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:01+00" who="WU00042158" xml:id="i.1069640_16_2">
+            <p>The Congo Civil War was going on at the same time as the attacks, and was perhaps the most fatal event of the time period.  Therefore its an important piece of information which puts  the Sept 11 attacks into a global context.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xed"><name full="yes">Xed</name></ref><date>21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:16+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_16_3">
+            <p>Also, that's three million people from 1988 to nowadays. September 11 unfolded within one day. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:55+00" who="WU00042158" xml:id="i.1069640_16_4">
+            <p>1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xed"><name full="yes">Xed</name></ref><date>21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:18+00" who="WU00189824" xml:id="i.1069640_16_5">
+            <p>Agreed.  Also, this was not within the context of a war. The Congo Civil war is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loweeel"><name full="yes">Loweeel</name></ref><date>21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:55+00" who="WU00042158" xml:id="i.1069640_16_6">
+            <p>The war was going on at the same time--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xed"><name full="yes">Xed</name></ref><date>21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:56+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_16_7">
+            <p>Doesn't matter. A lot of things went on at the same time that had nothing to do with 9/11. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T21:55+00" who="WU00042158" xml:id="i.1069640_16_8">
+            <p>1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War and it was the most fatal war of the period. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s. Only the worst type of Ugly American would not want it mentioned--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xed"><name full="yes">Xed</name></ref><date>21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T22:16+00" who="WU00016311" xml:id="i.1069640_16_9">
+            <p>What does this have to do with an attack on America? Why are you comparing a single attack to a war? What you are trying to insert adds "'nothing"' to the article.  - <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Texture">x</ref> T949;x<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Texture"><name full="yes">Texture</name></ref> ur949; <date>22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T22:29+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_16_10">
+            <p>Hm, you are right about it being 1998, Xed. Still, that doesn't matter in this argument. The phrase doesn't belong there. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>22:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T23:19+00" who="WU00056607" xml:id="i.1069640_16_11">
+            <p> Page is now protected due to the revert war. -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyrius"><name full="yes">Cyrius</name></ref>| <date>23:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T23:21+00" who="WU00001290" xml:id="i.1069640_16_12">
+            <p> I, as an outside party, find completely inadequate the comparison text being repeatedly added by User:Xed. Just my two cents. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cantus"><name full="yes">Cantus</name></ref><date>23:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T23:27+00" who="WU00000044" xml:id="i.1069640_16_13">
+            <p> Irrelevant and intrusive. A reference to the Congo Civil War could just as sensibly be inserted into "every" entry describing contempoaneous events. BTW, see the history of User:Xed: one confrontation after another...  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wetman"><name full="yes">Wetman</name></ref><date>23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-12T23:28+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1069640_16_14">
+            <p> I added him to the RFC . <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>23:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_1086269.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 9</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">1086269.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>KslotteBot et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 9</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%209" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">1086269</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2010-09-22T00:40:11Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 9</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_1">
+          <head>Celebrating 9/11</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-15T20:24+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_1_1">
+            <p> Is there a reliable, objective source to substantiate this broad, inflammatory statement?</p>
+            <p> "In numerous cities of the Islamic world, in 2002, 2003 and again in 2004, the anniversary of the attacks, September 11, has been celebrated with crowded streets filled with dancing chanting men and celebratory gunfire, documented at al-Jazeera and very briefly in the Western media."</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>Links mentioning "celebration" of 911 attacks: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968195/posts, http://www.bible-prophecy.com/warmideast2001.htm010911, http://www.samizdata.net/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=6642, http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD77804. The particular reference I found was to a celebration in London on Sep 11 2004 http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD77804_edn1, which contains: "The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun had announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 Suicide Attackers," but had cancelled it at the last minute." I couldn't find anything mentioning dancing in the streets, however. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>20:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1086269_1_2">
+            <list>
+              <item>*I didn't realize that London was considered part of the Islamic world already. Perhaps the article should name the celebrants as members of "the UK extremist group al-Muhajiroun" rather than inflaming the gentle reader with the image of barbarian hordes dancing all over the Islamic world in celebration of 9/11's carnage. Perhaps a quote from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be appropriate here if Wikipedia would like to record the reactions to 9/11 from Christian leaders.</item>
+              <item>**http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=articlenode=contentId=A28620-2001Sep14notFound=true</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says</p>
+            <p> "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.</p>
+            <p> "Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."</p>
+            <p> Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."</p>
+            <p> Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_2">
+          <head>Ramzi Binalshibh</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-15T19:48+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1086269_2_1">
+            <p> Ramzi Binalshibh's name is misspelled "Binalsibh" in two places on the page.</p>
+            <p> No it's not "misspelled" - It is inconsistent. ;) <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_3">
+          <head>Michael Moore's allegations</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-15T20:37+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_3_1">
+            <p> The allegations that "all member of the bin Laden family" and other Saudis were ferried out of the USA during the three day flight ban following 9/11 are inaccurate.</p>
+            <p> "Civilian air travel across the United States was8212;for the first time ever8212;suspended almost totally for three days, with numerous locations and events affected by closures, postponements, cancellations, and evacuations. However, according to the controversial political commentator Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, there was during this time an airlift to Saudi Arabia of all members of the bin Laden family in the USA at the time, leading to claims that potentiallly useful witnesses had been allowed by the US government to escape investigation"</p>
+            <p> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm</p>
+            <p> But the key point is that the Saudis mentioned in these accounts were not flown out of the country 8212; they were assembled at locations from which they could be conveniently flown out of the country once regular airline travel resumed.</p>
+            <p> ........</p>
+            <p> No news account had a flight of Saudis leaving the U.S. until after the resumption of normal air traffic. The earliest date posited for a flight bearing bin Laden family members leaving the U.S. was September 14, a date by which the resumption of air travel had already begun:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>OK, but the point that should be made is that the Bin Ladens were "rescued" by the US authorities and allowed to go to Saudi Arabia at the request of a high ranking Saudi official, rather than being treated as potential witnesses in a regular murder enquiry. It is usual, I understand, in a murder enquiry, for potential witnesses to be asked to remain available to police in case they have information that might be useful, such as, in this case, the location of their relative. Whether they flew straight to Saudi Arabia or whether they were flown first to some assembly point while everyone else in the US was grounded is perhaps useful to know, but it doesn't detract from the main point being made here. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>20:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1086269_3_2">
+            <list>
+              <item>*The FBI had an opportunity to question the Saudis before they left the country and apparently did not consider them witnesses or otherwise deserving of detention.</item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_4">
+          <head>War Crimes, Part 3</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-16T04:19+00" who="WU00013448" xml:id="i.1086269_4_1">
+            <p> I deleted the section on war crimes. If anyone disagrees with me, I hope you will discuss it and provide some authority specifically stating that the attacks were a war crime. Also see the material in my previous comments, from the Red Cross.</p>
+            <p> I forgot to sign that.</p>
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed">
+                <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maurreen">
+                  <name full="yes">Maurreen</name>
+                </ref>
+                <date>04:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_5">
+          <head>Michael Moore's allegations again</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1086269_5_1">
+            <p> Moore's allegations have wide currency because of the success of his movie F-9/11 but, unfortunately, they are not entirely factually accurate according to Snopes.com, the 9/11 Commission, and journalists who have looked at the sequence carefully.</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>In that case you really HAVE to first make/be sure that Moore was actually wrong, which I very much doubt after thoroughly reading http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinetheme=coverupstartpos=100</item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-26T05:07+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_2">
+            <p>Thanks for the links. I wish there was more substance to these allegations but he's really just grasping at straws. There were no unusual flights. Moore even admits it. He hinges the accusation that one flight was flown out of Tampa a day early based on local newspaper article speculation. Very weak. The Bush-Saudi connection exists, no doubt. The rich and powerful flock together. But then where do you go with it from there? That doesn't make them responsible for 9/11. It's a sideshow. Can you tie up all those Michael Moorish insinuations in a way that works for an encyclopedia and not some conspiracy theory rant? We want wiki NPOV facts, not innuendo and fiction.<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>05:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-22T20:50+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_3">
+            <p> I suggest keeping the conspiracy speculation limited to the conspiracy section of this main page. If the conspiracy needs alot of explicating, there is a wiki dedicated to just that. Conspiracies are interesting and potentially damning but unless backed up by strong facts, I believe they detract from this otherwise solid and important article.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>20:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-23T09:11+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_5_4">
+            <list>
+              <item>From: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm: In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>09:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-23T15:53+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_5">
+            <p>"charter aviation was allowed to resume on the morning of September 13, several hours before the Tampa-to-Lexington flight is said to have departed, which would mean that the plane, which Vanity Fair says was chartered, did not need any clearance to fly. Overall, it appears that all flights -- the ones gathering up Saudis domestically and the one from Boston to Jedda -- took place after the government allowed aviation to resume." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350 <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-23T09:27+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_5_6">
+            <list>
+              <item>And from the same source: Clearly bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after the September 11 attacks, and this was effected with the approval and assistance of the American government. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>09:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-23T15:53+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_7">
+            <p>What are you suggesting? That bin Laden family members are somehow guilty by association of the crimes of Osama bin laden? The FBI knew who was flying, they could have questioned or arrested anyone on any flight leaving the USA, as I'm sure they would if they had even a sliver of a reason. They authorites detained more than 1200 innocent Muslims on various immigration and other pretexts in the weeks after 9/11 "just in case" they were involved in terrorism. Would you have all Saudi Arabians in the USA and all bin Laden family members arrested and held in detention because of their surnames, nationality, or religion despite the lack any evidence of criminal wrongdoing? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-23T00:48+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_5_8">
+            <list>
+              <item>I am no supporter of any conspiracy theory. The idea that the Saudis requested that their nationals should be removed from USA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, particularly when it was announced that Osama Bin Laden was a prime suspect, is not fantastic. (Moore shows an interview with the Saudi minister which attests to this.) The fact that the US acquiesced to this request, given the economic dependency that various US interests have on Saudi goodwill, is not surprising. The fact that a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave, appears to be from independent sources. What is surprising is that any wikipedian should wish to censor the fact that an Oscar-winning journalist has reported this story. I think the intrinsic interest that this story has means that it should remain prominent in this article. I fear that it is embarrassment and insecurity of position that is prompting my censors. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>00:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-23T15:53+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_9">
+            <p>First of all, censorship and defense of the Bush administration are completely anathema to me. It's funny that I would even be accused of it. Please don't be paranoid. I am just trying to be objective. I agree with your basic premise that global economic dependence on Mideast oil contributes to US foreign policies of propping up repressive regimes like the Saudi government, waging wars on Iraq, building military bases in Saudi Arabia, and defending Israel (considered a bulwark against Soviet domination of the Mideast at one time); and that the al-Qaida movement and 9/11 attacks represent radical resistance to these US foreign policies. These foreign policy issues need to be explored but how do the bin Laden family flights after 9/11 explore those issues? If the White House gave special permission for bin Laden family flights after 9/11 as Michael Moore claimed, then that would presumably reflect the tip of the iceberg of US-Saudi relations. I think Michael Moore hoped that F-9/11 would cause viewers to question US foreign policies that led to 9/11 instead of believing government propaganda that "terrorists hate America because of our freedom" and i commend him for that. Unfortunately, the issues are so complex and convoluted that people can't begin to peel the layers of US foreign policy intrigue so Moore's rabble-rousing populist message ends up feeding anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria because viewers ask, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!"  In fact, the flights carry very little significance, if any, because apparently no special permissions were granted. The danger in using weak or forged arguments should be clear from the Dan Rather case. It can backfire against the accuser and lower the credibility of an otherwise good case. Even though close US-Saudi ties deserve scrutiny, there does not appear to have been anything particularly unusual, illegal, or covered-up in the bin Laden family flights. The bin Laden family members and other Saudis were understandably fleeing from what they expected to be an ignorant violent backlash against innocent Arabs, Muslims and people surnamed "bin Laden". You claim that the "US acquiesced to this request" but apparently there were no special privileges to fly internationally during an overall public flight ban as Michael Moore asserted in F-9/11 and no privileges were issued even domestically as Snopes.com claims but has been debunked http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350 elsewhere, as I noted above. You claim that "a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave" but there is no evidence that they would or should have been detained. The FBI had an opportunity to question them but had no reason to detain any of them. These are people who would be much more likely to become targets of al-Qaida than members of al-Qaida. The US is not dependent on goodwill of Saudi elites. The US is trying to protect the Saudi elites from bin Laden! If people are suggesting that the Saudis on those flights after 9/11 were involved in the 9/11 attacks but the White House let them leave the country, then I suggest the issue be explored under Conspiracy Theories. I don't think it should clutter the documentation of Effects of the Attacks/Grounding of Flights. All of above IMHO. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-24T11:13+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_5_10">
+            <list>
+              <item>If a relative of yours were suspected of murder, would you not think it reasonable that the police might say to you "Hang about, mate. You might have some information that will help us catch the suspect"? Or would you expect them to say, "Gosh, there's something else going on here. I'm not going to use a weak of forged argument to detain you. You'd better get out of the country fast. And never mind if you have information that might help us catch our suspect. We'll do without that because "'there's something else going on here"'!. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-24T14:43+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_11">
+            <p>Do you think that bin Laden family members were admitted to the USA, allowed tohttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1564428.stm donate money to Harvard University, own property and invest in US businesses without the FBI knowing that they were related to a man who was already the world's most wanted terrorist prior to September 11, 2001? Do you think the bin Laden family members were not already questioned, investigated and probably under surveillance by the FBI/CIA? You think they had new information about Osama's whereabouts but were spirited out of the USA by the Bush administration because...............? Please elaborate. What does Michael Moore think? There is a conspiracy wiki for the discussion.   <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>14:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-24T19:58+00" who="WU00018433" xml:id="i.1086269_5_12">
+            <p>The something else going on is that the US is evidently treating some people as above the law. Why that is can plausibly be explained by the level of Saudi investment, including that of the Bin Laden family itself, in the US. There's no conspiracy there. The only conspiracy is that there are some who would like to cover this story up because they find it embarrassing and, no doubt, because, as Alberuni has written, people might say, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" Surely that IS the point. We can explain: those rich Saudis are allowed to fly BECAUSE they are rich and powerful. Never mind that they just "might" be able to give us information that just "might" help us catch our suspect (ostensibly the most wanted man in the world), as would be the case in other murder enquiries - yes, I've been watching Columbo. There is something indecent about letting the Saudis fly away just like that, whichever way you look at it, and it is surely a relevant part of the story of 9/11. I deem those who revert the facts that I put into the main article to be the conspirators here. If my relative were suspected of murder and I said, "Sorry mate, I'm pissing off to Arabia and I'm not coming back", I think the police might get an order to take away my passport, pending future enquiries. But if I'm called Bin Laden then it's, "Yes, of course, sir. Have a nice trip!" <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthew%20Stannard"><name full="yes">Matthew Stannard</name></ref> Matt Stan <date>19:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-24T21:53+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_5_13">
+            <p>How were they "treated above the law"? They were allowed to fly, like everyone else, AFTER the ban on charter flights was lifted 3 days after 9/11. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350   Michael Moore was mistaken about this point. (Please excuse me for disputing the allegations of an Oscar-winning movie director). If you believe innocent people should be harassed just because they are Saudi, Muslim, or members of the bin Laden family - even though they are upstanding community members, 100% innocent of any crimes and there is no reason to suspect otherwise - well, then you should understand why they would want to leave the country in a hurry. See Balbir Singh Sodhi for details. If one of your relatives commits murder and you are not involved in any way, the police will not (should not) take away your passport or deny you your basic rights. Why should they? You haven't committed a crime. Out of curiousity, what is your opinion about locking up innocent Japanese-Americans at Manzanar during WWII?  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>21:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1086269_5_14">
+            <p>The 9/11 commission reported that it was Richard Clarke (yes, the same Richard Clarke who was so critical of Bush) who was the highest ranking official to sign off on allowing the bin Laden family members to leave. They also found there was no higher political pressure to do so, as reported by the press, including "The Washington Post" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10070-2004Jul23.html.</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_6">
+          <head>www.911truth.org</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-26T21:16+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_6_1">
+            <p> There have been alot of annoying anonymous reverts regarding this link.</p>
+            <list>
+              <item> http://911truth.org/ 911Truth.org is a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup.</item>
+              <item> http://911truth.org/ 911Truth.org is a website that states that there is a coverup of the true cause of 9/11 by the U.S. Government.</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> It is neutral to describe the website that states that there is a U.S. government coverup of the true cause of 9/11.    It is not neutral to refer to a campaign to educate the public about "the Sept. 11th coverup." The factual basis of a Bush administration cover-up is not a neutral fact. (I wish it was; I'd like to hear it). It is an opinion. Why is this such a difficult concept? Wikipedia shouldn't take a position on whether or not there is a U.S. government cover-up. Wikipedia can report facts related to the purported cover-up. Let's report facts and stop the silly revert war over the description of this link. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>21:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_7">
+          <head>&amp;quot;World Trade Center attacks&amp;quot;</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-27T01:14+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1086269_7_1">
+            <p> Why is this page being moved now? I don't recall a poll to move this back... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>01:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-27T01:27+00" who="WU00039587" xml:id="i.1086269_7_2">
+            <p>Is this a problem? It looks like a redirect from WTC attacks with no change in content here.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alberuni"><name full="yes">Alberuni</name></ref><date>01:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-27T01:32+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1086269_7_3">
+            <p>It still is a problem because it ruins all of the redirects. If one wants to change the title of a popular article, he or she should ask around first. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>01:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-09-27T01:57+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1086269_7_4">
+            <p>As for the title itself, September 11 consisted of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania incidents. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>01:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1086269_8">
+          <head>'September 11, 2001' and '7 December 1941'</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-04T20:21+00" who="WU00006898" xml:id="i.1086269_8_1">
+            <p> The article seems to jump from the MM/DD/YY format to the DD/MM/YY format, and mostly uses the DD/MM format (eg 11 September). Also the very first sentence combines formats: The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001.</p>
+            <p> Is this just inconsistency (which should be changed to a US format of MM/DD/YY and MM/DD throughout)? Or is there some underlying purpose to it that I don't understand?</p>
+            <p> Just thought I'd ask before changing anything. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jongarrettuk"><name full="yes">Jongarrettuk</name></ref><date>20:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-04T21:23+00" who="WU00001190" xml:id="i.1086269_8_2">
+            <p>It's your fault.</p>
+            <p> ...</p>
+            <p> Oh, you probably want an explanation. :) In your settings, you must have it set to display dates in the European format, "DD Month YYYY". But that only works for linked dates, which is why almost every date on the pedia is wikified. However, the article name in the lede is not, and should not (since it would then differ from the article title). That's why. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>21:23, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_1212324.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 10</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">1212324.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>KslotteBot et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 10</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2010" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">1212324</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2010-09-22T00:23:11Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 10</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1212324_1">
+          <head>Major restructuring</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-17T19:37+00" who="WU00006898" xml:id="i.1212324_1_1">
+            <p> I have put through some major restructuing. The changes put through are as follows:</p>
+            <p> Wording added for an international audience. Where I could think of a word or spelling used throughout the English-speaking world to replace a US English term, I have done so. Where I couldn8217;t think of one to use without disturbing the flow of the article, I have not done so.</p>
+            <p> Comments about 7 WTC that are already reflected in the 7 WTC article redacted. - removed ref to 7WTC from overview.</p>
+            <p> A lot of stuff about the name has been moved to Significance of '9/11'</p>
+            <p> A lot of stuff on responsibility has been merged with  Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks</p>
+            <p> Lead section too long - some material removed and put into overview.</p>
+            <p> Reordering of information and redaction of repeated information.</p>
+            <p> 'Investigations' section removed as it didn8217;t seem to go anywhere. It said there were investigations and there was a report, but didn8217;t mention its findings.</p>
+            <p> Prediction section removed. Maybe there is a place to discuss warnings that the U.S. Government and others had before 9/11, the section that I removed doesn't really achieve this.</p>
+            <p> Conspiracy theory information moved to 9/11 conspiracy theories.</p>
+            <p> Some links removed as the list seemed too long.</p>
+            <p> There was also an intention to shorten the article to below 32kbs. I haven8217;t played around with the piccis, but there seem to be too many and to crop up in odd places now. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jongarrettuk"><name full="yes">Jongarrettuk</name></ref> jguk <date>19:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-17T23:04+00" who="WU00013448" xml:id="i.1212324_1_2">
+            <p>Good trim. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maurreen"><name full="yes">Maurreen</name></ref><date>23:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1212324_2">
+          <head>Hijackers</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-21T04:26+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1212324_2_1">
+            <p> Anyone of you editors in charge of this site, take note-</p>
+            <p> I severely object to the page "'September 11, 2001 attacks"' being as it is in its present form.</p>
+            <p> Have you all failed to recognise to see that many of the supposed Arab-Muslim hijackers are very well alive and were not involved in such attacks.</p>
+            <p> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm</p>
+            <p> Here is a list of these 'supposed hijackers' and their stata.</p>
+            <p> Khalid Al-Mihdhar</p>
+            <p> "'Salem Al-Hazmi - ALIVE"' - Works at petrochemical plant in Yanbou, Saudi Arabia. "Mr Al-Hazmi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbo</p>
+            <p> after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77</p>
+            <p> that hit the Pentagon."  Telegraph UK - 9/23/01</p>
+            <p> "'Waleed M. Al-Shehri - ALIVE"' - A pilot with Saudi Airlines, studying in Morrocco.A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Al Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official</p>
+            <p> with Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in</p>
+            <p> Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a</p>
+            <p> Moroccan airline. On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.</p>
+            <p> His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world.</p>
+            <p> That same Mr. Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack.</p>
+            <p> Daily Trust, 24th September 2001</p>
+            <p> "'Wail M. Al-Shehri - ALIVE"'</p>
+            <p> A man by the same name is a pilot, whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. "I personally talked to both</p>
+            <p> father and son today," said Gaafar Allagany, head of the Saudi Embassy's information center.   LA Times 9/21/01</p>
+            <p> "'Abdulaziz Al-Omari - ALIVE"' - Two men, same name, BOTH in Saudi Arabia.</p>
+            <p> Abdulaziz Al-Omari Number 1</p>
+            <p> Al-Omari lives with his wife and four children in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines,</p>
+            <p> walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the</p>
+            <p> American media. BBC 23rd September 2001</p>
+            <p> Omari Number 2</p>
+            <p> a) "A Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdulaziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in</p>
+            <p> 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Alomari says he informed police of the theft."</p>
+            <p> ABCNews</p>
+            <p> b) "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not</p>
+            <p> a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this."</p>
+            <p> Telegraph UK - 9/23/01</p>
+            <p> Marwan Al-Shehhi - ALIVE in Morrocco</p>
+            <p> "'Said Al-Ghamdi - ALIVE"' - Student 'Airbus 320' pilot in Tunisia. a) "I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an</p>
+            <p> Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks."  Telegraph UK - 9/23/01</p>
+            <p> b) "Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Said Al-Ghamdi."  BBC 9/23/01</p>
+            <p> c) "Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia</p>
+            <p> and the second in Tunisia for nine months." Wal Fadjri, 21st September 2001</p>
+            <p> "'Ahmed Al-Nami - ALIVE"' - An administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines, in Riyadh.</p>
+            <p> "I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never</p>
+            <p> even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked." He had never lost his passport and found it</p>
+            <p> "very worrying" that his identity appeared to have been "stolen" and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI</p>
+            <p> had said his "possible residence" was Delray Beach in Florida. " Telegraph UK, 23rd  September 2001</p>
+            <p> Furthermore, anyone who believes that although a whole Boeing 757 dematerialised in the attacks yet a passport survived and was found in the rubble has to be crazy. Only a real 'conspiracy nut' could conjure up or believe such things.</p>
+            <p> No investigations were made into the Israeli spies caught celebrating on a NY rooftop and acted suspisciously when pulled over by police, instead they were sent straight back to Israel.</p>
+            <p> Not 1 'al-qa'ida' member has been caught in the USA despite the claim made that there were 500 operatives/sleepers in the USA. Coincidentally, more than 500 Israeli spies were caught since.</p>
+            <p> As well to believe that a plane managed to hit the pentagon, driven by an amateur, and somehow left no visible point of impact directly after the attacks (the images are there, search for them) and left an area of damage smaller than the complete span of the plane, is as well absurd.</p>
+            <p> Keep looking and you'll see what really happened.</p>
+            <p> (anon post)</p>
+            <p> Or maybe, these men are just guys with the same name.</p>
+            <p> I bet if one of the hijackers was named "John Smith", and then you saw a "John Smith" on the street, you would go "Ooh! Ooh! See, see, Itolju he's not a hijacker the government islying!" (Never mind that there are many John Smiths out there) - Also, the hijackers may have stolen the identities of other people. I have no idea what that BBC guy was smoking when he made that title. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>04:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-22T04:29+00" who="WU00081035" xml:id="i.1212324_2_2">
+            <p>As far as I can tell, I am not sure about the others, but at least one of them has their own page and has a heading listed along the lines of "Mistaken Identity". As for the Israeli theory, it is listed under "Responsibility for September 11, 2001 attacks". <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheProject"><name full="yes">TheProject</name></ref><date>04:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-11-01T06:06+00" who="WU00118662" xml:id="i.1212324_2_3">
+            <p> Taking for a second your theory to be correct...  what do you posit actually happened?  What motive is there to blow up the pentagon and who do you think did it? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kizzle"><name full="yes">Kizzle</name></ref> kizzle <date>06:06, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-11-13T15:33+00" who="WU00002400" xml:id="i.1212324_2_4">
+            <p>That wasn't a theory, that was someone blowing holes in a theory.  Then you ask "what do you posit actually happened?"  you are ignoring facts in pursuit of a theory...  Let's make up a theory together... that would still be a theory.  The point is we don't know, have not been allowed to pursue evidence.  The entire building was carted away and disposed of pretty quickly and efficiently.  That's enough to make me suspicious. Wasn't it a crime scene?  Why was there less forensic detectivery done on the WTC than  it seemed to merit?  The oklahoma federal building was also buried, under the watchful eye of Wackenhut guards.  Who do you think killed Archduke Ferdinand and why?  Why were the ships left in Pearl Harbor, even though an admiral advised that it was foolhardy?  When was the earliest that the US knew of plans for Pearl Harbor?  Why did the US provoke/stage the Gulf of Tonkin incident?  Why did the US train Osama binLaden and all those other terrorists?  It  doesn't matter "who we or anyone believes" did it or why, the point is "we don't know al-Quaeda or any of the named persons in the article did it".  It's just as believable that any of a number of other equally well-supported theories are correct.  Just because american TV says it was al-Quaeda hijackers doesn't mean it's true.  And why was the building 7 info moved to another article?  Was it not actually attacked? Because it was a controlled detonation of pre-placed explosive charges?  Why did 40-year-plus veteran firefighters say they heard bombs going off inside the building?  Do they just not know the difference betweeen a fire and an explosive charge?  after 40 years of being a fire proffessional?  Why was the insurance company unable to cover the claim on the building, and why did the govt. cover their loss?  Why were lies told about how the building was constructed, when there are films available showing the actual construction available to see?  How gullible is the American public?<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pedant"><name full="yes">Pedant</name></ref><date>15:33, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1212324_2_5">
+            <p>but since you asked:  Maybe someone wanted an excuse to remove more Vested Rights from the citizens of the United States?  I know that the US govt. and some of it's agencies have created phony terrorist attacks before, but in those cases,they later admitted that they were training exercises.  AFTER they were reported as terrorist attacks by the news.  And after someone proved they were hoax attacks.</p>
+            <p> Is a training exercise what they call it when there is incontrovertible proof, and call it a terrorist attack when there isn't any proof?  Why did the 'airliner' that hit the pentagon leave no wreckage or burn marks on the lawn?  Why did it make a hole the size of a missile instead of the size of a plane?  Why did eyewitenesses say it was a missile? Why are there no windows on any of the planes?</p>
+            <p> Sure, by my definition whoever did the 9/11 attacks were terrorists.  But who did it is still an open question, or else why is there still an investigation?  Who was attacked?  The United States?  The U.S, government?  The citizens of the U.S.?  Some particular person or group of people in the WTC?  the World Trade Organization?  American people's rights?   I don't claim to know the answers, but there "'are"' questions, and those questions have not been satisfactorily answered.</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1212324_3">
+          <head>Jumpers</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-22T04:15+00" who="WU00021626" xml:id="i.1212324_3_1">
+            <p> It's hard to find good info on the jumpers. http://www.twin-towers.net/jumpers1.htm Here is an informative site. Approxomately 200 people jumped. Each fall lasted about ten seconds. It's not a professional-enough site to be linked from the page, but I thought some of you might find it interesting. <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell">x</ref>  ndash; RRR_User:Quadell_RRR "'Q"'uadell (talk) (<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell/Request%20for%20assistance"><name full="yes">Quadell/Request for assistance</name></ref> help) <date>04:15, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-29T16:17+00" who="WU00000321" xml:id="i.1212324_3_2">
+            <p>Fair warning that the site <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell">x</ref> Quadell links to also has some pretty graphic hostage-beheading images if you click around (not on the article he links to). I went to the main page and got something I wasn't looking for. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graft"><name full="yes">Graft</name></ref><date>16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-30T03:43+00" who="WU00021626" xml:id="i.1212324_3_3">
+            <p>Yeah, sorry about that. Not safe for work. Or weak stomachs. <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell">x</ref>  ndash; RRR_User:Quadell_RRR "'Q"'uadell (talk) (<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell/Request%20for%20assistance"><name full="yes">Quadell/Request for assistance</name></ref> help) <date>03:43, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1212324_4">
+          <head>please change the link to chinese</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-30T06:26+00" who="WU00284923" xml:id="i.1212324_4_1">
+            <p> the link is w:zh:20061;19968;19968;34989;20987;20107;20214;,both the zh-ch and z-tw,please use this and delete the zh-tw and zh-cn link.---<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vipuser"><name full="yes">Vipuser</name></ref><date>06:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-10-30T22:39+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.1212324_4_2">
+            <p>Why on earth was the ZH-TW removed in the first place? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>22:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.1212324_5">
+          <head>Bin Laden's Involvement</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.1212324_5_1">
+            <p> In the http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html recent tape Bin Laden claims somewhat intimate involvement.</p>
+            <p> "We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before  Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on." - Osama bin Laden</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00002400" xml:id="i.1212324_5_2">
+            <p>Isn't there incontrovertible proof tha Osama is a liar?  Isn't there strong evidence that he and his family have intimate economic connections to the Bush family?  Look, CNN is covering up the election fraud, actively changing data to make it fit, do you expect me to believe either CNN or Osama?  Conspiracy Theory has become a pejorative phrase since the assassination of JFK, now all one has to do is say conspiracy theory, and everyone just lays down and shuts up... at least that's what we are supposed to do.  Look into some of what has classicly been labelled 'conspiracy theory' and see what you really think... how many of those turned out to be true?<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pedant"><name full="yes">Pedant</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_14700304.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,519 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 35</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">14700304.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>SporkBot et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 35</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2035" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">14700304</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2014-11-01T23:58:08Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 35</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_1">
+          <head>Source</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-24T14:12+00" who="WU00008950" xml:id="i.14700304_1_1">
+            <p> In the lead, the source for the act been done by "Islamic terrorists" is: cite web|title=Security Council Condemns, 'In Strongest Terms' Terrorist Attacks on the United States|publisher=United Nations|date=September 12, 2001|url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm|accessdate=2006-09-11. Can someone provide a quote of where exactly the terrorists are descried as "Islamic". Thanks.<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bless%20sins"><name full="yes">Bless sins</name></ref><date>14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-24T17:04+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.14700304_1_2">
+            <p>http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html This source by the CBC, about bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks calls al-Qaeda a "militant Islamic group." This source is used about midway through the second sentence of the article. There are probably many more sources in the article that describe the perpetrators as such. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-25T08:17+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.14700304_1_3">
+            <p>An asside... isn't it funny how when something like this happens, the group most closely linked to the people involved continue to question over and over again who actually caused the event? Example, Germany/Nazis and the Holocaust. So much "Are you sure we did it? I don't remember it... perhaps you could provide more evidence..." Anyway, sorry, just going off on a tangent there. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-30T05:45+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_1_4">
+            <p>Funny? Hardly. It is essential that "the group most closely linked to the people involved" in the attrocities of 9/11 continue to blame the nineteen alleged hijackers and Muslims in general. They promised war in Afghanistan two months before 9/11. They had their troops positioned. All they needed was the pretext to avoid having it called a "war of aggression." Yes. You are right. There is a parallel with Nazi Germany. Hitler made a deal with Stalin to partition Poland. He needed a pretext for war. The SS, under a program called "Operation Himmler" staged two dozen raids on Germany, pretending they came from Poland. For the final event, the Gleiwitz incident, the SS dressed a prisoner named Honiok in a Polish uniform, shot him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz after they seized the station, broadcast in Polish for fifteen minutes, urging citizens of Upper Silesia to revolt against the Nazis, and then "took the station back." Honiok's body was PROOF that Germany needed to protect itself from state sponsored terrorism, and the next morning, three thousand German tanks, which were coincidentally, positioned on the Polish border, rolled into Poland, starting WWII. You can look that up on Wikipedia. Upper Silesia? That's where Prescott Bush, "Hitler's American Banker," set up factories, with slave labor from the concentration camps, to manufacture war materiel for the Reich. That's how the Bush family fortune was made. Funny? Hardly. We could improve the article by listing the Bush family's intimate connections to Hitler's rise to power. Source?  http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm</p>
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed">
+                <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest">
+                  <name full="yes">Wowest</name>
+                </ref>
+                <date>05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</date>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-30T13:28+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.14700304_1_5">
+            <p>Oh stop it. This is not the place to discuss politics or to promote your ideas - get a blog. Does the article blame Muslims in general? No. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-30T16:10+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_1_6">
+            <p>Hmm? I didn't bring up any "politics." Just documented, historical facts, nor did I being up any of my own ideas, except to suggest improving the article by pointing out the Bush family's connection to the financing of the Third Reich. If our readers have access to all the facts, they can draw their own conclusions, don't you think? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-30T16:25+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.14700304_1_7">
+            <p>You and the rest of us have a vasly different idea of what 'historical facts' are. You are spouting conspiricy theories trying to link the Bush family to Hitler, as if there is any corilation at all. Again, if you wish to soapbox, take it elsewhere. We're sick of it. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-31T04:56+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_1_8">
+            <p>Read the book -- "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography." There is no "conspiracy theory" involved in pointing out Prescott Bush's Nazi affiliation, but he wasn't unique. A bunch of American companies including ALCOA, Ford, DuPont and GM sold weapons and war materiel to both sides of the conflict. The book is online. If you can't be bothered to read it, what are we to make of your opinions? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="10" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-31T09:09+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.14700304_1_9">
+            <p>Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we now took one source as the official 100% truth. Why... if I wasn't mistaken, we could also say the same thing about the 9/11 comission report! You can't have it both ways, my friend. The VAST majority of sources do not back up that 'Bush is a Nazi'. You seem to play free and loose with the lable 'conspiricy theory', throwing it onto anything you don't agree with, yet arguing with it when someone uses it on something you believe. I think, once again, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not your soapbox, you need multiple sources before barging in here with outrageous claims, and before you bring up something you feel is 'new', you need to check the archives. Nothing you have said is new, well sourced, or anything BUT soapboxing. Please cease this disruptive behavior. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-31T04:37+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.14700304_1_10">
+            <p>Not discussing politics? From the bottom section: ""Islamo-fascist? George W. Bush uses that term. It's part of the OCT. To be fair to high school students writing papers, then, this article should begin with the explanation: "This article contains only official propaganda from the Bush regime"" <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-31T04:56+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_1_11">
+            <p>If you're going to quote me out of context, there is nothing else for me to say, is there? "haha" you say? Interesting. The paragraph I was saying contained no political statements contained no political statements. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-31T09:09+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.14700304_1_12">
+            <p>Calling this article 'official propaganda from the Bush regime' implies that we editors who support the current form are somehow connected to the Bush regime. Can you say Cabal? Again, stop the soapboxing, stop the poorly sourced arguments, and stop the redundancy. We aren't asking much for you to atleast attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="10" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-25T00:46+00" who="WU00131782" xml:id="i.14700304_1_13">
+            <p>I am really annoyed by the fact that supporters of the official story quickly labels anyone who questions or doubts or realizes the vast amounts of anomalies, inconsistencies, coincidences (in fact too many coincidences.. if anything it is NOT a coincidence that there are too many coincidences) and improbabilites in the official account, as "conspiracy theorists". Do bare in mind the official account is ALSO a conspiracy theory - the official conspiracy theory. The word 'official' makes it sound sane and reasonable and logical because the word 'conspiracy' sounds crazy and something bordering on lunacy. Keep this in mind: There is a difference between someone who is doubting the official story AND someone who is advocating an actual ALTERNATIVE (as opposed to the official CT) conspiracy theory. In fact, alternate CTs are just simply labelled as Conspiracy Theories - further making the associations to alternate theories as very negative and something idiotic, while the official theory gets the label 'Official Story' and staying away from that dirty word 'Conspiracy'. If one were to doubt the official government theory of the aluminium nose of Flight 77 ripping through the steel-reinforced concrete of three rings of the Pentagon, then that is a justified stance. However, if one were to answer to someone who, upon hearing one's doubts regarding the plane's nose ripping through 3 rings of the Pentagon, then asks the doubter as to what hit the Pentagon then if it was not a plane that caused it, the answer to that question would be a conspiracy theory. I hope this stops people going around labelling anyone who has something to say that is contrary to the official story (having full of gaping holes) as 'conspiracy theorists'.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_2">
+          <head>Useful source, report on fox news about israelian intelligent agency and their knowledge</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-25T15:34+00" who="WU00104519" xml:id="i.14700304_2_1">
+            <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo</p>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Englishazadipedia"><name full="yes">Englishazadipedia</name></ref><date>15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-26T07:53+00" who="WU00008324" xml:id="i.14700304_2_2">
+            <p>To repeat what Tarage said before his edit was reverted, YouTube is not a citeable source. I won't go so far as to remove the link, but it should be known that this shouldn't be used a source based on current Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clpo13"><name full="yes">Clpo13</name></ref> clpo13(talk) <date>07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_3">
+          <head>References change</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-29T02:53+00" who="WU00295492" xml:id="i.14700304_3_1">
+            <p> There are currently 181 cited sources on this page. This takes up lots of space, so I think that we should change the references section to a scrollable divider, an example is on the Michael Jackson article. All you do is add the following text.</p>
+            <p> Quotation|align=center|</p>
+            <p> What do you think? "<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Noahcs"><name full="yes">Noahcs</name></ref><date>02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed>"</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-29T03:53+00" who="WU00004742" xml:id="i.14700304_3_2">
+            <p>I've seen that repeatedly undone because the scrollbar doesn't work universally, I think. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>03:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_4">
+          <head>Hijackers</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-12-03T23:00+00" who="WU00139687" xml:id="i.14700304_4_1">
+            <p> It says nothing in the article about the hijackers being muslim. I think that this is an important fact that should be include.  —Preceding   <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            <p> At this point this seems would like such an important and obvious element of the events, but the means of exactly how hijackers over took the planes seems to be highly overlooked, in this article and the sub-sections.How exactly did they take control the planes?, simple brutality seems highly unlikely.They must have had something with them that they used to intimidate or threaten the passengrs and crew, but what could they have  had that couldn't be stopped by security?.Did they manage to sneak some type of weapons or devices past the checkpoints?, they were already under closer watch at that point. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodrigue"><name full="yes">Rodrigue</name></ref></signed> 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-10-31T18:33+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.14700304_4_2">
+            <p>The official story is that they used box cutters.  This "'should"' be in the article or a related article somewhere.  mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref> |  (talk) <date>18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T19:24+00" who="WU00472164" xml:id="i.14700304_4_3">
+            <p> And they brought fake bombs to scare the people on the plane<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juanfranciscoh"><name full="yes">Juanfranciscoh</name></ref><date>19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_5">
+          <head>Who coined the term 9/11?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-02T11:41+00" who="WU00472165" xml:id="i.14700304_5_1">
+            <p> I am sure the term wasn't espontaneously used by everyone all of a sudden. So, who coined the term? Shouldn't that be add to the article?  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-02T16:36+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.14700304_5_2">
+            <p>I'm... not sure how important 'who coined the term' would be. If anything, it would go in a trivia section, and Wikipedia has been frowning upon such sections lately. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-04T18:36+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.14700304_5_3">
+            <p>Since 9/11 is just the date it happened on, and not a totally new word, it would probably be next to impossible to determine who first used it to describe the attacks. If I had to guess, I'd say it evolved as shorthand from the phrases "the attacks on 9/11" and "the 9/11 attacks." But that's just my speculation, I doubt there is a reliable source for that. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-15T06:04+00" who="WU00030497" xml:id="i.14700304_5_4">
+            <p>It was probably a news station that first used it to refer to the attacks during the period when these were the only things on the news. It was probably used intentionally as a meme. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antonio.sierra"><name full="yes">Antonio.sierra</name></ref> Xer0 <date>06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_6">
+          <head>Why is the article not open to all to edit?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-04T08:12+00" who="WU00472166" xml:id="i.14700304_6_1">
+            <p> Why am I unable to edit this article?  And why are so many facts overlooked?  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfkismet"><name full="yes">Sfkismet</name></ref><date>08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-04T08:29+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.14700304_6_2">
+            <p>What facts are those?--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-04T08:39+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.14700304_6_3">
+            <p>There are many facts, and other statements of varying degrees of reliability, considered in the talk page archives.  If something has actually been overlooked, please identify it. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-04T08:59+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.14700304_6_4">
+            <p>Anonymous editing has lead to vandalism. If you wish your edits to be seen, simply talk about them here(which is what you should ALWAYS do before editing such a high priority article), or register an account(Which isn't a lot to ask). --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-24T21:28+00" who="WU00131782" xml:id="i.14700304_6_5">
+            <p>I find the decision to not allow to edit this very biased article preposterous.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-05T11:41+00" who="WU00472167" xml:id="i.14700304_6_6">
+            <p> Please add (in the section about wiretapping):</p>
+            <p> The declassified "Transition 2001" report by the NSA reveals vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups. The report says that the "Director of the National Security Agency is obligated by law to keep Congress fully and currently formed of intelligence activities." But that didn't happen. News of the NSA's clandestine domestic spying operation, which President Bush said he had authorized in 2002, was uncovered in December of 2005 by the New York Times.  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_7">
+          <head>Linking to &amp;quot;Kamikaze&amp;quot; article removed</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-04T10:32+00" who="WU00062724" xml:id="i.14700304_7_1">
+            <p> What occured on 9/11 had nothing to do with the suicide attack tactics of the Japanese kamikaze pilots in the Pacific Theatre of World War II. The kamikaze were uniformed members of the Japanese military. The kamikaze attacks rarely (if ever) targetted civilians delibrately. Despite their politics and choice of alligiences, they should not be put in the same category as the perpatrators of 9/11.</p>
+            <p> For the record, I am not Japanese.</p>
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed">
+                <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roswell%20Crash%20Survivor">
+                  <name full="yes">Roswell Crash Survivor</name>
+                </ref>
+                <date>10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</date>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_8">
+          <head>Why no link to Siege of Vienna?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-07T03:26+00" who="WU00472168" xml:id="i.14700304_8_1">
+            <p> The battle of Vienna on Sept. 12, 1683 was the key battle that ended 1000 years of Islamic armies trying to take over Europe.  Osama Bin Laden picked Sept. 11 because he wanted to continue a holy war that has been going on for a long time.  The date Sept. 11 was not an accident.  Shouldn't it be mentioned?</p>
+            <p> Glenn, Texas, Nov. '07  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-07T14:17+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.14700304_8_2">
+            <p>Interesting.  If you can find a   (talk) <signed type="unsigned"><date>14:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.14700304_8_3">
+            <p>For those who want a shortcut, the relevent article is Battle of Vienna.  mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref></signed> |</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_9">
+          <head>Bin Laden &amp;quot;admitted&amp;quot; involvement?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-09T23:12+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_1">
+            <p> I'm sorry,but I just do not see that in the sources' transcripts. It seems some summaries are saying that but the actual transcripts do not. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-09T23:19+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_2">
+            <p>What the sources' transcripts show is his admiration,praise and maybe even foreknowledge but they do not include an admission of responsibility by bin Laden. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-09T23:21+00" who="WU00029445" xml:id="i.14700304_9_3">
+            <p> He admitted involvement multiple times:</p>
+            <p> http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403</p>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aude"><name full="yes">Aude</name></ref><date>23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T02:49+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.14700304_9_4">
+            <p>Bin Laden admitted involvement, but he has also been evasive as to the extent of his involvement. Lots of people seem to read a little too much into his statements. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T03:33+00" who="WU00036234" xml:id="i.14700304_9_5">
+            <p>Those translations have been disputed by independent translators. They claim those parts are inaudible in the tapes and according to them "wishful thinking" on the part of the original translators. There is no authenticated statement by bin laden that indicates foreknowledge. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WLRoss"><name full="yes">WLRoss</name></ref> Wayne <date>03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T08:03+00" who="WU00004742" xml:id="i.14700304_9_6">
+            <p>Yet somehow I suspect that if someone ever translated a video of his to say "I had no involvement," you wouldn't hold the same doubt. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T10:05+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_7">
+            <p>From the comments above, and assuming the original translations are the best source(which I have no opinion about), I'd suggest the word "claim" rather than "admit". Since Bin Laden has been self-contradictory as to his responsibility, I see no reason to assert that his claims of responsibility are truer than his denials, which is what,I think, the word "admit" confers. Also, "claim" is the better opposite to "deny", I believe. I will try the "claim" word and see how it reads. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T17:32+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_9_8">
+            <p>Please, let's be real, here. Osama bin laden's obituary appeared in various Afghan and Egyptian newspapers, according to Fox News and the BBC, indicating that he died from a lung infection on the way out of Tora Bora in 2001, and was buried in Afghanistan in an area which was subsequently bombed. Various foreign officials stated that this was probably true, because he was on kidney dialysis in conditions in which he couldn't obtain sterile water easily. Several translators have indicated that the U.S. Government took inappropriate liberties with the translation of the "Osama" "confession" video. Nothing in the original Arabic on the tape even indicates foreknowledge of the events. Additionally,  apart from the hat and SOME of the features of the beard, the guy in that video doesn't really look like Osama. Thirdly, Kevin Barrett PhD, who has transcribed earlier tapes of bin Laden indicates that the voice on this tape and subsequent audio/video tapes "of bin Laden" are not bin Laden. This does not prove who made them. The last word from bin Laden was around October, 2001, when he criticized the attacks and said he had nothing to do with them. The U.S. government prevented that tape from being played in the U.S. claiming it might contain codewords to tell sleeper cells to launch additional attacks. The last video -- the guy with the black beard looked a lot more like Osama than the first impersonator, and nobody would have noticed if there hadn't been the earlier fraud, but his nose is noticeably wider at the nostrils than Osama's. Also, people who speak Arabic indicate that besides not sounding like bin Laden, the speaker on the tape doesn't use Osama's "flowery rhetoric" and doesn't talk about any issues that concerned bin Laden. Instead, he goes out of his way to sound like a liberal Democrat. You tell me why radical Islamists would create a fake tape like that. IMHO Osama is Big Brother Bush's Emmanuel Goldstein. If necessary, we'll be looking at new "bin Laden" out video tapes (or whatever technology comes next) for the next 200 years. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T20:00+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.14700304_9_9">
+            <p>Well, I see reliable sources for one side of this discussion mdash; and a lot of them mdash; but not the other.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-10T23:19+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_10">
+            <p>Speaking of sources, I noticed there is nothing in the article about how the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence financed and supplied the islamic extremists (including bin Laden) in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html This 1999 article is a particularly good source for that. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T01:10+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_9_11">
+            <p>Fox News and the BBC aren't good enough for you, Haemo? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T01:57+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.14700304_9_12">
+            <p>Linky linky?  Fox News and the BBC reporting that a bunch of local paper ran obits for Osama Bin Laden does not support the contention that he's actually dead, and it's been a big US government snow-job in the meantime.  In fact, they don't even support the contention that he's "dead".  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T02:17+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_9_13">
+            <p>I'll give you some linky-linky shortly. Meanwhile, you're saying that there is no such thing as "evidence?"  People have been executed for murder in this country on a lot less evidence than the available evidence that Osama is dead.</p>
+            <p> I'll bet that you believe that whatever you believe is true, because if it weren't true, you wouldn't believe it. Right? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T02:48+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.14700304_9_14">
+            <p>I don't know how you could possibly construe what I said to mean "there is no such thing as evidence", but feel free to tell me more about what I believe; it's definitely a profitable way forward.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T04:54+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.14700304_9_15">
+            <p> Wouldn't be best to simply stick to the actual event that took place on 9/11 for this article, and argue about who did what or who supported who before and after in other articles, such as in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article?--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T05:21+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.14700304_9_16">
+            <p>That sounds reasonable. But what do we know? Four aircraft were reportedly hijacked. Two aircraft, of an unknown type, subsequently hit the WTC. Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon. It was reported that a passenger airplane had been vaporized there -- except for American DNA, of course. Most the aluminum and all of the steel and titanium in the engines was reported vaporized. Somewhere in Pennsylvania, something caused a hole in the ground. Apparently, most of it was vaporized too. Except for the American DNA, of course. Arab DNA is clearly inferior. Their passports are fire-proof, however. None of the black boxes was recovered. A few years later, it was revealed that a cockpit voice recorder from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had been recovered. Instead of recording the conversation in the cockpit, however, it recorded voices in the back of the passenger cabin, and the last five minutes was missing. Did I miss anything here? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T05:25+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.14700304_9_17">
+            <p>""Two aircraft of an unknown type""???? ""Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon""????? Look, if you don't want to contribute to the article and use facts to back up your contributions, then maybe you're on the wrong website. Seems you have missed about every fact we know, and replaced it instead with ridiculous conspiracy theory notions...at least based on your comments you just posted.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T12:50+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_18">
+            <p>I think that <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest">x</ref> Wowest is not so alone in his skepticism and I don't think it's constructive for the "conspiracy theory" characterization to be thrown out as often as it is as a strawman. I don't see where Wowest is putting forth any theory at all; he seems to me to simply be challenging some of the ingredients of the conventional theory. His point about the miraculously surviving hijacker passport is thought provoking enough in itself to raise eyebrows about some of the ingredients of the conventional theory, so lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to his comments. Having said that, there is the reliable sources issue which,I think, should be the driving force in terms of article content. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T16:48+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.14700304_9_19">
+            <p>I heard that a tornado once blew a Rooster "into" a jug, and another blew a cow 2 miles and set it down without a scratch! That raised my eyebrows! But does it mean we should be looking for other explanations about tornados? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS <date>16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T17:03+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_20">
+            <p>Firstly, "I once heard that" is not equatable with the passport ingredient which has reliable sourcing. Secondly, it's not our function to be looking for any explanations about anything, that would be OR. Thirdly, I think it "is" our job to construct articles with reliable sources which theorize as little as possible, even if it's a conventional theory and the theorizing is coming from reliable sources (like Colin Powell sitting in the UN presenting "irrefutable proof" of Saddam's WMD's)<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T18:13+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.14700304_9_21">
+            <p>Yeah, and this line of inquiry is not getting us anywhere even close to reliable sources or any concrete changes to the article, so I think we should probably let it be.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T19:10+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.14700304_9_22">
+            <p>They haven't produced a single reliable source yet.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T21:18+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_23">
+            <p><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO">x</ref> MONGO,I resent being conflated into a "they". I think we are all working together here. Also, I kind of agree with RRR_User:Haemo_RRR Haemo on this matter; It's really like pissing in the wind to try to discuss this issue outside the box. Most everybody has already got their opinions and supporting sources lined up like snowballs. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="10" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-11T21:29+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_24">
+            <p>Having said that, I do think there should be a lot more attention in the article to the creation and financing of the 9/11 attackers (assuming it was bin Laden's crowd) and there are reliable sources http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html that we could use in that effort. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-12T00:56+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.14700304_9_25">
+            <p>(deindent) I think we've (you, specifically) just added about all that can be said without straying into undue weight or summary style issues.  It's sort-of-related to the attacks, as events, but much more critically related to the motivation and responsibility for those events and just be covered on the subpage in more depth.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-12T06:18+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.14700304_9_26">
+            <p>Precisely...a lot of this argument has little to do with what happened on 9/11...the day of the attacks. Other deatils are mentioned, perhaps in too much detail, as a lot of that should be summarized and redirected to other articles that already exist that discuss peripheral issues, such as the involvement of bin laden, etc. in greater detail.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>06:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-12T07:39+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.14700304_9_27">
+            <p>While the particular roles of bin Laden and the various other perpetrators are certainly worthy subjects, there seems to be very little verifiable information. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2007-11-12T11:44+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.14700304_9_28">
+            <p>Ok, I think I have come to agree with all 3 comments directly above and with the current content of the article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_10">
+          <head>pentagon</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-28T21:06+00" who="WU00472169" xml:id="i.14700304_10_1">
+            <p> I think that how the government could easily prove it was a terrorist attack by releasing the video of the plane hitting the pentagon, but wont.  The drone theory should also be added.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mustanggt5000"><name full="yes">Mustanggt5000</name></ref><date>21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed>Mustanggt5000</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-28T22:27+00" who="WU00453818" xml:id="i.14700304_10_2">
+            <p>I agree, questions with regard to Pentagon should also be raised. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS"><name full="yes">DawnisuponUS</name></ref><date>22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-29T04:14+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.14700304_10_3">
+            <p>That the Pentagon was struck by a jet as part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has already been established by reliable sources.  Sorry, but we're not supposed to give undue weight to fringe theories. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-29T19:34+00" who="WU00453818" xml:id="i.14700304_10_4">
+            <p>Take this with good faith, for I'll try to use this edit in effort to illustrate what I'll describe as misfortunate "flaw" in conduct. Editors not so involved in conspiracy, or if you prefer, editors not so wary of conspiracies, may actually see more than one perspective with regards to the tapes mentioned above. If we would get more people here, and manage to ignite decent discussions we'd probably end up with less predictable and repeating set of answers. For example, I cannot remember the correct number, but last time I've checked there were some 80 tapes which are still beyond the reach of FOIA and public eye. The existence of these tapes and the fact that they are under the key has nothing to do with conspiracy. This is a fact. If we would be neutral, we wouldn’t have any problem to mention the tapes or the fact that Pentagon was forced to release some of the blur under public scrutiny.</p>
+            <p> If we would be neutral, we wouldn't have any problem with stating the fact that videos which were released were released due to "'lawsuit"' and that they didn't answer some http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1164459.php/Pentagon_releases_new_video_of_Sept_11_terrorist_attack__Roundup_ long standing doubts and questions. I'll stop here, because this is another issue which should be discussed under NPOV tag section.</p>
+            <p> The object which struck the Pentagon is not necessarily subject of conspiracy theories; it may as easily be the subject of public interest. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS"><name full="yes">DawnisuponUS</name></ref><date>19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-06T19:52+00" who="WU00472170" xml:id="i.14700304_10_5">
+            <p>If the official video released shows no plane hitting the Pentagon then we are not talking about Conspiracy Theories, but Conspiracy Facts. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:modernclics"><name full="yes">modernclics</name></ref>  —Preceding undated comment added <date>19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed>. </p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_11">
+          <head>Other versions</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-31T22:18+00" who="WU00453818" xml:id="i.14700304_11_1">
+            <p> It should be made more clear that the version of events mentioned in this article is that of the United States government and that no particular explanation is 100% accurate. This article needs to clearly highlight that there exists other popular versions in regards to the attack, or should I say more accurately, demolitions, and also reinstate the many inconsistencies that have occured piecing together the final story. It is not a conspiracy theory, but part of the real event therefore needing voice in this article. The eyewitness testimonies explaining seeing other aircrafts, and the Mossad Arabs celebrating, are not pieces of a conspiracy, but pieces of reality. Hope someone has the time, and will to shed some truth to this article, I know its hard arguing with anti-troll loving zionist wikipedians, but persistence pays off. The mere fact of the people here trying to shed some truth, considering the mass amounts of discussions in the archives and present, is enough to grant their voice. Remember people, history is being written, if written wrong, you are stuck with lies. Thanks. --  <signed type="unsigned"><date>22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            <p> Leave this be, this is a talkpage. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS"><name full="yes">DawnisuponUS</name></ref></signed>  23:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-31T23:31+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.14700304_11_2">
+            <p>It's a repeat of "'your"' rant, and it's not obviously related to improving the article.  But, if you want to take credit for it, and don't mind being banned from the article, go ahead.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-31T23:40+00" who="WU00453818" xml:id="i.14700304_11_3">
+            <p>Call it as you wish, but It's an outside opinion and we really lack those here. What was the last constructive thing you did? You could answer that question which is hanging in the air whole day and no one is willing to chew on it. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS"><name full="yes">DawnisuponUS</name></ref><date>23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-31T23:46+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.14700304_11_4">
+            <p>I suppose adding your name to the 9/11 ArbComm warning list is constructive.  I've done other things since then, but I certainly can take credit for that constructive comment.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>23:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-03-31T23:58+00" who="WU00453818" xml:id="i.14700304_11_5">
+            <p>Bravo! We don't have a decent argument so we'll simply ban the editor. It proves the point I've been making all along, eh? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS"><name full="yes">DawnisuponUS</name></ref><date>23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T00:06+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.14700304_11_6">
+            <p>Actually, since you were the one complaining about NPOV, it's your job to come up with an argument backed by reliable sources.  I've asked you repeatedly to provide such an argument and you've repeatedly failed to do so.  It should be fairly obvious that these repeated disruptions serve more to hurt Wikipedia than to help it.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T02:02+00" who="WU00453818" xml:id="i.14700304_11_7">
+            <p>Well, if the references and points provided so far are not sufficient, I'll provide more when I'm finished dealing with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire/friends Morton's friends. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS"><name full="yes">DawnisuponUS</name></ref><date>02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T03:57+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.14700304_11_8">
+            <p>You have not provided an argument as to why uninformed opinions of non-experts, no matter how well documented, can contributed to this article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T04:46+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.14700304_11_9">
+            <p>And if I can add to that, events mentioned in this article are not the US governments "version", the content is drawn from reliable sources and experts working in their field. And, among those sources there is not any controversy at all about what happned that day. That, I'm afraid, is that. Fringe theories are mentioned and have their own articles. Other than that, much of the logic behind putting the NPOV tag on this page is faulty enough to spin the Earth right out of it's orbit. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T08:15+00" who="WU00036234" xml:id="i.14700304_11_10">
+            <p> How about answering an editor instead of resorting to personal attacks? Such behaviour by some editors is the main cause of the mess these sections always seem to devolve into. Many of the replies to people like DawnisuponUS would result in their being banned if they had written it yet such behaviour never even results in a warning. I'm tempted to believe this is baiting someone you dont agree with to get them into a position where they can be banned.Reply to <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DawnisuponUS">x</ref> DawnisuponUS: This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out conspiracy rhetoric. Also you may avoid the baiting by some ignorant editors. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WLRoss"><name full="yes">WLRoss</name></ref> Wayne  <date>08:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_12">
+          <head>Should we update the FAQ?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T11:50+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.14700304_12_1">
+            <p> I didn't notice it myself until a few days ago, but this talk page has a FAQ towards the top.  Should we update it to include a summary of why the opinions of lay people in a poll don't override what reliable sources say about a subject? Obviously, this won't deter someone editing in bad faith, but it might help in some cases.  I don't know.  Just thought I would throw this out there and see what you guys think.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-01T17:43+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.14700304_12_2">
+            <p>I think this is an excellent request.  If someone wants to obtain a good gauge of general public opinion on a matter (perhaps to determine whether it is fringe or mainstream), are they better off looking to CNN News or to Zogby polls?  An explanation would be useful. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref><date>17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_13">
+          <head>Out of Date</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-05T01:37+00" who="WU00472171" xml:id="i.14700304_13_1">
+            <p> This article is out of date. Under Section 5.2 Investigations:Collapse of the World Trade Center, the article lists August 2008 as the conclusion of the investigation. That date corresponds to the draft WTC7 Final Report. The actual WTC7 Final Report came out in November 2008.</p>
+            <p> A major difference between those two reports concerns the downward acceleration of WTC7. In the draft report, the downward acceleration was stated as 40% of freefall. In the FINAL REPORT, the NIST authors defined three stages of collapse. The middle stage, lasting 2.25 seconds, the NIST authors said exhibited a freefall drop extending approximately 8 stories. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lookunderneath"><name full="yes">Lookunderneath</name></ref><date>01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_14">
+          <head>Reliable sources (so wrong for so long)</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-05T03:12+00" who="WU00102416" xml:id="i.14700304_14_1">
+            <p> "'This question is only for those have have experience tracking the reliability of sources: "'</p>
+            <p> Is the data in the following book (about reliable sources) included in the judgments wikipedia makes as to what are reliable sources?</p>
+            <p> Title: "' "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq" "'</p>
+            <p> http://www.amazon.com/So-Wrong-Long-Pundits-President-Failed/dp/1402756577</p>
+            <p> I see there is a debate in the discussion archive about conditions under which the BBC can be deemed reliable, but I find that surprising.  Prior editors seem also to still be in a nasty war over the basic issue of whether all the hijackers are rightly named or known.  Your discussion suggests this is messier than I expected ...</p>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ihaveabutt"><name full="yes">Ihaveabutt</name></ref><date>03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.14700304_14_2">
+            <p>Yes, it's messy, this business of history. WRT your question, a single source, or a multitude of sources, can be "right" or "wrong", but wikipedia's purpose is to evaluate, and use sources, not determine truth. Thus, wikipedia may be more "right", or "wrong", on a topic, depending on the sources used, but the preponderance of what is deemed as "reliable" sources, not "truth", is expected to win out. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.14700304_15">
+          <head>Super Explosives</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T01:04+00" who="WU00472172" xml:id="i.14700304_15_1">
+            <p> Recently carried scientific study showed there was http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This study passed rigorous Peer review. I'd suggest you folks start rewriting this, this… I'll stay polite. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redandgraychips"><name full="yes">Redandgraychips</name></ref><date>01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T01:46+00" who="WU00024534" xml:id="i.14700304_15_2">
+            <p>I notice this is your first edit ever, so welcome to Wikipedia. I've read the abstract of the paper you linked to but its not clear what particularly you are suggesting be added to the article. If you have an actual set of words you'd like inserted, please put them forward. Anyone can edit articles, so there's no need to ask other people to do it for you. As a polite warning however, this article is unsurprisingly a contentious one and you should propose any changes here on the talk page to get consensus for them before adding to the actual page.</p>
+            <p> I suspect the reason you've linked to this study is you believe there is an alternative explanation for 9/11. If so, this is not the page you should be discussing this, as this article is principally about the attacks themselves. Other issues are included fairly briefly here because they are discussed in much greater detail at 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Commission Report and Criticism of the 9/11 Commission to name a few. There are many alternative theories on causes and motivations, and not space here to detail them all, which is why these other articles exist. Including points from the study you mention on "this" page would give it undue weight in an article largely dedicated to a different topic.</p>
+            <p> So in summary - welcome to Wikipedia, feel free to use this talk page to propose actual wording changes to the article, and if what you want to include relates to an alternative theory for 9/11 please consider whether the material would be able to be covered in more detail at one of the other articles mentioned above and linked directly to this one, rather than trying to get consensus for a change to this page. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Euryalus"><name full="yes">Euryalus</name></ref><date>01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T01:49+00" who="WU00024534" xml:id="i.14700304_15_3">
+            <p>Postscript - can I add that your editing style bears a strong resemblance to User:DawnisuponUS. Please confirm that this is not also your account. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Euryalus"><name full="yes">Euryalus</name></ref><date>01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T03:39+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.14700304_15_4">
+            <p>If the results are independently confirmed, that's one thing, but by itself the "study" is not a sufficient reliable source.  The "study" is biased - it considers the comparison of dust samples with rapid-ignition thermite, but makes no other investigation.  This is the kind of backwards scientific method employed by creationists and Holocaust deniers.  Nor does it make any kind of determination as to whether the chemical components originated before or after the impact, fire and collapse.  Also, one of the authors is Steven Jones, a known promoter of the demolition hoax. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T09:44+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.14700304_15_5">
+            <p>See the discussion and links at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>09:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T16:17+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_6">
+            <p>I don’t think that people here have any right whatsoever to libel scientists and scholars as conspiracy theorists and I don’t think that you can weasel out from this one. This is certainly not promotion of hoax, it is promotion of science. After all, this study marked the end of conspiracy, we are now dealing with scientific facts. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T16:50+00" who="WU00001674" xml:id="i.14700304_15_7">
+            <p>The presence of those materials doesn't prove anything.  Single-purpose-accounts created to push conspiracy theories are not likely to be taken very seriously. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohnoitsjamie"><name full="yes">Ohnoitsjamie</name></ref> OhNoitsJamie  <date>16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T17:57+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_8">
+            <p>We're not proving anything, we're reporting scientific findings. Of course no one takes this place seriously, it’s swarming with conspiracies, it is less reliable than prison planet and it has the same irresponsible approach to some very serious issues. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>17:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-09T22:28+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.14700304_15_9">
+            <p>It's promotion of fringe theory, which is not wikipedia's purpose.  <signed type="unsigned"><date>22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-12T02:16+00" who="WU00298012" xml:id="i.14700304_15_10">
+            <p>There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of "Bentham Science Publications" here, which is presumably highly relevant as both sides use this to make their case for or against potentially including Bentham papers as sources. We should let every editor present his or her information or views on this question, which should not be confused with the question of whether any hypotheses are true or not. Wikipedia is not about the truth, see V. Then we can at least try to build consensus based on the information that has been presented. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cs32en"><name full="yes">Cs32en</name></ref><date>02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-12T03:12+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.14700304_15_11">
+            <p>There's more to it than that. If the general tone of a wikipedia article contradicts the preponderence of what reliable sources have to say about a topic, then it puts wikipedia in the business of POV-pushing and originating information - which is not wikipedia's place to do.  <signed type="unsigned"><date>03:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-12T08:02+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_12">
+            <p> http://www.bentham.org/Nobel.htm Nobel Laureates have endorsed Bentham Science Journals. This was removed yesterday by one of the “well established” editors, although it is more than related to discussion and although it clearly shows that we're dealing with one of most reputable sources ever provided on these pages. Please restrain, assume good faith and thread lightly. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-12T08:30+00" who="WU00024534" xml:id="i.14700304_15_13">
+            <p>Hi. Some requests:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>First, you're clearly not a new editor - please indicate what your other account name is so we know who we're talking to.</item>
+              <item>Second, talk pages are for suggesting changes to articles - if you have a specific change you wish made to this article, please provide a rough outline of the words you'd like included so a consensus can be reached on whether they should go in. Until you actually propose something to be included in the article, this conversation is likely to go nowhere. It's not enough to "suggest you folks start rewriting this" - you're the one who wants the change, you should be the one who proposes some words for it.</item>
+              <item>Third, given the points raised above you need to explain why what you want included satisfies RS, UNDUE and depending on what it is, FRINGE.</item>
+              <item> lastly, as you know there are a great many pages on 9/11 topics. You might like to explain why what you want included should be on "this" page and not one of the other ones.</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> This is not meant to sound unfriendly, but until the above are addressed as a start, this disucssion is unlikely to ever reach consensus regarding any changes to the article itself. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Euryalus"><name full="yes">Euryalus</name></ref><date>08:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-12T10:07+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_14">
+            <p>I'm editor who worked on this article around 2006; I’ve stopped my work voluntarily. I'll do what you've suggested as soon as time allows, at this point in time I'm not much interested in editing though, I’m far more interested to see more people in here, while doing my best to keep the “enforcers” from “shooting” everyone who comes in. I’m also inclined to state that I deeply appreciate your inputs, for those seem to be complementary to what I’ve just pointed out. Above, editor stated that study we're considering is discussed elsewhere. It should be discussed here. This article needs to be updated; this is very hectic subject, yet we have extremely lengthy status quo. We are far, far away from the fringe if the whole nations are aware (see Danish public TV News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o here) of the undisputable scientific findings published in reputable scientific paper, we have an obligation to include such findings in the article. I’ll answer your other points/concerns as soon as possible. In meanwhile I would like to encourage everyone to join the discussion. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>10:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-12T14:20+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.14700304_15_15">
+            <p>I'm the one who removed it yesterday. It was added just as a link with no context or explaination. I'll do the same if links keep getting added in the same manner. In the meantime, Baseball makes the cental point here. The vast majority of mainstream/reliable sources and experts working in their field do not subscribe or support (or really report or study) these ideas. That's why we do not and will not. They have their own pages and that's where they belong. And just as a note, the findings are a long long way from undisputable, even laymen can immediately see how dubious they are...but that's not why we're here.</p>
+            <p> If you want to continue this discussion, do it on a conspiracy theory page. Even before that, state what your other accounts are. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T00:04+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_16">
+            <p>Once we get a peer reviewed study which contest the findings published at Bentham Science Journals you'll be able to provide something that will substantiate your layman opinion. As for your claim about mainstream media and lack of interest in these "ideas", as you've called them, it is plainly wrong. This article is in poor state because of cherry picking, certainly not because we lack reliable sources that touch upon http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/politics/22intel.html?ex=1285041600en=be75f65b369fa799ei=5090partner=rssuserlandemc=rss this or http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html that subject.</p>
+            <p> But that is really not the issue; the real issue here is somewhat brilliantly devised tactica that comes along with smear terminology. Take one look at the "conspiracy movement" which is established by the very editors who work on this article, you included. What is the purpose of this vast "conspiracy talk" we have here? If not to cloud the serious issues, so that people would 'confuse' "unanswered questions" with "conspiracy gibberish". We had conspiracy lists here, probably still have them, as those serve to dismiss and libel prominent people who would otherwise be, and are, very strong voices of reason.</p>
+            <p> No matter what you say, this whole drama we're having here has the same ol' players, and parts they are playing have become historically insignificant and boring to watch and that is one of the reasons I've came back to see if we can draw some new, independent editors here. If we take you RxS, as one of the "long established" editors here, what may we learn from your conduct? You have just dismissed 18 months of peer reviewed work published in scientific journal endorsed by Nobel Laureates as conspiracy theory? A very strange form of conspiracy nuttiness to say the least, a very fine example of the "background issues" we have here.</p>
+            <p> You may as well block this account, I've shared all about my origins I'm ready to share, after all, that's the way you folks keep consensus around this article, you don't build it, you enforce it. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T00:34+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.14700304_15_17">
+            <p>Please see UNDUE.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T00:44+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_18">
+            <p>To which minority are you referring to? Could you provide a source? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>00:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T07:57+00" who="WU00024534" xml:id="i.14700304_15_19">
+            <p> With all respect, User:Huntdowntheconpiracists has made clear they're "not much interested in editing" the article, won't reveal their primary account and has declined (so far) to actually propose any specific changes to the text. To date there's also zero support for the suggestion that the bentham study be included or referenced in the article, per UNDUE as well as other issues.</p>
+            <p> I can't see any of the above changing, and until it does we're not getting far with this discussion. Is there support for marking the thread as closed and moving along? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Euryalus"><name full="yes">Euryalus</name></ref><date>07:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T08:34+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_20">
+            <p>There is no point to propose change to the article (with regards to this topic) until we resolve the differences around Bentham source. I’m still waiting for reference which would explain UNDUE claim. Polls and http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385010-details/An+explosion+of+disbelief+-+fresh+doubts+over+911/article.do media reports are clear about the massive weight we’re dealing with. Would you like to open a new section for that topic? That said, where’s the rush? I’d appreciate if we would wait; perhaps someone new will come in and give us a thought. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T15:04+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_21">
+            <p>FRINGE  UNDUE seem to be the main arguments. I've examined the discussion about the polls; guess there's no need to go there again. But if these polls are rejected, I would like to know from where fellow editors draw their conclusion that we're talking about the minority views and fringe theories? From the information available and already provided in this and previous sections, I'd say that we're talking about either dualism of a sort; or I'd go as far to state that it is vocal minority which supports what is usually referred to as "official conspiracy theory". I'd say it is especially so if we look at things globally, rather than locally.</p>
+            <p> I would once again kindly ask for reference which would support the notion that we're dealing with fringe or irrelevant views/opinions/theories. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T16:03+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.14700304_15_22">
+            <p>http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/whats-crazier-believing-the-us-orchestrated-911-or-that-saddam-did/Content?oid=1170466| Yet by and large, the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe movement, taken seriously by few and laughed at by most. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T20:13+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_23">
+            <p>Your link doesn't seem work, http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/whats-crazier-believing-the-us-orchestrated-911-or-that-saddam-did/Content?oid=1170466 let me help. I've noticed that opinion the other day, it is interesting opinion, but it speaks against the point you're trying to make, so you may be thankful that it doesn't meet the lowest of our criteria. Have you even read the comments there? Either way, we're not discussing 9/11 truth movement or conspiracy theories, we're discussing a brand new scientific finding and reasons for or against their inclusion to the article.</p>
+            <p> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_44Another_poll Here, this multiplicity of sources shows that majority of people believes that there were other culprits than al Qaeda behind the attacks. Could you provide RS and V link which would dispute such reports? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>20:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T20:54+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.14700304_15_24">
+            <p>You asked for a reference that supports the notion that "we're dealing with fringe or irrelevant views/opinions/theories" and I gave you one: "the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe movement". That was your question and you got an answer. Tap dance all you want but it's clear where mainstream media, reliable sources and experts working in their field stand on this. "Thats" how we we draw content and not polls. Most people don't know how jet engines work but there they are...not dropping from the sky. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T21:20+00" who="WU00472173" xml:id="i.14700304_15_25">
+            <p>I've asked for RS and V reference, and I'm still asking/waiting. Reliable sources and experts discovered nano-structured thermite in WTC dust. Where does the mainstream media stand? It is clear to me, but you obviously need http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UrI2uV_PYw a reminder. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntdowntheconpiracists"><name full="yes">Huntdowntheconpiracists</name></ref><date>21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T21:34+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.14700304_15_26">
+            <p>There's a typo in RxS's post (it has a | at the end of the URL).  Here's the corrected link http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/whats-crazier-believing-the-us-orchestrated-911-or-that-saddam-did/Content?oid=1170466 <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T21:55+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.14700304_15_27">
+            <p>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media By the way, your assertion that reliable sources and experts discovered thermite is wildly inaccurate. All this excitment on the basis of one remarkably shoddy paper...""dust samples collected and sent to the authors"..indeed..."'6 to 8 years after the event"'. Please stop wasting our time. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T22:04+00" who="WU00086786" xml:id="i.14700304_15_28">
+            <list>
+              <item>I have blocked Huntdowntheconpiracists as a sock of User:DawnisuponUS etc.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheffieldSteel"><name full="yes">SheffieldSteel</name></ref> SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK <date>22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T22:08+00" who="WU00472174" xml:id="i.14700304_15_29">
+            <p>I'm puzzled, imo, that is pretty good opinion piece, it is titled " What's crazier, believing the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 or that Saddam did?", it is pretty valid question if you ask me. There are 34 comments bellow that article at the moment I'm writing this. Each and every one of the people that commented there have understood what author tried to deliver, each and every one of those comments questions the findings of the commission as well as official narrative of 9/11 attacks. I'm not sure what you folks are trying to prove, do we even have a difference of opinion? Well, as pretty as that source is, I'm afraid it is not acceptable by the high standards we have here. Have you read the study, the collection and source of the samples is made clear there. Still waiting. <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I39;vecommittedathoughtcrime">x</ref> I39;vecommittedathoughtcrime  <signed type="unsigned"><date>22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T22:29+00" who="WU00024534" xml:id="i.14700304_15_30">
+            <p> As the only advocate for including this material is apparently a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and as there are no actual proposed changes to the article arising from anything above, I've archived the thread as earlier proposed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Euryalus"><name full="yes">Euryalus</name></ref><date>22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.14700304_15_31">
+            <p>
+              <note creation="template" type="WikipediaModel">archivebottom</note>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_15513617.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,532 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 37</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">15513617.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>WOSlinker et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 37</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2037" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">15513617</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2018-10-17T12:22:13Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 37</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_1">
+          <head>remove this page</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-04T18:01+00" who="WU00494193" xml:id="i.15513617_1_1">
+            <p> this article does not belong on wikipedia. it should be replaced with the most bare-boned version possible; only stating the most obvious facts (times, dates, locations) in no more than 3 paragraphs. in its present state it's disgraceful to wikipedia's users. it is highly politicized in ways that make me question much of what i've read in wikipedia's current events. it doesn't come close to the exactitude and competence of wikipedia's science related articles or the robust research in the historical articles. it is cowardly and reeks of personality. --chordophone 12:01 1/4/08  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-04T18:40+00" who="WU00004742" xml:id="i.15513617_1_2">
+            <p>Not gonna happen. Now that we're past that, any specific complaints or suggestions? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-05T01:47+00" who="WU00494193" xml:id="i.15513617_1_3">
+            <p>outside of what i personally find so offensive about it, it is way too long for an encyclopedic entry. it needs to be shortened by over half. considering the amount of sources that come from CNN or the 9-11 Commission publication, wikipedia should simply list them as external links. the shorter this entry the less personal and political the focus is, and the less chance conspiracy-obsessed idiots and over-simplifying editors can stain this great encyclopedia. the goal should be brief and concise descriptions that only include enough information to guide further research. this page is like a book written by people who don't investigate further than television. and has anyone stopped to wonder if the 9-11 commission's report doesn't constitute the most objective source? it's been reported on in every major news source in the world that the report is heavily edited. and isn't it strange that the government's only major publication in bookstores in America is this one book? they can't publish a guide to taxes and charge 9.95 for it? what about a guide explaining the various electable positions in government? i've looked, they're certainly not on display at border's. it seems dubious that any academic take that book as gospel. if anything, in the true spirit of wikipedia, George Washington University's National Security Archives should be the main cited source of information about this historically incredible event. let's not make wikipedia a compendium of television news history. i'm not trying to be offensive, or attack anyone personally, i just think that this kind of article on something this important is pretty sad. ----chordophone 7:45 1/4/08 —Preceding ) 01:44-<signed type="unsigned"><date>01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-05T03:56+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_1_4">
+            <p>This article is well within size guidelines for articles on subjects of this importance.  In addition, CNN is a reliable source.  If you have issues with our reliable sourcing guidelines, take it up on the respective talk page.  If you disagree with certain sources, bring up concrete reasons why on this page, rather than general platitudes.  This page is not a soapbox mdash; please focus on specific editorial issues. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.15513617_1_5">
+            <p>Disagreeing with me is no excuse for being condescending. the introductory paragraph has poor sources that don't support the claims. for example, flight 93's black box transcription from CNN in no way shows any proof that the passengers caused the plane to go down. it does seem to show proof that flight 93's hijackers were incompetent flying the plane, probably explaining the "mystery" behind why it ended up in PA instead of the white house, which according to the NSA, CIA, and many international sources, it was planning on crashing into. if you feel the need to make the claim that the passengers were responsible for causing the plane to go down, in a self-sacrificial way preventing further tragedy, then at least link it to a reference that provides "proof" for that claim; the source sited later in the article is the from 9-11 commission, at least that's one step closer to source information, however severe the editing it went under. i suspect most readers take the intro paragraph as the most concrete summation of the event. also in the introductory paragraph you link source 3 to a CBC article which summarizes the words of osama bin laden. this is the source that you use to provide facts for al qaeda's responsibility? many terrorist organizations claim responsibility for many terrorist attacks. this doesn't prove anything. i'm not suggesting al qaeda wasn't involved, obviously they were.  however, the mastermind of the attacks is not osama bin laden or al qaeda directly, it's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed  terrorism experts at the FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies have repeatedly stated that al qaeda doesn't exist as an entity. it's a database for matching terrorists to financiers. to claim it's responsible for 9-11 is misleading. most of the article appears to be from sources that are too close in proximity to the event to have very reliable hindsight. this article needs to be updated. --chordophone </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-06T11:52+00" who="WU00484168" xml:id="i.15513617_1_6">
+            <p>see 9/11 conspiracy theories for "concrete reasons why."  this article should either be edited, removed or merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories.  this page IS ALREADY a conspiracy theory.  a conspiracy theory is any theory of people coming together and CONSPIRING to act outside certain guidelines.  I have tried again and again to edit this page and have become very offended.  I SUGGESTED this page be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories and my SUGGESTION was very quickly removed.  UNLESS this is discussed more thoroughly, SEE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES about SUGGESTIONS TO MERGE before REMOVING from TAGLINE.  --  17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-07T03:42+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_1_7">
+            <p>No.  The theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories which are widely unsupported in reliable sources mdash; that page was forked off this one, and the summary section currently gives it the correct amount of weight that it deserves.  You have tried again, and again, to push a fringe POV on this issue, and have been summarily reverted for good reason.  Unless you have some concrete suggestions which do not violate fundamental guidelines, please refrain from using this page as a soapbox.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:27+00" who="WU00016655" xml:id="i.15513617_1_8">
+            <p> Haemo, please stop using this page as a soapbox. Some of the theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories are very widely held. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wowest"><name full="yes">Wowest</name></ref><date>22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:32+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_1_9">
+            <p>I am not using this page as a soapbox, and I resent your implication that I am.  Some "general statements" about intentions are widely held mdash; there has never been any poll demonstrating that any "specific theory" is anything other than fringe. Correctly stating the extent to which theories are held is not "soapboxing" in the slightest. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T14:54+00" who="WU00131782" xml:id="i.15513617_1_10">
+            <p>Still, the fact that the official government-endorsed theory is also a conspiracy theory, remains... And the Wikipedia article on September 11th 2001 Terrorist Attacks gets a lot of their information and facts from the government conspiract theory which, as already widely known, has full of holes and some of their theories are preposterous.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T18:19+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_1_11">
+            <p>That is not widely known; it is false.  Do you have any good faith suggestions for making improvements to the article or will you continue to waste our time? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-12T13:32+00" who="WU00131782" xml:id="i.15513617_1_12">
+            <p>..Widely known by people who are into or are interested in the September 11th Terrorist attacks.. Yes, the average person would not be interested in the actual details and hence would not actually know what happened on that day. I have not even seen you before so please do not tell me that I am wasting your time. You are wasting your time by being irritated by my contribution to this discussion and thus felt that you had to respond to my previous entry..  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-12T17:47+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.15513617_1_13">
+            <p>Widely, and accurately, known to be false, is correct.  Widely believed by some fringe groups is also correct.  mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref> |  (talk) <date>17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_2">
+          <head>Media coverage</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-18T18:07+00" who="WU00494194" xml:id="i.15513617_2_1">
+            <p> This article needs a section about the way media covered the attacks. WW Jan 18 2008  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:10+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_2_2">
+            <p>Can you point to some sources discussing that?  It would be good, but you might want to look at Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  It needs some love.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_3">
+          <head>Assumptions are unethical and a disgrace to acedemics which use wikipedia</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.15513617_3_1">
+            <p> There are way to many assumptions and broad sweeping statements in this page and I want to highlight one of them.</p>
+            <p> I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I just want to be factual and academic so listen me out.</p>
+            <p> This passage "On that morning nineteen terrorists2 affiliated with al-Qaeda3 " in the opening section of the article insinuates that we know for a fact with substantiated proof that Al Qeada was responsible for the attacks when in fact alot of evidence to the contrary exists. It claims 19 Terrorists took part in these attacks when it is widely known that 5 of these named hi-jackers have been in later years to be alive and well. None of their names were on the flight lists as passengers and no proof exists that they were on board at all. I also am irked with the assumtion of guilt of Al Qaeda at all in 9/11 when no proof exists that they were involved at all. There has been no court case to prove that Al Qaeda was involved and the confession videos of Bin Laden have widely been under suspicion for its authenticity. It is unacedemic of us to ignore these facts merely on the basis of serving some larger political goal. I myself am disgusted as an academic and user of Wikipedia to be subjected to the unacedemic and largely political propaganda nature of this particular article.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-12T13:40+00" who="WU00131782" xml:id="i.15513617_3_2">
+            <p>The line about Al Qaeda sounds like an opening line for a novel. And as already mentioned, Al Qaeda has never been proven to be behind the September 11 attacks. What is more shameful is the fact that the United States government felt that they need not prove that Al Qaeda were complicit because of the tape found conveniently in a house in Afghanistan that allegedly shows Osama bin Laden confessing to be behind the attacks even though the man alleged to be bin Laden is nothing LIKE bin Laden. The FBI even later confessed that the tape was fabricated. People, especially people writing articles regarding this subject should not assume that these "facts" are true just because the US government says that Al Qaeda is indeed behind the attacks and that therefore they are guilty of 9/11.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-18T00:02+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_3_3">
+            <p> There is no evidence, whatsoever, in the public domain that the 19 persons alleged to have committed the mass murder of 9/11, have boarded onto the four aircraft that crashed on that day: Their names do not appear on any authenticated passenger list; there exist no boarding cards' stubs of their boarding; no person has testified to have seen them board the aircraft; no CCTV recordings exist of the boarding process (as distinct from one single CCTV from Dulles Airport purporting to show some of them pass security check - but the recording lacks date, time and camera number); and their bodily remains (DNA) have not been identified from the crash sites.  To claim that these 19 persons committed the crime without any evidence that they even boarded the planes is illogical.  Wikipedia should stick to verifiable facts and avoid hearsay and speculations.  If someone can provide sourced evidence that the 19 individuals "boarded" the aircraft, the wikipedia is the right place to do so.  Absent such evidence, no one is entitled to make such accusations against people who remain innocent of mass murder. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:03+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_4">
+            <p> There has been no court case to prove the guilt of Al Qaeda so please do not add this to the wikipedia page.</p>
+            <p> Thank You —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:25+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_5">
+            <p>It is not true that "5 of the hijackers" are well known to be alive.  Multiple reliable sources both asset, and support, the claim that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, and that the terrorists, in particular were also responsible.  No reliable sources support your interpretation of the events, and unless you have some specific editorial concerns, I would ask that you refrain from using this talk page to discuss the event in general. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:44+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_6">
+            <p> "'Al Qeada has not been conclusively proven guilty in any court of law"' and an endless amount of very substantiated proof exists to prove the opposite. This topic is thus under dispute. Unless you can point us towards court documents, the name of the judge, the time of the verdict, the jury involved, the facts presented by both sides, the lawyers involved, the court transcripts and more that this organization is guilty of 9/11 then it is incorrect to post such a lie as fact. Please remove those rash assumptions from the article.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:52+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_3_7">
+            <p>A dispute between whom?  People who know that Al-Qaeda was responsible and people who refuse to believe mountains and mountains of facts?  Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to profess your political beliefs.  Thank you.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T22:54+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_8">
+            <p>The issue of a court of law is immaterial; many historical figures responsible for crimes were never tried in court.  This is not the standard of evidence Wikipedia, nay, any academic publication requires.  If you believe there is evidence vindicating them, then provide reliable sources presenting it as vindication.  Otherwise, there is nothing here to act on. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:05+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_9">
+            <p> I would implore you to not use Wikipedia as a ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:09+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_10">
+            <p>This is an absurd standard, totally at odds with our criteria and academia in general.  I am not using Wikipedia as a soapbox in the slightest mdash; all statements in edits "I" make follow our guidelines and policies, and it is totally incivil of you to claim I am trying to further my "political convictions" in some way.  There is no requirement that claims made by an article be verified in a court of law before inclusion mdash; either on Wikipedia, or in academia in general.  If you grab a copy of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can see they lay responsibility with Al Qaeda  too.  The claims made in this article are not "unsubstantiated" mdash; they are all directly sourced to reliable sources. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:25+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_11">
+            <p> The ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:31+00" who="WU00030155" xml:id="i.15513617_3_12">
+            <p>Which constitution says "innocent until proven guilty"?  Not the US's.  And besides, this isn't a court.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corvus%20cornix"><name full="yes">Corvus cornix</name></ref>"" <date>23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:38+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_13">
+            <p> I would like you to refer you to this article if you do not understand this simple principle which is also called Presumption of Innocence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:40+00" who="WU00030155" xml:id="i.15513617_3_14">
+            <p>"a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations" - this is not a criminal trial.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corvus%20cornix"><name full="yes">Corvus cornix</name></ref>"" <date>23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:47+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_15">
+            <p> No, This is an Encyclopedia a publication which is taken seriously because of its academic and factual nature. Here this article is neither. —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-10T23:59+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_3_16">
+            <p>We will not allow you to add any conspiracist nonsense to this article. It would be best if you would stop wasting our time. Thanks. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T00:07+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_17">
+            <p> It is ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T00:12+00" who="WU00030155" xml:id="i.15513617_3_18">
+            <p>Care and feeding.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corvus%20cornix"><name full="yes">Corvus cornix</name></ref>"" <date>00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T00:28+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_19">
+            <p>You're not going to make any headway with this tact of arguing, since Wikipedia does not require the standards you have argued.  Academic publications, indeed many on Al Qaeda, can and do lay statements of guilt without proof in a court of law.  Wikipedia does not require this standard of evidence.  If you disagree with our guidelines, you can discuss it on the relevant page; not here. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T08:55+00" who="WU00494195" xml:id="i.15513617_3_20">
+            <p> As final input from me on this article, I have consulted the Policies and Guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines) section and was lead to believe that within the NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) it deals with this type of issue. This article considering that Al Qeada has not been officially proven guilty in a court of law is thus in violation on many of the points brought up in the Wikipedia NPOV. I leave the problem in the hands of the editors.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T19:47+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_21">
+            <p>If you read the archives of this page, you can see that the neutral point of view issue has been extensively discussed mdash; indeed, it is undue weight to write the article with the implication that Al Qaeda was not responsible.  -_<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T19:18+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_3_22">
+            <p> The Wikipedia's goal is encyclopedic. Our aim is to make Wikipedia a credible, authoritative, source of reliable information for all, students, ordinary citizens and researchers. When a crime is committed and has remained, for whatever reason, unsolved, Wikipedia should approach factual allegations with extreme circumspection, particularly when a large body of evidence suggests official malfeasance, cover-up or even complicity in the crime.  I would therefore urge all of you to approach all factual allegations presented by governments and the media with the necessary critical detachment. We should not include in our account on 9/11 unsourced, unattributed or unverifiable allegations. It is better for Wikipedia to state "we do not know" than to make statements which could later be rebutted.  Take one example: The original passenger lists of the 9/11 flights have not been released. This means that the public has been deprived of the original source for the names of the hijackers. This does not necessarily mean that they did not board on the airplanes. It means, however that we cannot state as a proven fact that they did. We can only say: The FBI alleges/claims/believes/asserts/maintains that the following individuals boarded these planes and committed the hijacking, but has refused to release the original passenger lists. This would be a neutral way of informing the readers that our knowledge is restricted.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:07+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_23">
+            <p>If you can find reliable sources to support your assertions, there might be something to discuss.  In addition, the passenger lists "have" been made public mdash; they were made published in Terry McDermott's book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060584696?v=glance Perfect Soldiers, as well as in newspapers such as the Boston Globe.  The government also used the original lists as evidence in http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00010.html Zacharias Moussaoui's trial.  The assertion that the FBI has "refused to release" these lists, or the implication that there is any doubt in reliable sources as who was on those planes is fringe POV-pushing and is totally unsupported by reliable sources.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:42+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_3_24">
+            <p> The lists referred to by Haemo are not authenticated. They are bad photocopies of computer printouts that carry neither signature, date stamp or any other sign that can be used to trace to their origin. They have not been, either, accompanied by chain-of-custody reports proving that they are copies of "originals". Nor has any government authority claimed that these lists are at all copies of "originals". The lists released at the Moussaoui trial were not accompanied by any comment or explanation as to their origin. CNN has announced on September 14, 2001 the names of four people suspected to be among the hijackers. Their names were then replaced by other names. No explanation has been given as to the reason for this switch and from where the CNN got the previous names.  The only source for such names could only have been either the FBI or the airlines, and ultimately the original "passenger lists". So if names were replaced on Sept. 14, the latter list of hijackers' names - which is what has been published by the FBI -  cannot correspond with the original list.  American Airlines whom I asked for a copy of the original passenger list of AA77, studiously evaded the request by sending me a typed listing of names without the names of the hijackers. Asked why they left out these names the Airline said laconically, that they were "edited". American Airlines failed to explain why they would not send me a copy of the original list, nor why the names of the "hijackers" were "edited". This game suggests that the Airlines have something to hide and that we cannot rely on the published "passenger lists" as authentic.  This exchange of letters with American Airlines is posted on my website at  http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=2329Itemid=107. Under these circumstances, I believe that it is reasonable to express doubt about the authenticity of those lists referred to by Haemo.  The absence of authentified passenger lists is compounded by the absence of testimonies of people who actually saw the hijackers (and passengers) board the airplanes, the absence of boarding cards' stubs, the absence of CCTV of their boarding, and the failure of identifying their DNA from the crash sites. All in all, there exists therefore no evidence that any of the 19 "hijackers" actually boarded the planes. Theoretically, they may have boarded the aircraft even in the absence of all that evidence, but it is quite a daring proposition to claim that they did.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T22:35+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_3_25">
+            <p>Multiple reliable sources have vetted the lists described.  Your original research on this issue has no bearing on our discussion here, and your personal doubts as to the authenticity of the lists provided by reliable sources is not sufficient for any changes to be made to the article.  Provide reliable sources supporting your interpretation, or we can't do anything. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_4">
+          <head>Question</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T04:42+00" who="WU00494196" xml:id="i.15513617_4_1">
+            <p> why cant we edited 9/11 page?  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T05:17+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_4_2">
+            <p>It's semiprotected due to persistent vandalism. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T11:09+00" who="WU00465871" xml:id="i.15513617_4_3">
+            <p>Of course, by "vandalism" you mean that people keep questioning the unsubstantiated claims on this page and the complete lack of alternate views presented. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QuantumG"><name full="yes">QuantumG</name></ref><date>11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T12:10+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.15513617_4_4">
+            <p>They're well referenced "unsubstantiated claims" and the "alternative views" are inaccurate. We're here to write a fact based encyclopedia, not some fantasy book.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-11T19:46+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_4_5">
+            <p>If you disagree with the protection, take it up here. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T12:18+00" who="WU00465871" xml:id="i.15513617_4_6">
+            <p>Inaccurate?  According to who?  You?  The alternative views are also well referenced.. that's your criteria for why the claims in this article should be unchallenged.  Clearly you've picked and chosen which claims you're willing to accept as fact and which you're willing to discard.. and this is an attitude that is simply not acceptable for a person with a neutral point of view.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QuantumG"><name full="yes">QuantumG</name></ref><date>12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-13T05:06+00" who="WU00009670" xml:id="i.15513617_4_7">
+            <p>The topic seems to be semi-tabooed. After several years of edition, vandalizm, recovery, investigations, improvements and polishing, the paper still does not answer the important questions. Why immediately after the accident the President told in his speech: "Airplanes hit buildings; do not crush mislims yet"? (I exagerate a little bit). Why his talk is not reference number 1 in the article? Where are explanations about the origen of the lack of information about the accident? Aren't some topics in wiki hijacked?... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Domitori"><name full="yes">Domitori</name></ref> dima  <date>05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-13T05:12+00" who="WU00004564" xml:id="i.15513617_4_8">
+            <p>This is not the place for such a discussion <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01"><name full="yes">BQZip01</name></ref> "'—nbsp;"BQZip01"nbsp;—"'nbsp;talk <date>05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-29T12:09+00" who="WU00494197" xml:id="i.15513617_4_9">
+            <p> ""'BQZip01", you should be banned from here. Say, do you like lying to everyone? Did you mention that you are from US army?"'  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_5">
+          <head>article point of view is outdated?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.15513617_5_1">
+            <p> Dear Friends,</p>
+            <p> I believe the view that 911 would have perpetrated by Al Qaida, without any inside complicity, is becoming more and more outdated. This view is still held by the US government (naturally) and most of the major media; on the other hand major media have also shown the opposite. In New York, close to the news-source, 42 % do not believe the government. Experts and people in high posititions claiming there is an inside job, keep lining up.</p>
+            <p> I strongly believe wikipedia should choose for caution, and stop defending a single viewpoint. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and taking a viewpoint is OR and in violation of NPOV.</p>
+            <p> ;proposal</p>
+            <p> To rewrite this article to a form which is neutral to the question, whether the attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaida, the insiders, or both; "'and"' to create a new 911 article, called e.g. "The mainstream opinion".</p>
+          </post>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_6">
+            <head>support</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T19:08+00" who="WU00016052" xml:id="i.15513617_6_1">
+              <list>
+                <item>151;nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiutwel"><name full="yes">Xiutwel</name></ref> ♫☺♥♪ (talk) <date>19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T03:12+00" who="WU00009670" xml:id="i.15513617_6_2">
+              <list>
+                <item> One example: the article makes impression that 9/11, President of the USA was absent and appeared only September 20. This is confusion. Indeed, the same day, he made the speech translated by TV. It was first official information about the attack; that reference should be first in the list. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Domitori"><name full="yes">Domitori</name></ref> dima  <date>03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_7">
+            <head>reject</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T19:15+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_7_1">
+              <list>
+                <item>"'Reject"' this ridiculous attempt to add conspiracy language to the article.  Facts are never "outdated." <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T19:33+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.15513617_7_2">
+              <list>
+                <item>"'Reject"'.  Quite.  Would violation Wikipedia "'policies"' if implemented.  mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref> |  (talk) <date>19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T19:37+00" who="WU00016052" xml:id="i.15513617_7_3">
+              <list>
+                <item>"'Reject"' on behalf of Haemo, who states below he chooses not to be "pigeonholed". comment added by 151;nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiutwel"><name full="yes">Xiutwel</name></ref> ♫☺♥♪ (talk) <date>19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T19:42+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_7_4">
+              <list>
+                <item>*I'm striking this.  You can't vote on behalf of someone else. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-25T20:41+00" who="WU00016052" xml:id="i.15513617_7_5">
+              <list>
+                <item>**Thanks, I get the point, I think. 151;nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiutwel"><name full="yes">Xiutwel</name></ref> ♫☺♥♪ (talk) <date>20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:12+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_7_6">
+              <list>
+                <item>"'Reject"' that neutrality is the correct standard here.  The correct standard here for FACTS is that they be based on reliable, attributable and verifiable sources.   The correct standard for OPINIONS is that they represent all the major groups of opinion. The current entry does not fulfil these standards.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-25T22:41+00" who="WU00004181" xml:id="i.15513617_7_7">
+              <list>
+                <item>"'Refject"' Superfulous request. Facts are facts - conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. Shall we rework Apollo 11, as well? Everyone knows the moon landing didn't happen. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okiefromokla"><name full="yes">Okiefromokla</name></ref><date>22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_9">
+            <head>comment</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T19:30+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_9_1">
+              <list>
+                <item>Polls are ridiculous, and this is no exception.  Guidelines like neutral point of view and reliable sourcing are not negotiable, and this suggestion in its very statement, clearly seeks to disregard them.  I'd also encourage you to read up on how Wikipedia uses the term original research. I think you can tell my position on this proposal without having to pigeonhole me into a little section with a summary at the top. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-15T20:25+00" who="WU00004742" xml:id="i.15513617_9_2">
+              <list>
+                <item>This poll in particular is exceedingly ridiculous. Anyone who voted oppose, shame on you for even giving attention to this. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T05:39+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_9_3">
+              <list>
+                <item>Polls and consensus building are mutually exclusive so you can have either as a protocol but not both. I prefer consensus building even though it's much more arduous. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T00:15+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.15513617_9_4">
+              <list>
+                <item>As usual, no new sources have been provided, and we don't write articles in response to a question. It is an article, not an essay. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_10">
+            <head>intermediate conclusion</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-25T20:39+00" who="WU00016052" xml:id="i.15513617_10_1">
+              <list>
+                <item>I offered this poll as a first step towards consensus building. My intermediate conclusion is, there is too little to work with to start consensus building, and the wikipedia community is not yet ready for acknowledging the difference between the bare facts and the mainstream -erroneous- interpretation of those facts. I am sorry for that, but dared hardly hope otherwise. Thanks anyway folks for responding, in spite of Golbez' fanaticism. 151;nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiutwel"><name full="yes">Xiutwel</name></ref> ♫☺♥♪ (talk) <date>20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_11">
+          <head>Category</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T05:53+00" who="WU00008950" xml:id="i.15513617_11_1">
+            <p> There is the "Islamic terrorism" category on this article. Can a reliable source be provided that holds "Islamic terrorism" responsible?<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bless%20sins"><name full="yes">Bless sins</name></ref><date>05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T06:38+00" who="WU00008947" xml:id="i.15513617_11_2">
+            <p>Are you kidding me? Just look at the article Islamic terrorism. This is the number 1 prime example of Islamic terrorism. Not to mention half the sources in this article mention it the connection. Or do you believe in the conspiracy theories, and as such are practicing terrorism denial? "'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yahel%20Guhan"><name full="yes">Yahel Guhan</name></ref> Yahel "' <date>06:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T13:06+00" who="WU00008943" xml:id="i.15513617_11_3">
+            <p>Bless Sins, thats really funny, I dont even know how to respond to that. This will be in the records. --) <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T15:44+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_11_4">
+            <p>There is one aspect of the term/category that I find bizarre. I know nothing about Islam but I've heard almost all authorities and political leaders (like President Bush) saying that Islam, as a doctrine, is diametrically opposed to acts of terrorism. If that's true, doesn't that make the term an oxymoron? And if it's an oxymoron, should it exist as an encyclopedic category? Wouldn't something like  "al-Queda terrorism" be more realistic? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref> (talk) <date>15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T17:48+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_11_5">
+            <p>Well, if you don't like the category, you can always bring it up for CFD.  However, since this is the most famous example of Islamic terrorism, the category should stay. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T19:27+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_11_6">
+            <p>Many extremists believes that Islam justifies their terrorist acts, just as many Christians believe as well.  The dichotomy between different interpretations of a religion is an academic issue, and many moderate Muslims would call Al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam incorrect.  However, that does not change the underlying justification used by the terrorists. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T21:14+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_11_7">
+            <p>As you say, some Christians have similar beliefs. I suppose I am having trouble accepting "Islamic terrorism" when I think about the prospect of a category called "Christian terrorism" which I ( I'm a Christian) would find an insulting and ridiculous concept given the teachings of Jesus Christ even though there are some fringe interpretations of Christianity which also endorse acts of terrorism. I suppose what I am saying is:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>Just because some terrorist group uses some minority interpretation of an otherwise humane religion to justify their terrorism and uses the name of that religion, I don't think this encyclopedia needs to accept their application of the religion's name. The KKK do their terrorist acts with crosses and Christian prayers and reading from the bible; but I'd be pretty annoyed if their crap was categorized in this encyclopedia as "Christian terrorism". <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T21:31+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_11_8">
+            <p>The problem is that it is not up to Wikipedia is decide what is, and is not, Islamic.  Think about what you are saying; your argument is that you can tell what is the "correct" interpretation of Islam, and this is "not Islam".  That's a highly contentious and controversial opinion, and one which is actively disagreed on and debated.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T00:47+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_11_9">
+            <p>I admit I know absolutely nothing about any religion other than Christianity, but I am under the impression that the weight of academic and scholarly opinion about Islam, as with Christianity, would see terrorism justification as very much a fringe interpretation of either religion. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-16T21:18+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_11_10">
+            <p>I put it up for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_16Category:Islamic_terrorism CFD so we'll see if I am alone in this opinion. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T22:07+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_11_11">
+            <p>Consensus is still overwhelmingly for accepting and using the term and category "Islamic terrorism". <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-21T13:59+00" who="WU00008950" xml:id="i.15513617_11_12">
+            <p>Using the term "Islamic terrorism" is one thing. But blaming an act on "Islamic terrorism" is another. Please provide reliable sources that suggest the 9/11 attacks are an example of "Islamic terrorism".<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bless%20sins"><name full="yes">Bless sins</name></ref><date>13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-27T01:15+00" who="WU00008950" xml:id="i.15513617_11_13">
+            <p>Once again, are there any reliable sources that attest this?<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bless%20sins"><name full="yes">Bless sins</name></ref><date>01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-27T02:57+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_11_14">
+            <p>Yes. There are dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of such sources. If you were to do any research at all, you could find a couple. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-27T03:05+00" who="WU00008950" xml:id="i.15513617_11_15">
+            <p>Then you will have no problems in finding some for me.<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bless%20sins"><name full="yes">Bless sins</name></ref><date>03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-27T03:33+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_11_16">
+            <p> un-indenthttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1798941,00.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1580593.stm It took less than a minute to find these. It would take only an incredible amount of laziness to be unable to find any sources describing the 9/11 attacks as "Islamic terror." <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-27T03:40+00" who="WU00008943" xml:id="i.15513617_11_17">
+            <p>Thanks for those sources. Golly, I could "never" have guessed before seeing these sources that 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. --) <signed type="unsigned"><date>03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-27T04:02+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_11_18">
+            <p>I'm glad I was able to finally solve this political mystery. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_12">
+          <head>&amp;quot;with American government assistance&amp;quot;</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T03:54+00" who="WU00048435" xml:id="i.15513617_12_1">
+            <p> As it stands now, the "Responsibility" section of this article, in one clause, asserts that the U.S. government assisted Osama bin Laden in organizing MAK.  False.  The U.S. government dropped funds into Pakistani ISI accounts.  The ISI, then in complete control of such funds, assisted Afghan mujahadeen.  "Afghan Arabs" were quite the minority in Afghanistan (bin Laden's MAK, for instance, consisted of only about 100 Arabs compared to the 250,000 Afghan mujahadeen resisting the Soviets).  These Arab anomalies were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab donors (and in bin Laden's case, his own family money) - not the Pakistani ISI and certainly not the CIA.  The "Responsibility" section of this article would be more accurate if "American government" was replaced with "Saudi government".  But that wouldn't be ironic enough, which is why I'm sure this folk myth was added.  I think it unnecessary, however, to detail the exact nature of MAK funding in this article anyway - there are already articles on MAK,  Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden and Operation Cyclone, which give this issue the actual attention and fair presentation it deserves.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:9591353082"><name full="yes">9591353082</name></ref><date>03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T04:13+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.15513617_12_2">
+            <p>There is no doubt that this article goes into perhipheral information in too much detail...it needs ot stick to the events of the day and in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, mention these finer points in summary fashion and provide links to articles where those areas are discussed in greater detail.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-17T16:11+00" who="WU00067560" xml:id="i.15513617_12_3">
+            <p>MONGO, that seems reasonable to me. Would you be willing to make that change,please? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.grantevans2"><name full="yes">Mr.grantevans2</name></ref><date>16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-18T00:15+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.15513617_12_4">
+            <p>Lots of changes are needed, but hard to accomplish anything when everyone reverts everyone elses work.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-30T11:07+00" who="WU00016052" xml:id="i.15513617_12_5">
+            <p>9591353082, you should include in your analysis that the head of ISI is approved by the CIA. Also you should reckon that you cannot compartmentalize issues as you attempt: they are not independent. It does not matter who funded who if they are all cooperating, does it? 151;nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiutwel"><name full="yes">Xiutwel</name></ref> ♫☺♥♪ (talk) <date>11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_13">
+          <head>Suicide attacks by al-Qaeda?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:26+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_13_1">
+            <p> The first phrase in the Article claims that the events of 9/11 consisted in "suicide attacks by al-Qaeda". What is the factual base for making this claim?</p>
+            <p> Apart from the fact that no court of justice determined the relationship between al-Qaeda and these events, the U.S. authorities have not presented any hard evidence linking al-Qaeda to 9/11.  The FBI, for its part, has admitted in June 2006 to possess no "hard evidence" to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11. How can an encyclopedia makes such a sweeping claim when there exists no evidence to support it?  Even the phrase itself is nonsensical because only human beings can engage in a suicide attack, not an abstraction such as al-Qaeda, which is not even clearly an organisation, but only an idea or ideology.</p>
+            <p> I therefore propose that the introductory phrase be reformulated into neutral language as follows:</p>
+            <p> "'The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks  on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, causing the death of approximately 3,000 people."'</p>
+            <p> Such a formulation would prevent endless disputes about the nature of the attack and the identity of the perpetrators. It does not insinuate anything about anyone and bears no relation to any "conspiracy theories". "'I am asking for endorsements."'--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:35+00" who="WU00004742" xml:id="i.15513617_13_2">
+            <p>The head of al Qaida has admitted to his involvement. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:06+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_13_3">
+            <p> If you refer to the socalled confession by Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, he did not say that the 19 people were "affiliated" to al Qaeda. No named person has witnessed his confession; no named person confirmed the identity of the confessor; the alleged detainee was apparently tortured. So the whole confession bears no relationship to the above sentence. I could myself claim authorship of 9/11. This would not prove anything about 9/11, but may perhaps say something about my character.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:08+00" who="WU00004742" xml:id="i.15513617_13_4">
+            <p>I refer to the videotaped confession by Usama bin Ladin. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez"><name full="yes">Golbez</name></ref><date>21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:52+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_13_5">
+            <p> With due respect, even if the videotaped confession were authentic (which is disputed), a person's claim to be the author of a plot (a) does not require listeners to believe him; (b) does not constitute a proof of acts that he did not personally witness.  In order to constitute evidence for an encyclopedia, we must have more than the ravings of a old bastard who does not dare to be challenged in public. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T22:36+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_13_6">
+            <p>This is patently untrue.  Multiple reliable sources have both reported his statements of responsibility, as well as supporting the view that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.  If you disagree, provide reliable sources which support a different interpretation.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T23:09+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_13_7">
+            <p> If you wish to engage in good-faith efforts for Wiki, you would agree to my proposition above because it avoids the disputed question of criminal responsibility which is extremely divisive. My proposed text above is a statement of fact that is uncontroversial that does not exclude Al Qaeda responsibility.  I would be happy if we could resolve this issue by sticking to proven facts.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T23:31+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_13_8">
+            <p>What you, personally, deem to be a "proven fact" is at odds with what reliable sources deem to be a proven fact.  That is the essence of why your suggestions are not helpful, and why they give undue weight to your fringe viewpoint about the facts. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T08:25+00" who="WU00036234" xml:id="i.15513617_13_9">
+            <p><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur">x</ref> Sannleikur does not need to provide a RS. It is you who need to supply these RS for the authenticity of the confession. Oops, there are no actual sources of proof, only claims they exist so don't try and pass those off on us. Professor Bruce Lawrence, who is the leading Bin Laden expert, said of the confession in an interview last year, ""It's bogus"" in which he also claimed informants in US intelligence had confirmed the administration know it is fake but "politically useful". A FOI request for ""Documents that demonstrate the outcome of the U.S. government’s authenticity process (for the confession)....authentic, not authentic or suspected of authenticity"" was submitted in late 2006 and was refused: ""the material you requested... is exempt from disclosure"" as such information would ""interfere with enforcement proceedings"". Long after it had been "authenticated" by the administration saying it was, the FBI still publicly stated it ""has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11"" so are you saying no one shared the tape with them? Bin Laden may have done it, but OR is not a RS no matter how much you push it. The ball is in your court RRR_User:Haemo_RRR Haemo.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WLRoss"><name full="yes">WLRoss</name></ref> Wayne  <date>08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-29T04:19+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_13_10">
+            <p>Numerous reliable sources have reported the clip, and the translation, as accurate.  There is no dissension among reliable sources that this clip (and the translation) is anything but accurate, and no one has provided a source to the contrary.  We have provided sources which support the interpretation that the videotape is accurate, and report on it as a truthful fact.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-30T11:15+00" who="WU00016052" xml:id="i.15513617_13_11">
+            <p>bin Laden has also once claimed he was innocent of the attack, because "muslim law forbids the killing of women and children". I am not saying I believe this claim of his, but it would be illogical to simply believe one claim and disbelieve the other. We can only conclude that Osama's utterings are unreliable, even when they are cited by reliable sources. We "'can"' write he apperently admitted to the attack in this or that video; we cannot say he "'is"' guilty. If Albert Einstein says: "God does not play dice", we do not write that Quantummechanics is rubbish, do we? 151;nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiutwel"><name full="yes">Xiutwel</name></ref> ♫☺♥♪ (talk) <date>11:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_14">
+          <head>Nineteen terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:41+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_1">
+            <p> The second phrase in the Entry in its entirety reads so:</p>
+            <p> "On that morning nineteen terrorists2 affiliated with al-Qaeda3 hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."</p>
+            <p> This phrase includes two unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be posted on Wikipedia under existing rules: (a) nineteen terrorists...hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners", and (b) that these nineteen people were "affiliated with al-Qaeda.</p>
+            <p> The first allegation must be qualified because there exists no evidence in the public domain that the nineteen individuals designated by the FBI as the suspected hijackers actually boarded the four commercial airliners they were supposed to hijack. As long as no such evidence exists, the claim must be qualified as an allegation or belief, not a statement of fact.</p>
+            <p> The second allegation is supported by a media report according to which Osama bin Laden "claims responsibility for 9/11".  Leaving aside the question about the authenticity of the recording, even if his claims were genuine, it would not constitute a logical proof that the nineteen persons were "affiliated" to al-Qaeda.  There is no logical relation between the two, only a supposition, a guess. Secondly, it has not been established among academics whether there is at all an formal organization named al Qaeda in which individuals can become "members" or be "affiliated" to.  Thirdly, even the US authorities have not claimed that all the 19 suspects were "affiliated" to al Qaeda. Finally, even if the US authorities were to claim that information gathered in closed interrogations prove this claim, such evidence would not be admissible for an encyclopedia.</p>
+            <p> "'This phrase should be entirely deleted because it lacks factual backing"'.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T20:45+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.15513617_14_2">
+            <p>No. Absolutely not.  Do you have any good-faith suggestions for improvements to the article? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:14+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_3">
+            <p> Good-faith efforts would require a total revision of the Article because it is based almost entirely on unsubstantiated assumptions and allegations.  The allegation that 19 Muslims hijacked four planes is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that they boarded those planes. But there exists no evidence that they did, not even positive identification of their bodily remains. So, absent such evidence, allegations based on the unproved first allegation are simply fantasy.  Yes, I am aware of the phone calls, but again we have not, in most cases, direct testimonies of those who received the calls, only second-hand or third-hand reports from people who said what they have been told by family members who received calls. We do not know, either from where the calls were made, because the FBI refuses to reveal this evidence.  There are so many bits of data that the FBI has refused to disclose that any factual description of the events will remain at best guesswork and at worst an exercise in deception. We could go phrase by phrase, but I think that such an approach is futile because if even the most basic facts are in question, the entire account must be questioned. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:45+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.15513617_14_4">
+            <p>Au contraire, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/attack/main519033.shtml Even as early as 2002 9 of the remains were found. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T21:51+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.15513617_14_5">
+            <p>Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't require forensic evidence to include a statement in an article, that would be silly. We report what is reported in reliable secondary sources and for this article there are numerous reliable secondary sources. If you want things changed, I would suggest you provide some sources. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T22:26+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_6">
+            <p> The article cited by Mr.Z-man includes the following information: "Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers - but not identified by name - through a process of elimination...Without reference samples from the hijackers' personal effects or from their immediate families to compare with the recovered DNA, the remains could not be matched to individuals." In plain English the remains of the alleged hijackers were not positively identified. This is what I initially said and has been confirmed in the cited article. If this were the only lack of evidence about the presence of the "hijackers" in the planes, one could perhaps give the benefice of doubt to the US authorities. However, no one has testified to have seen the passengers (and hijackers) board the aircraft. There are no CCTV of the boarding process. No boarding card stubs have been produced and the 9/11 Commission fails to mention any boarding cards, even in its detailed Staff reports. And finally, no authentified passenger lists have been produced.  The absence of such "'crucial and primary incriminating evidence"' is in the very least suspicious. The statement "There exists no evidence proving the boarding of the 19 individuals designated as the hijackers", must be therefore regarded as true according ordinary standards of logic. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T22:32+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_14_7">
+            <p>Your standards of evidence go beyond anything Wikipedia requires.  Multiple reliable sources disagree with your interpretation and your legalistic arguments hold no weight here.  Unless you have some suggestions for how to improve the article based on our guidelines, there's nothing to discuss here.  The correct statement is that "There exists no evidence which would prove to Sannleikur the boarding of the 19 individuals designated as the hijackers" mdash; many reliable sources disagree with your opinion and have been published as such. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T22:42+00" who="WU00070286" xml:id="i.15513617_14_8">
+            <p>The link was mine...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3916159.stm| how about photos? The point is that there are plenty of reliable sources that support the phrasing in the article. We're not here to debate the issues however but to talk about content. And it's clear that the content of the article is support by RS and other applicable policies. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rx%20StrangeLove"><name full="yes">Rx StrangeLove</name></ref> RxS  <date>22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T23:01+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_9">
+            <p> I just consulted RS and did not find anything that supports the above allegation. On the contrary, much in the 9/11 Article is based on statements by government officials, often unnamed. These are not reliable sources for Wikipedia.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T22:56+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_10">
+            <p> As I understand Wikipedia, we must engage in good faith efforts in improving the quality of the Articles we are working on.  The quality of an Article is dependent on the reliability of facts. It is not a "fact" that the 19 people designated by the FBI boarded the four planes on 9/11. It is an unsubstantiated government allegation. No one of you has produced a reference to a reliable evidence. You are just relying on some arbitrary consensus, not on real evidence. But perhaps you don't consider your contribution as part of a scientific work, but part of a political agenda. If this is the case, I would understand your resistance to any logical reasoning. I have proposed changes to the Article which would reflect the tenuous nature of these allegations, for example by qualifying nouns and verbs with "alleged" or "According to X".  I am willing to concede to such a compromise because I believe that the Wikipedia deserves a continuous improvement. How about you?.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T23:04+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.15513617_14_11">
+            <p>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm "Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens", http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D91F38F936A2575AC0A9679C8B63 another, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/ another.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T23:17+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_12">
+            <p> We seem not to live on the same planet.  Governments' pronouncements do not necessarily represent factual evidence and cannot be relied upon.  Governments often lie.  We are now asked to rely on musings by Osama bin Laden on a dubious video tape, announcements by the Saudi Government (the very epitome of virtue and truth) and pronouncements by various unnamed officials of the Bush regime, as the base for formulating an encyclopedia article.  I repeat: Where is the "hard evidence" that the 19 people actually boarded the planes that they allegedly hijacked?  Where are the people who were there on the ground and could provide testimony? Why has no one come forward to provide a testimony? Why has no one seen the boarding cards stubs?  Why is the FBI hiding evidence and refusing to play various recordings of telephone calls? Why is the FBI incapable of positively identifying the bodies of the hijackers? How can anyone of you rely on government's secret evidence for an encyclopedia? I cannot fathom such credulity.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-19T23:29+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_14_13">
+            <p>No, we are being asked to rely on many, many statements by reliable sources that these facts are true.  Evidence has been produced which these sources deem conclusive and sufficient to ascertain the veracity of the statements made mdash; you disagree.  Fair enough mdash; you are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish, and no one is going to try and change your mind.  That is not what this page is to be used for.  However, Wikipedia relies on citing reliable sources for its interpretations of what is, and is not, true mdash; Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, nor does it act as such.  Instead, in matters of truth, we rest the burden with reliable sources to determine the veracity of statements made.  This article follows this policy to the letter mdash; your arguments do not, and that is why they are (and have been in the past) soundly rejected as a basis for changing this article (or any other). --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T00:22+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_14">
+            <p> reliable sources do not include government propaganda and secretly obtained evidence by intelligence services, even if such information is disseminated by the press.  The items I have been referring to are all sourced to the government. There is no independent source for the information regarding the boarding of the alleged hijackers onto the planes. You are most welcome to believe what the Government is saying. It's your private right (or perhaps duty). Wikipedia does not weigh facts by pounds of newspaper print but by their reliability, credibility and verifiability. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T00:30+00" who="WU00008854" xml:id="i.15513617_14_15">
+            <p>Do you have any reliable sources to establish what you are claiming? If its in a reputable newspaper it is fact checked and edited. That is a reliable source on Wikipedia <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man"><name full="yes">Mr.Z-man</name></ref> Mr."" <date>00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T00:41+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_14_16">
+            <p>News sources, papers, and books, have reported these as facts, not merely disseminated government press releases.  The reliable sources we have cited attest to this.  Do you have any sources for your interpretation? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T01:07+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.15513617_14_17">
+            <p>Statements by US government sources are judged on their merits, like every other source.  They are not automatically false any more than they are automatically true.  In this case, there is no other reasonable hypothesis that fits the evidence. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T01:04+00" who="WU00492661" xml:id="i.15513617_14_18">
+            <p> I do not bear the burden of providing any sources. It is those who are making unsubstantiated assertions who should do do, those who find it agreeable to their conscience to accuse 19 innocent people of mass murder, people who no one has proved to have committed the crime. Probably you are American because you take a cue from your government who has killed thousands of Afghans in response to 9/11, people who are entirely innocent of the crime of 9/11.  When I say that there exists no evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the hijackers had boarded the airplanes, this is a statement of fact, not an interpretation of anything.  Not a single source has actually claimed that these 19 individuals actually boarded the planes. The reason is that no one has seen them board the planes. That's why no "reliable source" actually says so.  What media have done is to infer this fact from government declarations and secret evidence but inference is not a factual finding.  You repeatdly cite reliable sources for the fact that they boarded the planes but you fail to cite a single one. Or is it, according to your opinion, sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia that a factoid was reported by corporate-owned media to make it true?  And if the aim of Wikipedia is not the truth, then I would urge that each factual statement be clearly attributed to the particular corporate-parrot by "According to" and by referring to the source of the allegation.  The present Article fails to do so and purports to set down facts that are mostly government-produced spin.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannleikur"><name full="yes">Sannleikur</name></ref><date>01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T01:11+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_14_19">
+            <p>You are absolutely required to provide reliable sources for interpretations of facts mdash; the claims made in this article are not "unsubstantiated"; they are sourced to reliable sources, as our guidelines require.  Whether or not the media is "corporate owned" has nothing to do with anything here mdash; they are still reliable sources.  Your "statements of fact" are your point of view mdash; to paraphrase a famous essay, "you percieve your biases as neutral, and your assumptions as factual".  Provide reliable sources for your interpretation, or nothing will come of this. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T18:31+00" who="WU00036234" xml:id="i.15513617_14_20">
+            <p>Please stick to facts <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo">x</ref> Haemo and don't make blanket assumptions to put a good faith editor down. I just finished reading reading the report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" and RRR_User:Sannleikur_RRR Sannleikur is partially right. There is no proof that all the hijackers boarded. It is assumed they did. The only ones confirmed are at least one who sat in a jump seat and several who used ramp passes and pilot credentials to board instead of buying tickets. The only proof of the number of hijackers are the calls from the planes as no one saw them board. I'm not saying to do what RRR_User:Sannleikur_RRR Sannleikur asks but argue with facts instead of rhetoric. If you are going to say the RS support you without providing any in reply to his concerns you may as well not reply at all. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WLRoss"><name full="yes">WLRoss</name></ref> Wayne  <date>18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2008-01-20T21:36+00" who="WU00031004" xml:id="i.15513617_14_21">
+            <p>I provided multiple reliable sources which state the terrorists were on the plane, complete with flight lists that placed them on them.  The response has been that "they're faked" and the mainstream media is lying to us when they authenticated them.  I'm not basing my stance on "rhetoric" mdash; I'm basing it on reported facts.  People who disagree with what has been reported have little else to go on save claims that the proof provided does not meet their standards mdash; at no point in this discussion has anyone, ever, provided a reliable source as to this interpretation.  That tells me a lot about what's going on here. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo"><name full="yes">Haemo</name></ref><date>21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.15513617_15">
+          <head>Wrong fact: article asserts the death toll of 9/11 was 6,000, it was less than 3,000!</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T06:35+00" who="WU00494198" xml:id="i.15513617_15_1">
+            <p> The article it cites was incorrect.  The wiki article gets the death toll right earlier, but at citation 56 it gets it wrong.  This line should be removed.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>06:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-04-13T07:30+00" who="WU00024534" xml:id="i.15513617_15_2">
+            <p>The line is this one:- "Weeks after the attack, the estimated death toll was over 6,000." In context I don't think its wrong - this "was" the estimate shortly after the attack. Obviously this was scaled down a few months later to a more accurate figure. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Euryalus"><name full="yes">Euryalus</name></ref><date>07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_186210.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,420 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 1</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">186210.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>Yoshiman6464 et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 1</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%201" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">186210</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2017-02-14T23:32:59Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 1</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_1">
+          <head>Factual Details 1.0</head>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_2">
+            <head>Times</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_2_1">
+              <p> Also, it might be better to approximate all times unless the media settle on a time that the events happen. Currently there are a lot of discrepancies.</p>
+              <list>
+                <item>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/nygraphic091101.htm has it that the times are 8:48 and 9:03. An earlier graphic available there had the times as 8:50 and 9:01.</item>
+                <item>http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/index.html says 8:45 and 9:03.</item>
+              </list>
+              <p> Originally on the main page: 8:48 AM EDT on September 11, 2001 ... 9:06 AM EDT, </p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_3">
+          <head>Symbolism Theories and/or Palestinian Involvement</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_3_1">
+            <p> It is very clear that this attack was well planned.  You can see from the choice of date, time, target and even flight number is picked around the US emergency number 911.  The date is Sept 11, the time is around around 9am, they probably wanted to hit exactly on 9:11am but it would be hard to really control the flight time.  One of the flight chosen was flight 11.  The WTC twin towers look like 11 in new york skylines.</p>
+            <p> The news said this week also coincide with the Israeli Palestine peace talk by Jimmy Carter at Camp David.  One of the plane crashed in Pennsylvania and believed to target Camp David.</p>
+            <p> There are many symbolism used in this attack and everything seems to point to the Palestinian though they denied their involvement.</p>
+            <p> The Palestinian claims responsibility initially when the damage was relatively minor.  They probably only wanted to leave two big holes in one of US icon.  But when the buildings collapsed and killed tens of thousands of people, they realized they have done more than they planned so they reverted their claim.  That is just what any coward would do.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_3_2">
+            <p>This is purely speculative, and I should think, doubtful.  - Tim</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_4">
+          <head>Why [[al-Qaeda]] chose the date of September 11</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_4_1">
+            <p> I am sorry, but I cannot agree with any of theories I read during these years about the date chosen by al-Qaeda.</p>
+            <p> As European I think this is due to the youth of the U.S.A. and its lack of history.</p>
+            <p> At first we must ask ourselves what Islam says, why al-Qaeda was born, what al-Qaeda wants and who are the Heads.</p>
+            <p> The main principle of the Muslim Religion is in few words:</p>
+            <p> "Allah is one and Mohammed is his Profhet".</p>
+            <p> The main figure in the Islam is the Caliph. The first Caliph was Adam.</p>
+            <p> The Islam overruns the conception of Indipendent States, such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Lybanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and Turkey.</p>
+            <p> al-Qaeda as radical fundamentalist Islamic group, whose name means "the base" in English", has the main purpose to establish the pure application of the Muslim Religion just under one Guide, the Caliph, and to restore the Caliphate over the whole Islamic World.</p>
+            <p> Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are founders and senior members of al-Qaeda's shura council, and come from prominent high class families.</p>
+            <p> "We are in a new phase of a very old war" says - at the beginning of an Islamic website -  the title of a townscape painted by Italian painter Bernardo Bellotto (Venice 1721-1780 Warsaw), called Canaletto, between 1759/1761 in Vienna in a series of 13 prospects and reproducing the exact topographical urban panorama from the Belvedere (palace) .</p>
+            <p> This perspective construction unfolds between the gardens of both the Schwarzenberg Palace and the Belvedere itself in the foreground to a row of stately Baroque palaces and churches in the middle focal plane of the painting. These buildings are evidence of the active construction "boom" in Vienna after the second Turkish siege in 1683.</p>
+            <p> But why the Belvedere (palace)?</p>
+            <p> The Belvedere (palace) is a baroque complex built by Prince Eugene of Savoy in the 3rd district of Vienna, south-east of the city center.</p>
+            <p> After buying the plot of land in 1697, Prince Eugene had a large park created. The Schloss Belvedere began as a suburban entertainment villa: in 1714 work began to erect what is now called the "Lower Belvedere", not as a palace but as a garden villa, with an orangerie and paintings gallery, with suitable living quarters.  The architect was Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt, one of the most important architects of the Austrian Baroque, who produced in the complex of buildings his masterwork.</p>
+            <p> And who was Prince Eugene of Savoy?</p>
+            <p> Prince Eugene of Savoy was one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the Habsburg Empire and took part in the first large-scale battle of the Habsburg-Ottoman Wars, the Battle of Vienna in 1683.</p>
+            <p> After a mass in a Chapel in Kahlenberg at the gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683, in the morning, Jan III Sobieski King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and commander in Chief of the Christian Army of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, moved against the Muslim Armies of the Sultan Mehmed IV, commanded  by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, and defeated. The battle finished on September 12, 1683, about at 17 p.m.</p>
+            <p> The battle marked the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the Central European kingdoms, and the Ottoman Empire. Over the sixteen years following the battle, the Habsburgs of Austria, and their allies gradually occupied and dominated southern Hungary and Transylvania, which had been largely cleared by the Turkish forces.</p>
+            <p> The date of September 11, 2001 attacks chosen by al-Qaeda could mean the beginning and the revenge of a "very old War" against the Infidels.</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_5">
+          <head>WP response</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00090556" xml:id="i.186210_5_1">
+            <p> Someone had set up a memorial wiki of sorts at http://sknkwrks.ath.cx:1957/91101/wiki.pl  By the way, I'd like to thank those people who were so quick to document the tragedy here...I found out more from wiki than I found out from the news.  The text of Bush's address should be added too.</p>
+            <p> Yes, it is quite remarkable.  This article has received quite a lot of attention--well over 200 edits in about 27 hours--I just look forward to the time when we get that same unity of purpose on less tragic subjects too.  --KQ</p>
+            <p> I know this isn't a discussion forum but i'd like to thank Wikipedia too for keeping me up to date yesterday. I was stuck in my office here in Northern Ireland during the attack with no tv, no radio and all the news sites were down. - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamieTheFoool"><name full="yes">JamieTheFoool</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_6">
+          <head>Terror Tuesday</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000135" xml:id="i.186210_6_1">
+            <p> I haven't yet heard the phrase "Terror Tuesday."  Has anyone else?  Also, does anyone know why, after some people edit a page, an extra carriage return is added at the end of every paragraph?  That's very annoying to remove for such a huge article! --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LMS"><name full="yes">LMS</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_6_2">
+            <p> I've included The Terror Tuesday expression (I've read it somewhere). Didn't know that I should edit "this" page first...</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_6_3">
+            <p> Who said it?  I don't think Wikipedia should call it that just because you've "read it somewhere."  You don't need to edit this page first, usually.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_6_4">
+            <p> "Terror Tuesday" may refer to Tuesday, 29 May 1543,the day the Ottoman captured Constantanople.  Details are spelled out in Nicolo Barbaro's "Diary of the Siege of Constantinople 1453."</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_7">
+          <head>User Tech Problems</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000135" xml:id="i.186210_7_1">
+            <p> Please, 200.204.171.xxx , when you edit a page, it (automatically, apparently) adds carriage returns after EVERY PARAGRAPH.  This is extremely annoying.  Can you think of any reason why this is happening? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LMS"><name full="yes">LMS</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_7_2">
+            <p> Regarding the carriage returns... perhaps it's because I'm running Linux and there's a difference between Win32 CrLf and *nix "</p>
+            <p> " I think...</p>
+            <p> it also could be because I'm using Opera (but this is less likely).</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_7_3">
+            <p>Well, until you figure it out, could you please not edit pages?  I'm getting tired of removing all the extra spaces. --LMS</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_7_4">
+            <p>Actually, it's "more" likely to be your browser's fault than the OS.  I've edited pages from Unix boxes with no problem--the edited text gets passed back to Bomis via HTTP by the browser, and HTTP is very standardized regardless of the OSes at each end, so it the text gets mangled it's probably the browser.  --LDC</p>
+            <p> It is in fact an Opera-for-Linux bug.  I reported this bug to Opera several months ago when I discovered it but it's not been fixed.  It occurs with other versions of Wiki besides UseModWiki.  I know of no workaround except to use a different browser when editing wiki pages (which is what I do).  It is probably a simple thing to fix but since Opera is closed source we've no recourse but to use something else until Opera fixes it.</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_8">
+          <head>Factual Details 1.5</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_8_1">
+            <p> Can anyone verify that the northern tower (tower number one, the one to be hit first) was actually hit from the south side? I've seen conflicting reports. --AxelBoldt</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_8_2">
+            <p> There were references about using cell phones from the plane.  Should it mean the air phone on the back of the passenger seat.  I don't know if cell phone would work when the plane is in the air.  I remember I heard air phone, not cell phone in the news.  Can anyone confirm and correct?</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_9">
+          <head>Nostradamus &amp;amp; Other Misinformation</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00090556" xml:id="i.186210_9_1">
+            <p> I've heard rumors about a Nostradamus prophecy, something along the lines of "Two twin brothers will fall. The third great war will begin as the city of gold burns" - Anyone have a link to the full text. It would be interesting to read, if it is indeed true. Or maybe it's just an urban myth. - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamieTheFoool"><name full="yes">JamieTheFoool</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_9_2">
+            <p>Perhaps you can find it at http://www.astrologer.ru:8003/Nostradamiana/centuries-eng.html  --css</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00011547" xml:id="i.186210_9_3">
+            <p> i'm not sure, but it sounds like a blatant urban myth to me. i was on worldtradecenter on openprojects.net the night (UK time) of the 11th and that was going round. also it was in one of our stupid tabloid papers, every time i heard it, it was worlded totaly differently.  -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asa"><name full="yes">Asa</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00011547" xml:id="i.186210_9_4">
+            <p>just pulled it from my IRC logs (just so you can see how blatantly bogus it is) -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asa"><name full="yes">Asa</name></ref></signed>:</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_9_5">
+            <p>"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000580" xml:id="i.186210_9_6">
+            <p>Nostradamus died in 1566, after which he tended not to write much. Actually, this "prophecy" appears to come from http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~nmarshal/nostradamus.htm, where it is given as a fictitious example of the "sort of thing" that Nostradamus wrote, not as something that he actually "did" write. But according to the HTTP header this page dates from 20 May 1998 22:45:23 GMT... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zundark"><name full="yes">Zundark</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00002765" xml:id="i.186210_9_7">
+            <p> Bogus, all right. Whoever heard of New York being described as the City of God?  I've only ever heard Mammon mentioned in that context before.... Every 10 years someone brings out a new version of Nostradamus, with new retrospective interpretations. Whatever happened to the invasion from mars in 1999 that the 1970s edition predicted?  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malcolm%20Farmer"><name full="yes">Malcolm Farmer</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_9_8">
+            <p> - I think these prophecys come from the wildly innacurate English translations of Nostradamus' 17th Century French. Is this an actual prophecy, wrongly translated or is it completely fabricated. It would be interesting to see what is the case.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_9_9">
+            <p> For a different kind of prophecy, see this story on 'wired': http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46771,00.html</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_9_10">
+            <p> What to do with misinformation?  The bogus Nostradamus prophecy comes to mind; another example might be the recent edit to the main page:  "Removed reference to Kashmiri claiming; haven't heared anything of it since the first time, so I assume it was shown to be a fake quickly."  I can imagine that retaining misinformation and rumor -- but *clearly labeling it as misinformation or rumor* might be of some value to researchers in the future trying to understand how people deal with crises.  On the other hand, it makes sense to remove it if keeping it could lead to more harm than good.  I don't know.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00090556" xml:id="i.186210_9_11">
+            <p>I see no harm in keeping it, if it is moved to Rumours of Misinformation or something. This could prove usefull for future research as many of these rumours may be lost completely as time goes on. - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamieTheFoool"><name full="yes">JamieTheFoool</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00002620" xml:id="i.186210_9_12">
+            <p>Started a Misinformation page. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RjLesch"><name full="yes">RjLesch</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2005-09-12T01:59+00" who="WU00003478" xml:id="i.186210_9_13">
+            <p> The prophecies about 9/11 were hoaxes.  I am not a believer in Nostradamus, but know a little about him.  I got several e-mails on that day from people asking me about it, because they knew I would know about it.  The famous prophecy about 1999 is not about an invasion from Mars, but "a great king of Terror to revive the King of the Mongols".  Much of this quatrain fits with the September 11 events, so if any of them were to be about 9/11, it would be this one. It could also be placed with the Internet phenomenon page and would likely make a good addition. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rt66lt"><name full="yes">Rt66lt</name></ref><date>01:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_10">
+          <head>Article Content 1.0</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_10_1">
+            <p> Should we add a Personal Recollections--September 11, 2001 page for cataloguing the mundane events of everyone on that day? A social history should start as soon as possible so as to avoid the degradation and inflation of memory over time. I think the non-events, those little moments of wonder and fear, from around the country, will be immensely important for this project, which can gather such data so quickly.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_10_2">
+            <p> I just found http://www.bostoncoop.net:8080/SeptEleven?SeptEleven SeptEleven, a Wiki site for the terrorist attack. Unfortunately it's using the standard wiki, not the sexier wikipedia wiki. I'm not sure if that would be a better place for some of this, etc. Eh. Time to go outside. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000303" xml:id="i.186210_10_3">
+            <p> This page is getting us a lot of traffic...would someone (who is following the page more closely than I am...) please render it in consistent formatting, copyedit, etc.?  This would be a great service...  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry%20Sanger"><name full="yes">Larry Sanger</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_10_4">
+            <p> I really hope I wasn't too bold in editing, but I think this was the right thing to do. We need to add back information to the main page, basically summarizing what's in each category, I think. Or you can say I really erred and undiff it. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_10_5">
+            <p> Okay, I went wholesale on the site. I really, really don't like that "airport security" link. Maybe it should be "Background history" or something? The See also's should probably have links to the airplane flights. There's plenty of improvement still.</p>
+            <p> Is there a way to make templates? It would be so great if there could be one footer page, so that it could be updated for all the pages. (So you could write something like INCLUDE Footerpage and it would wiki...) If that isn't a current feature, I hope it gets implemented at some point. Though of course the footer is actually different for each page, at the moment. Eh.</p>
+            <p> Finally: should the external news pages be on its own page? I lean toward keeping them at the bottom of the main page...each subpage has their external links/references at the bottom. I don't feel strongly enough to revert it, though.</p>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_10_6">
+            <p> I just moved off the Casualties Talk to (natch) Casualties Talk. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_10_7">
+            <p> Added link to http://urbanlegends.about.com urbanlegends.about.com, the amazingly definitive site about urban legends and rumor-mongering. David Emery's coverage of the attack is astoundingly good. There's no need for us to try to duplicate the effort, but Wikipedia certainly could complement it. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_10_8">
+            <p> I just realized that the "related" links to Palestine, Gaza Strip, etc. on the bottom of the page, and on the homepage, are unfair and inflammatory. They were part of the news at the beginning, but are less directly related to the story now than say, Boston, Canada, or box cutters. Shouldn't those links be removed? (I don't think the Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan etc. links should be removed.) --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_11">
+            <head>Format &amp;amp; Style</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_11_1">
+              <p> Hey Cunctator, the way we've been writing biographies has been generally as follows: Full Name In Bold (date-date) was a occupation or other significant fact...  In other words, full sentences are good. --Larry</p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_11_2">
+              <p> Okay. Though I am partial to the other way.</p>
+              <p> More importantly, I'd like to encourage people to submit photos, especially people. Is there a way to allow people to do that, even an email address they could send images to that someone with access to the server could add? I know this is a general feature request, but I'd like to set something up as soon as possible. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_11_3">
+              <p> Let me voice my support for full sentences.  :-)  As for graphics, we've so far had to submit them to jasonr at bomis.com to have him upload them.  So far I think that has been done only for banners, though Jimbo et al may wish to make an exception.  :-) --KQ</p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00001081" xml:id="i.186210_11_4">
+              <p> Re the footer on all the September 11 pages: I think it would be nice with a ruler separating it from the body text of the page. It seems a bit overenthusiastic to edit all the pages (quite a few now!) just to put that in, but perhaps we should add it as we do other edits? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pinkunicorn"><name full="yes">Pinkunicorn</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.186210_11_5">
+              <p> I'm actually less enthusiastic than you are about the rules. As long as the elements of a page are recognizable as blocks, then blank space is usually the best separator. Rules should be used sparingly. IMHO. But I really don't care; right now there's no uniformity in the pages. The person who wants to make the effort to make them uniform wins, in my book. 'Swhy we need that INCLUDE mechanism; see above or InsertPagesIntoOtherPages while I work on fixing up the Feature requests monstrosity. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_12">
+          <head>Solicitation of Donations</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000559" xml:id="i.186210_12_1">
+            <p> There is a link to an external donations page.  While I don't have a problem in principle with such a link, the way the text is currently written implies that wikipedia somehow approves the link.  Is this appropriate?  -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert%20Merkel"><name full="yes">Robert Merkel</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00001685" xml:id="i.186210_12_2">
+            <p> I moved it to the donation page and removed the plea. The same pice of text also appeared at the homepage sometime yesterday. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:css"><name full="yes">css</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_13">
+          <head>Content 2.0</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_13_1">
+            <p> There's a story on what happened on the plane that crashed in the field here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp?pne=msn</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_13_2">
+            <p> (re U.S. attack on Sudan plant)</p>
+            <p> The US claimed the plant was involved in the manufacture of chemical weapons, but never released the results of soil tests it had conducted at the site which it said proved its claim; a government spokesman said the information was classified. Some have argued that Clinton ordered the attack in order to deflect attention from the scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. (See the amazingly prescient movie "Wag the Dog", released in January 1998, in which a famous spin doctor (Robert De Niro) is enlisted along with a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to create a quick (but phony) war in order to take the public's focus off of the president's scandalous personal life. The US also tried to</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_13_3">
+            <p> Someone just changed "what might be the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world" to "...on United States' land". While there have been more devastating battles, attacks, acts (e.g. bombing of Dresden, Holocaust, etc.), I think the original description was entirely justifiable. I'm changing it back, unless someone can point to a more devastating terrorist attack. "the history of the world" is slightly misleading hyperbole, as terrorism is a modern phenomenon, but in pretty much any measure I can think of, this is an act that is more than just an American history event. --TheCunctator</p>
+            <p> It's a useful perspective; I think Wikipedia needs comprehensive entries about all the things listed in that article: Hiroshima, Mai Lai, the Gulf War, various starvation, etc. I know my emphasis on this attack is in a way selfish, but I don't intend to ignore everything else. The Back history page does a reasonable job at mentioning some of the things mentioned in that article. And the History of Afghanistan article is getting quite good.</p>
+            <p> The best way, I believe, to be "fair" to all the victims of injustice on Wikipedia is to create sober entries for each act, to tell the history as factually as possible. --TheCunctator</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_13_4">
+            <p> NOTE: Saudi Arabia stopped recognizing the Taliban as the official Afghan government in 1998, when it asked Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden, and Afghanistan refused.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_13_5">
+            <p> (Moved from the Back history page)</p>
+            <p> I think this page should be located at Background history, not Back history.  I'd make the change but then I'd have to change all those subpages and links lists.  :-)</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_13_6">
+            <p>I think Back history is fine, but I don't feel strongly either way. --TheCunctator</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_14">
+          <head>Naming</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_14_1">
+            <p> "'The War on Terror"'</p>
+            <p> I don't want to make any changes, as so much "'fine"' work has been done, but the general phrase used by everyone (World media, politicians, etc) seems to be "The War On Terror". The anthrax events happening worldwide, the attack on afghanistan all fall under this heading, and I am thinking that the Sept 11 pages belong under than as well.</p>
+            <p> And I know that "the War on Terror" seems a bit vague, but then so does "The Gulf War", "The Great War", "The War of the Roses". This is what people will call it for all time I am guessing. - MB</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_14_2">
+            <p>I kind of doubt it, actually, since it's so freaking propagandistic. I suspect the historical name will be something like The American War on Islamic Terrorism or The First World War of the Third Millenium (depending on how it pans out).</p>
+            <p> And I really don't want Wikipedia to have its main entry called "The War on Terror". I've started collecting the Slogans and terms used. Right now a The War on Terror entry should be more about the propagandic use of the phrase rather than a clearinghouse for the developing events. Note that in the Islamic world the name being used by everyone (World media, politicians, etc.) is The War on Islam. --TheCunctator</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_15">
+          <head>Content 3.0</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_15_1">
+            <p> 165.121.24.xxx, can you state where you're getting the information from? These pages, for obvious reasons, need to be assiduously referenced. It's truly great that you're adding the information, but if it can't be confirmed, then we'll get in trouble. Also, it seems like some of the info is being copied verbatim from some other reference, which is also dangerous (such as the Zoe Johnson entry). Please alleviate my fears. --TheCunctator</p>
+            <p> ABDUL RASHID DOSTUM = MABUS</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_15_2">
+            <p>Ahh... thanks for that. Has your medication been checked lately?</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_15_3">
+            <p> Should add that the World Trade Center fire was finally extinguished on December 19 after burning for three months. But I can't find where to put it.  --rmhermen</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_15_4">
+            <p> The trick is to first add to the Timeline:</p>
+            <p> Timeline December 2001 (which didn't exist yet because I don't like adding to Wikipedia much any more)</p>
+            <p> then the best place for the entry within the current framework is probably</p>
+            <p> Rescue and recovery effort, a page which needs a lot of work.</p>
+            <p> But the number one answer is to be bold in editing pages. Just stick it in somewhere, and if you can't find a place to put it, make one.</p>
+            <p> --TheCunctator</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000559" xml:id="i.186210_15_5">
+            <p> There's no longer any doubt that the plane that crashed in the field was crashed due to the efforts of the passengers and crew to overpower the hijackers, is there? --User:<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert%20Merkel"><name full="yes">Robert Merkel</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_16">
+            <head>NPOV Complaint</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_16_1">
+              <p> This article is nowhere near NPOV.  First of all, the term "terrorist" is a disputed term and should not appear in titles.  Although this attack would satisfy most people's definition of a "terrorist attack", there are some who simply refuse to have such a definition, and "terrorist" ought to be avoided in titles.  For one thing, the Pentagon is by any sane criteria a legitimate military target, and people working there (even if they wear civilian suits) are not civilians in the sense understood by international law.</p>
+              <p> Also the "in memoriam" should either appear in absolutely all accounts of a major battle or massacre or atrocity or serial killing, or nowhere whatsoever.</p>
+              <p> Calling for donations is especially inappropriate given there are children in Western Afghanistan at this moment being sold into slavery for a few dollars as aid from Iran is prevented from reaching them.  If someone cares to mention literally all the victims of all the events that came from Sept. 11th, fine, go for it.</p>
+              <p> Given that Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" is the biggest selling nonfiction work in America right now, I think the ordinary US point of view is somewhat more critical of US foreign policy, intelligence failures, bad leadership (i.e. Bush who was pointing at nonexistent North Korean missiles on Sept. 10th), quick judgement (the task force sailed for Afghanistan on September 19th - and must have taken a whole week to get ready, suggesting that there was no more than one day's judgement involved).</p>
+              <p> I am putting this article on a Death Warrant.  Fix it without 72 hours please.  Out of respect for victims and authors, I won't touch it, but this is just not an encyclopedia article as it stands.  It's hopelessly US-centric, self-absorbed even, and reminds me of worthless US media coverage.</p>
+              <p> If it reads the same in 72 hours, I'm going to find someone on Indymedia to "fix" it... someone with a radically different point of view.  Such a point of view might well say "a bunch of stupid American military planners and debt traders and other criminals believed they could get away with mass murder on a global scale forever and never pay for it - they and many civilian plane passengers learned differently on September 11th, 2001..."</p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_17">
+            <head>Conspiracy Theories</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00006512" xml:id="i.186210_17_1">
+              <p> I find the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Zionist conspiracy theories hardly useful, except for maybe the first paragraph. The rest of the page is merely a bunch of quotes, which don't give much information on the subject - some of them are probably out of context as well. I would propose to greatly reduce the number of quotes (or even remove them all), maybe put some links to the articles they were taken from. May 30, 20002 - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:jheijmans"><name full="yes">jheijmans</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00001891" xml:id="i.186210_17_2">
+              <p>I agree that this new entry needs work!  Although I am the one who contributed these quotes, they were only intended as the beginning of the article, not the end of it. They can serve as the nucleus for more writing. We need others who are well read in this subject to contribute as well.  Note that conspiracy theory is a major component of Arab and middle-eastern politics and sociology. (For example, consider the Egyptian claims of a Zionist hormone-laced bubblegum conspiracy: Egyptians claimed that pre-marital sex in Egypt by teenage girls is really caused by a Zionist plot to lace bubble-gum with aphrodisiacs...and this conspiracy theory was bandied around for months in the Government funded state press.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RK"><name full="yes">RK</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00001891" xml:id="i.186210_17_3">
+              <p>However, I disagree that these quotes were taken out of context. I am not aware of any analysis that disagrees with the plain meaning of these texts. In fact, in what possible context could one take them to mean anything different?  Remember that in some Arab countries it is taught in schools that there is a worldwide conspiracy of Jews to secretly rule the world. This is presented as an indisputable historical fact, from elementary school up through college. Is it any surprise that in such a society, many would blame "the Jews" for the WTC terrorism as well?  There are many moderate Arab professors and journalists in the West who know that this is false, and have written about this phenomenon. It would good to read about and summarize their research in this article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RK"><name full="yes">RK</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00006512" xml:id="i.186210_17_4">
+              <p> I know there is/was such a thing as a suspsected Zionist conspiracy, which lived/s mostly in the Arab world. And so this article about it, in conjunction with the 9/11 attacks seems justified for an encyclopedia article. But: I don't think it really is one now. Reading more than two quotations gets boring. I have to see the common lines between them (if any) myself, and I don't want to do that when reading an encyclopedia article. In this case, where the Western reader may be unfamiliar with the topic, a few quotations would be good. But not this amount.</p>
+              <p> About the out-of-context thing: when quoting people, there's always the danger their sentences were taken out of context. I cannot judge, since I didn't read that context. Another important part of the context is what you just mentioned: the constant Zionist conspiracy theories in the Arab world. The average reader may not know about this, and may therefore be surprised about such theories. Knowing such theories exist for years already, it may be easier to understand. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:jheijmans"><name full="yes">jheijmans</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_17_5">
+              <p> I think that the 2823 casualty figure for the World Trade Center includes those on the airplanes. Does anyone knopw for certain? If so we are double counting some of the casualties.   --rmhermen</p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.186210_17_6">
+              <p> "fortunately such a declaration was not made for the Oklahoma City bombing" sounds like a violation of NPOV.  -- Zoe</p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_18">
+            <head>Subpages and/or Memoriam</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00006512" xml:id="i.186210_18_1">
+              <p> I think many of the subpages here are too much of a good thing. Of course this was a terrible event, but does an encyclopedia need lists of victims (some even with articles on them...), missing persons, media slogans, New York Times articles, related jokes, etc.? I don't think so. If I read an encyclopedia, I want to get the real info. What happened, what was were the important consequences etc. All the other info may be nice for a site dedicated to the subject, but not for an encyclopedia. Also the "In Memoriam" seems a bit overdone for an encyclopedia - it does not give me the idea Wikipedia is authorative or neutral on the subject.</p>
+              <p> Otherwise, we should have a list of all the six million Jews killed in WWII, and of all the other millions and millions of war and violence victims, and place "In Memoriam" signs there as well.</p>
+              <p> Summarising: this collection of subpages should be rewritten to make a real encyclopedia article.</p>
+              <p> June 14, 2002 <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:jheijmans"><name full="yes">jheijmans</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00002990" xml:id="i.186210_18_2">
+              <p>I agree in general, but except for the main page these pages are the most popular for the entire site and are listed very high on google. I would hate to see them go for this and personal emotional reasons which I can't ignore. These pages are a reflection of how people tried to cope with an event of unprecedented magnitude. Can we hold off on making any major changes until at least the year anniversary of this event has passed? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:maveric149"><name full="yes">maveric149</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00001461" xml:id="i.186210_18_3">
+              <p>How about moving the "in memorium" thing over to the top of the list of victims? That way at least the front page looks more "professional," and people who are going to look at the list of victims are likely to expect something like the "in memorium" banner there.</p>
+              <p> We can start trimming some of the less encyclopedic stuff gradually over time, perhaps replacing it with more encyclopedic stuff in the process. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bryan%20Derksen"><name full="yes">Bryan Derksen</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00006512" xml:id="i.186210_18_4">
+              <p>Yes, I noticed their popularity as well, that has kept me from writing this earlier. And maybe that means these should not be removed, but moved to another appropriate location (e.g. other website). I also see this is a sensitive topic, but Wikipedia should remain neutral, and this page does not really show neutrality. It would be fine with me to wait until a year afterwards or so before making the changes (though pages as "Give blood" are no longer useful anymore of course). I will (re)move the "In memoriam" block in a moment, however. -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:jheijmans"><name full="yes">jheijmans</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00001461" xml:id="i.186210_18_5">
+              <p>One potential future home for some of this stuff could be Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages. True, the sept. 11 thing isn't directly wikipedia-related, but it seems reasonable to me that we might want to keep a copy of this article for posterity over there even though a lot of it is obsolete or non-encyclopedic. Plus, the transition can be made gracefully, with redirections.</p>
+              <p> No hurry, of course. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bryan%20Derksen"><name full="yes">Bryan Derksen</name></ref></signed></p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_19">
+            <head>Account of reactions</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00090557" xml:id="i.186210_19_1">
+              <p> Who wrote this lot?</p>
+              <list>
+                <item> "A significant minority see the attack as a likely outcome of past United States involvement in the Middle East and surrounding area, and fear that a violent response will only continue the cycle.</item>
+                <item>A related viewpoint is that such acts of terrorism as this are inevitable due to the economic and social imperialism of the United States and multinational corporations, which creates pockets of hatred in poor countries with minimal control of their political destiny, due to overwhelming economic pressures from outside.</item>
+                <item>However, the majority of people all over the world believe that terrorism is an absolute evil, that may have a cause but always lacks justification. In their opinion, the fact that the assailants resorted to the use of force in genocidal proportions, prevents them from being legitimate entities and voids their right to have their opinion respected by the world community. "</item>
+              </list>
+              <p> This is horribly biased. 'Significant minority', hatred only in 'poor widdwe countries that can't sort themselves out.  Give me a break. I agree with 24 above, this whole 9/11 reads suspiciously like something from CNN or (even) worse. Time for some NPOVing, surely? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Radiofriendlyunitshifta"><name full="yes">Radiofriendlyunitshifta</name></ref></signed>, Tuesday, July 16, 2002</p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.186210_20">
+          <head>Dates</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2002-08-03T06:41-07" who="WU00001227" xml:id="i.186210_20_1">
+            <p> As for particular dates of events, shouldn't ISO standard date format be used for the names of entries, such as 2001 September 11?</p>
+            <p> mdash; Anonymous (129.116.166.xxx)</p>
+            <p> This is an issue much greater than this one page.</p>
+            <p> We use dates of this form all over Wikipedia by default, probably as a result of the American bias here.</p>
+            <p> I'd suggest taking this up in a place more widely read by the regulars than this; if you're new here and don't know, try starting at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.</p>
+            <p> mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby%20Bartels"><name full="yes">Toby Bartels</name></ref> Toby <date>06:41 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_23685192.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,504 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 47</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">23685192.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>MiszaBot I et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 47</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2047" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">23685192</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2009-08-20T07:45:22Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass>
+        <keywords>
+          <term/>
+        </keywords>
+        <keywords>
+          <term/>
+        </keywords>
+      </textClass>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 47</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{talkarchivenav}}&amp;lt;&amp;gt;__TOC__
+
+== &amp;quot;Terrorists&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;Operatives&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Members&amp;quot;? ==
+  {{quote box2
+	| width		= 400px
+	| align		= center
+	| halign	= left
+	| quote		= The September 11 attacks (often referred to as 9/11, pronounced ''nine-eleven'') were a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda on the United States on September 11, 2001. </note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T16:27+00" who="WU00018292" xml:id="i.23685192_1_1">
+            <p> See TERRORIST. —nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NRen2k5"><name full="yes">NRen2k5</name></ref>(TALK), <date>16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T16:31+00" who="WU00077092" xml:id="i.23685192_1_2">
+            <p>For the second sentence, why can't we just say "19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda..."? //  <signed type="unsigned"><date>16:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T16:55+00" who="WU00018292" xml:id="i.23685192_1_3">
+            <p>I personally tend to favour using fewer words as long as AVOID is satisfied, but yeah, that also works. —nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NRen2k5"><name full="yes">NRen2k5</name></ref>(TALK), <date>16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T16:58+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.23685192_1_4">
+            <p>Members of? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T17:01+00" who="WU00077092" xml:id="i.23685192_1_5">
+            <p>I don't like "members of".  al-Qaeda isn't  <signed type="unsigned"><date>17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T17:08+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.23685192_1_6">
+            <p>To me affiliated sounds like they are sub-contractors. They certainly had some close relationship. I think that to conduct such an operation, the hijackers had to be closely enough related to al-Qaeda that to say they were members isn't unreasonable. Don't need "cards" to be a member of something. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T17:16+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.23685192_1_7">
+            <p>And just another note, a nebulous organization doesn't come to mind when thinking about a group pulling off an operation like these attacks. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T18:05+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.23685192_1_8">
+            <p>And the did, in fact, prove to be blockbusters.  <signed type="unsigned"><date>18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T09:09+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_9">
+            <p> Oh COME on. We've had this debate so many times before. Haven't you people looked in the archives? TERRORIST is not a rule, it's a suggestion. They are terrorists in every sense of the word. Calling them anything but is pushing POV. I'm reverting this edit, and I'll fight this as hard as I have to. DUCK. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>09:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T11:22+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_10">
+            <p>And Duck is an essay not policy terrorist is POV it is simple have you not heard one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>11:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T02:13+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_11">
+            <p>Oh what, TERRORIST is policy now, but DUCK isn't? I call bullshit. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T02:19+00" who="WU00018292" xml:id="i.23685192_1_12">
+            <p>Holy fuck, are you for real? —nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NRen2k5"><name full="yes">NRen2k5</name></ref>(TALK), <date>02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-16T02:00+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_13">
+            <p>I'd ask you the same thing bub. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T16:35+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_14">
+            <p>I strongly agree with Tarage. Calling them anything other than terrorists would be a POV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>16:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T18:48+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_15">
+            <p>Yeah I forgot NPOV doesn't exist on this article, silly me and I thought NPOV was a core policy. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>18:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T02:13+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_16">
+            <p>Oh cry more. NPOV is a core policy, but we listen to RS. RS calls them terrorists, so they are terrorists. Stop pushing POV. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T21:32+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_1_17">
+            <p> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_42use_of_the_word_terrorist this from last year. While consensus can change, what hasn't changed is that reliable sources call them terrorists and so do we. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T21:37+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_18">
+            <p>Why is it not attributed in the article text instead of stating it as fact, not many people would consider that it wasn't a terrorist attack but it is still a pejorative term and inherently not neutral. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T21:54+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_1_19">
+            <p>Several of the references in this article call them terrorists. Then again, you already knew that because you took the time to read the references before commenting. And "terrorist" is no more pejorative than "murderer". That's what they are, that's what sources call them, therefore that's what we call them. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T02:33+00" who="WU00018292" xml:id="i.23685192_1_20">
+            <p>I went ahead and took a look at our Al-Qaeda article. In its lede, it enumerates some organizations that define them as terrorists. I’d be comfortable with the use of the term here as long as it’s sourced. The course of action I have in mind is to lift that passage’s citations, group them into one reference here, and tack it onto the term “terrorist” if we’re going to use it in the lede. —nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NRen2k5"><name full="yes">NRen2k5</name></ref>(TALK), <date>02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T02:30+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.23685192_1_21">
+            <p> Policy says that we present content "as evidenced by reliable sources". The word "terrorist" is a characterization made by reliable sources, it is thus something that the reliable sources "added" to the facts. As an encylopedia, we should stick to the "facts" as evidenced by the sources. (The issue is more evident when we think of opinion pieces, where opinions and facts are so intertwined that it's often difficult to determine the actual facts, thus opinion pieces are generally considered to be less useful sources.)nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T06:42+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_22">
+            <p>Cs32en, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=296473262oldid=296376044 this was your edit in the lead section. The lead section of an article should explain things in simple words. There is no need to change the lead section. If anyone thinks differently, please discuss here first. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T06:45+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_1_23">
+            <p>That doesn't make any sense. If the whole encylopedia followed from your logic, we would have to get rid of any material containing critical analyses of our subjects. You are completely wrong. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>06:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T12:55+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.23685192_1_24">
+            <p>We do not need to get rid of opinions. We should attribute notable opinions to those people or institutions that express them. This is the reason why we have a guideline that explains how to avoid editorializing, and why we should be especially careful when using opinion pieces as sources.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>12:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T12:43+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_25">
+            <p>I don't want the whole encyclopedia to follow my logic, and I also don't want to get rid of any material containing critical analyses of our subjects. Cs32en's edit was followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=296474877oldid=296473262 A Quest For Knowledge's edit. The lead section of the article is ok; instead of needlessly arguing about the lead section, we should concentrate on other parts of the article so that we can bring the 9/11 article to featured article. How am I completely wrong? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T19:09+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_1_26">
+            <p>My reply wasn't to you, it was to Cs32en. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-16T00:14+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_27">
+            <p>Eh, thanks for clarifying. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-15T12:59+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_28">
+            <p>FA? In my opinion this is not even a GA as it fails 4 and 5 of the criteria for a GA so if FA is what you are loking for then a whole lot more work needs to get done on this article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-16T01:01+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_1_29">
+            <p>It fails criterion number four only in the minds of the delusional and the only reason it might fail criterion five is because you and your ilk have decided to edit war in an attempt to sabotage the article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>01:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-16T02:00+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_30">
+            <p>At this point I'm willing to say, don't feed the trolls. This is all he is doing now, and it's pathetic. Good Faith be damned, this is just pathetic. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T12:45+00" who="WU00024968" xml:id="i.23685192_1_31">
+            <p>Is this when everyone stands up, thumps their chest and chant ""U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!""?? Arn't we supposed to be writing a neutral POV encyclopedia or have I just stepped into US national wikipedia as opposed to English language wikipedia.</p>
+            <p> Maybe some of my American cousins need to check their rage over 9/11 at the door and put on their wikipedians hat! I find some of the actions of some editors here, most notably Tarage and AdjustShift pretty embarassing to say the least. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vintagekits"><name full="yes">Vintagekits</name></ref><date>12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T17:26+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_32">
+            <p>In a neutral POV encyclopedia, we call terrorists terrorists. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>17:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T17:33+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_33">
+            <p>AdjustShift are you honestly saying that terrorist is a neutral term? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T17:56+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_34">
+            <p>Calling those 19 terrorists anything other than terrorists would be a POV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="10" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T18:04+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_35">
+            <p>Thats not what I asked you, is terrorist neutral or is it a pejorative term? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T16:07+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_1_36">
+            <p> You guys must have a look at this former terrorists talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_McGuinnessFormer_Terrorist_Designation...talk about Duck? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="11" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T18:39+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_37">
+            <p>Calling someone a terrorist may or may not be neutral, but in this particular case, calling those 19 terrorists anything other than terrorists would be a POV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="12" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T19:04+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_38">
+            <p>So you are refusing to answer my question I thought an admin would at least explain themselves instead of "because they are". <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="13" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T20:42+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_39">
+            <p>BigDunc, you didn't read my response carefully. Calling someone a terrorist may or may not be neutral. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="14" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T20:47+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_40">
+            <p>Could you explain how it could be neutral because I honestly can't see it. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="15" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T21:04+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_1_41">
+            <p>When 19 people hijack commercial passenger jet airliners, and intentionally crashed them into buildings to kill innocent people, we call those 19 people "terrorists". Calling those 19 people "terrorists" is neutral. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-17T21:21+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_1_42">
+            <p> (outdent) That is not an explanation of how it is neutral. I can't get into the minds of the people who carried out these attacks or their supporters but I assume they believe that they were fighting a war and they use that as justification for their acts. So when we label people terrorists we are making a judgement As David Spaull, then-Editor of World Service News wrote in 1988:</p>
+            <p> "Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned - we should still avoid the word. In the first place, our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T12:45+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_1_43">
+            <p>Absolute gobbly-gook, that's the whole point of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia, a source of info and facts, not a few guesses so that individuals can create their own hypothesis. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T06:45+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_44">
+            <p>WE are making no such judgment. Reliable Sources are. The weight of the number of sources calling these people terrorists vastly outweighs sources calling them anything but. We don't need to say "some say" because nearly ALL say. Just as we don't say "some believe the world is round", calling them terrorists is FAR from POV. As <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift">x</ref> AdjustShift keeps reminding you, calling them anything BUT terrorists is POV. Hell, calling them terrorists may not be 100% NPOV, but of all the possible options, it is the MOST NPOV. Now drop it already. It isn't going to change. The majority AND RS are against you. Keep it up and I'll request a topic ban. This has reached the point of not being funny anymore. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T14:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_45">
+            <p>(In response to the reverts)And get thicker skin apparently. If you think saying someone has a thick skull is a horrible uncalled for personal attack... you need to get out more Dunc. Weren't you told to lighten up already when you made that silly ANI? I guess I should have expected this... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T12:23+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_1_46">
+            <p>I agree with you whole heartedly mate, hidden agenda's are apparent here and double standards. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>12:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T12:55+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_1_47">
+            <p>Just in case you missed my link above (due to an editor with a NPOV deleting it) I repeat it now. "You guys must have a look at this former terrorists talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_McGuinnessFormer_Terrorist_Designation...talk about Duck? Can we assume one standard across Wikipedia and not one rule for Al-Qaeda and another for the PIRA?" --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T14:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_48">
+            <p>Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), there aren't concrete 'rules' that say what you are talking about. DUCK is a suggestion, just as TERRORIST is. It's up to the editors working on said article to come to a consensus based on what reliable sources say. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-19T20:55+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_1_49">
+            <p>Incorrect. The assignation "terrorist" should everywhere and always be prohibited on Wiki as it is a pejorative phrase - period. It is "'always"' POV. Not NPOV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T00:01+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_1_50">
+            <p>Excuse me what? This is just your opinion right? I assume you are not asserting that Wikipedia should be censored. Either way, you are wrong, and we are still going to use the word, because the Reliable Sources overwhelmingly do. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T00:16+00" who="WU00038956" xml:id="i.23685192_1_51">
+            <p>Censorship does happen, atleast here on this article you are allowed open debate about the term. On the article mentioned by De Unionist earlier such debate it seems is not allowed and gets reverted despite the fact its about a self declared former leader of a terrorist organisation.</p>
+            <p> It is very sad today that some people think its not neutral to describe a terrorist as a terrorist. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BritishWatcher"><name full="yes">BritishWatcher</name></ref><date>00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_2">
+          <head>Suicide vs. Homicide attack</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-11T00:17+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.23685192_2_1">
+            <p> The latter is a term preferred by Bill O'Reilly types, and it's misleading. Tim McVeigh's was a homicide attack. 9/11 was a suicide attack.  <signed type="unsigned"><date>00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-11T07:38+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_2_2">
+            <p>While I agree that it probably was the intent of the hijackers to take their own lives, it was not the main goal. The goal was to cause as much damage and loss of life as possible. Both terms are correct, but one was more intended than the other. Just because Bill O'Reilly types use it does not make it less correct. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>07:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-11T07:41+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_2_3">
+            <p>To me, that's what a suicide attack is: the attacker ends his/her own life with the intent of doing maximum damage to others. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>07:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-11T13:47+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.23685192_2_4">
+            <p>To me, "homicide attack" sounds as if they wanted to kill specific individuals. Describing the attacks as "suicide attacks" leads the reader to ask "How did they kill themselves?", "How many attackers died?" etc.; these are not the most relevant aspects of the events. It's probably best just to call them "attacks".nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-11T14:32+00" who="WU00086786" xml:id="i.23685192_2_5">
+            <p>I don't know what a homicide attack is (other than a neologism, of course). Note that this term redirects to suicide attack. "A "'suicide attack"' is an attack intended to kill others and inflict widespread damage in the knowledge that oneself will die in the process."</p>
+            <p> So much for original research / citing Wikipedia. The question we "ought" to be asking is, what do the sources say?  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheffieldSteel"><name full="yes">SheffieldSteel</name></ref> SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK <date>14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-11T14:42+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.23685192_2_6">
+            <p>Few reliable sources call the attacks "suicide attacks" or "homicide attacks". So, the only justification for using "suicide" or "homicide" in the lead sentence would be to consolidate information from the article's body anyway (we are not dealing with a name here, but with a description). I do not see a valid reason to consolidate the information in this way (as explained above).nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T12:09+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.23685192_2_7">
+            <p>Bill O'Reilly started using the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" in reference to middle east suicide bombings, as a kind of right-wing political correctness, apparently because he thought "suicide bomber" somehow glorified the bomber. It apparently did not occur to him that "any" kind of terrorist bombing is a "homicide bombing", whether the perpetrator dies or whether he runs away like McVeigh did. But I don't think the 9/11 attacks have been typically emphasized as "suicide attacks", even though they obviously were.  <signed type="unsigned"><date>12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T12:33+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.23685192_2_8">
+            <p>The noun "attack" itself implies the attackers wanted to kill people.  The adjective "suicide" means that the attackers are so desperate to kill people that they're willing to die themselves to accomplish their goal of killing their victims.  IOW, "homicide attack" is redundant.  Do we say that in WWII that the Nazi's "homicide attacked" Poland or that the Japanese "homicide attacked" Pearl Harbor?  No.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T12:42+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.23685192_2_9">
+            <p>Yes, in general. It's worth pointing out, though, that some attacks are strategic rather than homicidal, such as bombing oil reserves and such stuff as that, which a fair amount of the Allied bombing raids in WWII were.  <signed type="unsigned"><date>12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T13:00+00" who="WU00077092" xml:id="i.23685192_2_10">
+            <p>I strongly opposed the use of the term "'homicide attack"'.  It's not at all a term used in academic circles or mainstream media sources.  I imagine only a tiny proportion of the sources used in this article make reference to the term.  Regardless of whether homicide or suicide makes more sense to us, arguing based on intent and calling it something our sources don't violates any number of policies.  //  <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T13:04+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.23685192_2_11">
+            <p>I don't think many sources call it a "homicide attack". The question is whether to say "suicide attack" or simply "attack".  <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T13:16+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.23685192_2_12">
+            <p>Off the top of my head, I think that "terrorist attack" is the most commonly used phrase. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T13:19+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_2_13">
+            <p>Of course why go for a neutal wording the terrorists yeah way to uphold NPOV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-12T13:27+00" who="WU00007662" xml:id="i.23685192_2_14">
+            <p>"Terrorist attack" is political, and I don't think all that many sources emphasize that, but I could be wrong. Actually, I think more people simply call the event "9/11" (as in "nine-eleven") than anything else. Which is probably why no one references the emergency phone number as "nine-eleven" anymore - it's "nine-one-one".  <signed type="unsigned"><date>13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-14T09:15+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_2_15">
+            <p>It's not political, it's cited. Reliable Sources around the world call it a series or terrorist attacks. Calling it anything but is inserting POV. We've HAD this debate before. Check the archives. Please stop pushing POV... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>09:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-23T02:41+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.23685192_2_16">
+            <p>In fact, it's hard to find a source, reliable or not, which "'doesn't"' call it a terrorist attack.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_3">
+          <head>Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T19:14+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_3_1">
+            <p> Discussion top|This discussion isn't going to ameliorate the 9/11 article, so there is no reason to continue this discussion. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T15:57+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_2">
+            <p> There is no justification for using the label 'terrorist' in this article as it is contrary to Terrorist. Has Osama bin Laden stated that he is a terrorist or that his organisation is a terrorist organisation...I think not. There has to be continuity and uniformity between articles. Calling an organisation or an individual a terrorist in one and a member or a paramilitary in another is simply nonsense.  Opinions contrary to TE should not be promoted.  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T18:07+00" who="WU00177358" xml:id="i.23685192_3_3">
+            <p>Would you kindly do the rest of us a favor and take a look at the topic section immediately above this one? Or, perhaps, peruse the archives for the dozens of other places this exact topic has come up and been dismissed? Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The United Nations has said so, whether OBL will fess up to it or not. The man who murdered the military recruiter in Arkansas may have said he doesn't view himself as a murderer, but that does not change the fact that he is one - and the same principle applies here. Consensus has not changed, and no new arguments have been presented in favor of such a change. Before lecturing us on ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T18:31+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_3_4">
+            <p>It seems to me that we have to explain each and everything to some editors who are posting here. Many reliable sources have called Al Qaeda a terrorist organization. Please read the basic policies of the English-language Wikipedia before posting here. See OR, RS, V, NPOV, and Consensus. Read the archives of this talk page, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T18:38+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.23685192_3_5">
+            <p>Agreed.  It's ridiculous to think that in an article on the worst terrorist attack of all time, we can't use the word 'terrorist'.  I'm currently watching "Inside 9/11", a documentary by National Geographic (which is a RS) and they don't shy away from using the word 'terrorist'.  Neither should we.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>18:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T19:44+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_6">
+            <p> OK...now that we have established the preamble lets look at the consensus. Are you saying that it is ok to label poor old Osama Bin Laden with the terrorist label but not any other terrorists and former terrorists who just happen to not have attacked the USA? Is it only terrorists and terrorist organisations that have attacked the USA and US interests that can be labelled such?  --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed>::</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T19:45+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_7">
+            <p>and btw, I wouldn't consider this to be the worst terrorist attack of all time anyway, this is simply your POV --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:12+00" who="WU00177358" xml:id="i.23685192_3_8">
+            <p>If you take issue with other articles using (or not using) the term, then I suggest you pose this question ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:17+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_3_9">
+            <p>De Unionist, you are *still* not getting it. There are plenty of reliable sources (see RS) that call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist. Original research is not allowed on WP. If you want to insert something, you have to provide a reliable source. We call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist because plenty of reliable sources call him a terrorist. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:44+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_10">
+            <p>Yes, and plenty of reliable sources have referred to Nelson Mandela and Martin McGuinness as terrorists but they are not labelled such here for Political reasons...this cannot be correct and makes a mockery of the Wikipedia ethos. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T03:26+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_3_11">
+            <p>Can you point out to one reliable source which calls Nelson Mandela a terrorist? De Unionist, we don’t allow white supremacists to control articles here on en.wikipedia. Those so called "reliable sources" which call Nelson Mandela a terrorist are actually fringe sources. See FRINGE. Your arguments are completely irrelevant to this article. Please comment on the ways we can ameliorate the 9/11 article; if you keep on making needless comments, your comments will be erased from this talk page. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:52+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_3_12">
+            <p>Those two articles are irrelevant to this one. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:56+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_3_13">
+            <p>Why is it every time an editor doesn't get their way, they claim their issue makes Wikipedia somehow horrible? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:53+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_14">
+            <p> No they are not, if it is one rule for the US and another for everyone else, what sort of a message does that send out. We are talking about policy here, not specifics. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:56+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_3_15">
+            <p>Take it up with those articles. This isn't changing. You are wasting your time here. Terrorist is a SUGGESTION, not a RULE. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T20:59+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_16">
+            <p> You cannot have it both ways, they are either designated terrorist throughout Wikipedia projects or they aren't. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T21:00+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_3_17">
+            <p>Wikipedia doesn't designate anyone or thing. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T21:20+00" who="WU00066231" xml:id="i.23685192_3_18">
+            <p> This whole thread is the result of a editor trying to make a point they have edit warred to add terrorist to other articles and here seem to be pushing for its removal. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc"><name full="yes">BigDunc</name></ref>Talk <date>21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T22:02+00" who="WU00005575" xml:id="i.23685192_3_19">
+            <p> When in doubt, present "reliable sources" to back each other's arguments. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay"><name full="yes">GoodDay</name></ref><date>22:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-20T23:38+00" who="WU00018292" xml:id="i.23685192_3_20">
+            <p> I just noticed this in this talkpage’s header (in the FAQ section):</p>
+            <p> Wikipedia:Words to avoid states very clearly in the beginning that "there is no word that should "never" be used in a Wikipedia article". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires special attention when used in Wikipedia. The major contributors have arrived at the consensus, after several lengthy debates, that it "is" appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm</p>
+            <p> —nbsp;<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NRen2k5"><name full="yes">NRen2k5</name></ref>(TALK), <date>23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T00:52+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_3_21">
+            <p>Hence why people should actually read the FAQ, instead of ignoring it's existence. This is why we call them Terrorists. No further debate is needed. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T01:42+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.23685192_3_22">
+            <p>Well, we need to remind people of its existance.  I had forgotten.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>01:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T03:35+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_3_23">
+            <p>As I said; the term ""'terrorist"'" is everywhere and always pejorative POV; totally inconsistent with NPOV. We would hardly sanction the use of the ""'scum"'" to describe a person or group, even though some of us may feel that, for example, the US Army in Falluja merit the term. No debate needed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>03:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T04:12+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.23685192_3_24">
+            <p>You're right about one thing, no matter who or where you are, someone is pretty sure you're scum. But you're wrong about everything else, our guidelines have room for the use of terrorist in some cases and this is one of them. Wait, one more thing you're right about...there is no need for debate on this issue. There's nothing new here, just the same old, tired POV pushing. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T10:19+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_3_25">
+            <p>Nope. It is the folk who insist on inserting blatantly propagandistic pejorative terms into the article who are pushing POV in clear breach of NPOV. This fails the "'scum test"'. No debate required. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T10:48+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_3_26">
+            <p>And to get back to the point made above by "DeUnionist"; he (correctly) points out that the pro-US political views of the majority of editors on this article has allowed them to use strength of numbers to ditch NPOV when it comes to 9/11. So why can't the British majority across the Atlantic similarly impose their POV on Northern Ireland related articles? He has a very good point. But I would argue that the applying the term as if it is a factual description, rather than "'scum variant"', should be outlawed in BOTH cases in accordance with NPOV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>10:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T10:58+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_3_27">
+            <p>In fact, the allowing of the term in this article is a cancer attacking NPOV. Read the article on "Terrorism" - it reads like a Pentagon hand-out. Endless "reliable sources" - people in the US/Western/Security/military establishment - presented to back up the most bizarre statements. And it is feeding out from "'this"' article; to justify the use here, editors tweak a host of other articles to support their position. Time to call a halt before Wiki ends up with the editorial "balance" of Newsweek. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T14:46+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_3_28">
+            <p>Well said Sarah, I couldn't have put it better myself. I wonder why no-one else bothered to point the way to the FAQ section. Could it be that like myself, they weren't aware of it? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T19:05+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_3_29">
+            <p> Enough. You have said nothing new for the past week, cited no reliable sources, and continued to attempt to use this article against another article that you both seem to have far more interest in. We will not be changing this term because you two wish to soapbox. This is your last warning. Either come back with reliable sources, a coherent and new argument, or leave. This is not the place for your rants, soapboxing, or other general nonsense. This has gone on long enough. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-21T19:14+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_3_30">
+            <p>Sarah777, your rant is not going to help anybody. There are plenty of reliable sources that call those 19 people terrorists. Calling them anything other than terrorists would be a POV. This sort of discussion isn't going to ameliorate the 9/11 article. There is no reason to continue this discussion. I'm closing this discussion; if certain editors don't stop their POV pushing campaign, they may be reported to ANI. Have a nice day! <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_4">
+          <head>where's the see also section here</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-25T17:07+00" who="WU00697783" xml:id="i.23685192_4_1">
+            <p> most other articles have it.   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-26T05:39+00" who="WU00177358" xml:id="i.23685192_4_2">
+            <p>We had one once, but it drew more controversy than it was worth. I would recommend checking out the links in the templates at the bottom of the article. They serve the same purpose while staying on topic at the same time. ») <signed type="unsigned"><date>05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-26T06:17+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_4_3">
+            <p>Didn't we can the section because all of the links we had in it were already linked throughout the article? Too lazy to look through the archives right now. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>06:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_5">
+          <head>Keeping News Off Wikipedia</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-30T02:53+00" who="WU00697784" xml:id="i.23685192_5_1">
+            <p> So, this page has been locked for the past eight years.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?_r=2ref=todayspaper Any relation to this?   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-30T06:21+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_5_2">
+            <p>The page is locked to prevent anonymous editors from vandalizing the pages. This has been a huge problem every time we remove the locks, so they are pretty much here to stay. However, this does not stop a user from registering an account. The lock does not prevent registered editors from editing in any way. In fact, it is encouraged. At the very least, it allows us to keep track of the edits, and when necessary, prevent further vandalism from sock puppet accounts and trolls. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>06:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-30T06:41+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.23685192_5_3">
+            <p>To add to what the Right Honourable Gentleman (that is your title, right?) writes, any IP can propose an edit on this talk page and a registered user may add that for him/her following any further discussion. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-01T12:45+00" who="WU00201055" xml:id="i.23685192_5_4">
+            <p>Same old story, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?_r=3ref=todayspaper --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:De%20Unionist"><name full="yes">De Unionist</name></ref><date>12:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-01T14:24+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_5_5">
+            <p>Excuse me... what? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-03T02:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_5_6">
+            <p>In response to the link you have since inserted... which is, in fact, the SAME link the origonal posted posted... I have to again ask the question "What?" Either make an argument, or get off the soapbox. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_6">
+          <head>Long-term effects</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-26T16:06+00" who="WU00002699" xml:id="i.23685192_6_1">
+            <p> It would seem to me that the effect of the attacks on the domestic politics and foreign policy of the United States dwarfs the economic and health effects. The impact on the Muslim world, and the changes in the relationship between Western and Islamic cultures are also very significant and neglected by the "Long-term effects" section of this article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skomorokh"><name full="yes">Skomorokh</name></ref> nbsp;Skomorokhnbsp; <date>16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-27T01:20+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_6_2">
+            <p>Find us some sources? Then again, it may not be the place for something lengthy. Should we perhaps have an article about 'The effects of 9/11'? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>01:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-27T15:07+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_6_3">
+            <p>I think that might be a good idea. Excellent suggestion Tarage. I agree that adding further consideration of the long-term effects of 9/11 on the Muslim world, and the changes in the relationship between Western and Islamic cultures might be too meaty for a section in this current article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-28T05:43+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_6_4">
+            <p>RS rules the roost here, so unless we get some, no new article/section. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>05:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-28T11:17+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_6_5">
+            <p>Why should this page decide whether there are other articles? Surely such an article would have "'it's own "' talk page? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-28T19:50+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_6_6">
+            <p>Since it would be branching from THIS article, and it hasn't even been created yet, it still falls here to talk about it. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-28T11:33+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_6_7">
+            <p>Anyway, it seems to me clear that in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacksLong-term_effects Long-term effects the two subsections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacksEconomic_aftermat Economic aftermath and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacksHealth_effects Health effects are a very inadequate reporting of the significant long-term effects. (You hardly need a reference for that observation, do you?) The geopolitical and foreign policy effects were enormous. So, the question is - should there be (1) a (fully referenced and verified) expansion of the current section in the current article or (2) an expanded separate article? That is what I understand  <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Skomorokh">x</ref> Skomorokh to be asking before he was rather brusquely dismissed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-01T06:09+00" who="WU00014204" xml:id="i.23685192_6_8">
+            <list>
+              <item> The long term effects section doesn't say much about the long term effects of the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks had a huge impact on the foreign policy of the US and several Islamic countries. There are plenty of reliable sources. The long term effects section needs a lot of work and a new article about the long term effects of the 9/11 attacks can be started. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdjustShift"><name full="yes">AdjustShift</name></ref><date>06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-01T07:04+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_6_9">
+            <p>Yes, excellent. I think this is the point Skomorokh was making - it is certainly the case. And the subject is, I would suggest, too big for insertion into an already long article. For the reasons AjustShift gives I feel a new article is merited and couldn't be legitimately classified as a FORK. It is an impossible position to say this issue must be discussed "'here"' before any new article is allowed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-01T15:26+00" who="WU00086786" xml:id="i.23685192_6_10">
+            <p>Editors are encouraged to be bold and creating this suggested article is certainly compatible with that notion. There are a good number of related articles (e.g. Post 9/11) that cover related subjects, and the collapsed templates at the bottom of the article page are a good starting point. My only words of caution would be to ensure that any new article explains the importance of its subject, and follows our core content policies V, NOR, and NPOV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheffieldSteel"><name full="yes">SheffieldSteel</name></ref> SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK <date>15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-01T19:46+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_6_11">
+            <p>I want to clarify that I have no problem with a new article being created. Heck, I suggested it. But enough pumping of my own ego... I merely suggested that the bare bones be discussed here since it would splinter from this article. While it is true that it doesn't have to, and that an article can be created out of the blue like <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheffieldSteel">x</ref> SHEFFIELDSTEEL suggested, it might be beneficial in the long run to iron things out here first. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-04T10:59+00" who="WU00003836" xml:id="i.23685192_6_12">
+            <p>The article Post-9/11 is a bit stubby but it could certainly be expanded to accommodate the issues Skomorokh raised. The opening statement that "Post 9/11" refers to the "state of living" after 9/11 is a bit restrictive perhaps. There are well referenced effects of very large geopolitical and economic transformations as a result of the chain of events set off by 9/11. I'd get onto it right away but I've got keep the world updated on the great flood of Derrybeg.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah777"><name full="yes">Sarah777</name></ref><date>10:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_7">
+          <head>Immediate response (refinement)</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.23685192_7_1">
+            <p> Please consider to insert after "...tens of thousands of passengers across the world.":</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.23685192_7_2">
+            <p>At 9:25 a.m., the Federal Aviation Administration ordered a nationwide ground stop with few exeptions.cite web| title= Sally Donnelly, “The Day the FAA Stopped the World,”, 14 September 2001.|date=2001-12-11 |publisher=Time magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html |accessdate=2009-07-09</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-08T23:43+00" who="WU00697785" xml:id="i.23685192_7_3">
+            <p> --  <signed type="user_contribution"><date>23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.23685192_8">
+          <head>&amp;quot;jumped&amp;quot;</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-03T07:46+00" who="WU00150509" xml:id="i.23685192_8_1">
+            <p> I am no good at being sensitive so I will not try. I will just be a brief as possible to avoid offense as much as possible.</p>
+            <p> "At least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers"  reference 47 (as of July 3rd, 2009). This is not an accurate statement, despite the reference.</p>
+            <p> http://chasblogspot.blogspot.com/2007/09/9-11-jumpers-they-didnt-jump.html</p>
+            <p> The initial explosions probable threw people out of the building.</p>
+            <p> Some people falling were seen holding, not just waving, drapes, tablecloths, or other large pieces of cloth; as if they were attempting to use them as parachutes.</p>
+            <p> At the very least, there is proof that a minimum of 1 person did not jump, but fell while attempting to escape smoke, heat, and/or fire, by either climb down, climb to a lower floor, or simply hang outside the building by a makeshift rope.</p>
+            <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFmNCslvCFA  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-03T22:13+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.23685192_8_2">
+            <p>Not too sure about the first link, but the second one doesn't work because it's youtube. I wonder if there is a word we could use to cover both intentional and unintentional falling in this case. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-09T20:03+00" who="WU00086786" xml:id="i.23685192_8_3">
+            <p>The word "jumped" is sourced. Original research or logical deduction should not in general be used as a reason to alter article content away from text that is verifiable. To justify altering this, we should have a second reliable source that says USA Today was wrong, or that says the word is inappropriate or incorrect, or that comes up with a different estimate of how many jumped, as opposed to falling or being ejected. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheffieldSteel"><name full="yes">SheffieldSteel</name></ref> SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK <date>20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_24052003.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,456 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 48</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">24052003.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>PrimeBOT et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 48</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2048" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">24052003</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2017-07-08T03:05:37Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass>
+        <keywords>
+          <term/>
+        </keywords>
+      </textClass>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 48</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{talkarchivenav}}&amp;lt;&amp;gt;__TOC__
+
+== The call for a new investigation ==
+
+Entered (and reverted) according to the Wikipedia principle of [[WP:BRD]].  I submit that this topic is of significant importance to the [[September 11 attacks]] issue, and the article has a gaping hole in its information without it.  I made a good faith effort in writing the section, and I attempted to select reasonably accurate and authoritative references for every element in the topic.  I request that it be returned to the article, pending commentary from other editors.  [[User:The Original Wildbear|Wildbear]] ([[User talk:The Original Wildbear|talk]]) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+:The topic probably should have a place in the article, but the calls for investigation are not a unified phenomenon; it is necessary to distinguish legitimate criticism of investigation to date from the lunatic fringe.  Many calls for investigation have no relation to the &amp;quot;Truth&amp;quot; movement. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk:Peter Grey|talk]]) 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+:I feel it is discussed in length on appropriate articles already, and does not need further undue weight here. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+:: I disagree with Tarage. Wildbears contribution is well sourced and the topic is significant to the article To not mention it at all is simply wrong. [[User:Tony0937|Tony0937]] ([[User talk:Tony0937|talk]]) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+::: As there is a related article &amp;quot;9/11 opinion polls&amp;quot;, a brief summary of this article should be included in this article (if it has it's own article, it's very likely notable enough to be mentioned as part of this article). If we refer to the other article, we do not need to refer to single opinion polls (although they may appear in the references). We should use the entire &amp;quot;9/11 opinion polls&amp;quot; article as the basis, not only the &amp;quot;new investigation&amp;quot; aspect.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::Most of the sources, people and polls mentioned in the current version of this section are referring to conspiracy theories, which should be discussed in the relevant sub-articles and not in this article. The NYC CAN group aren't conspiracy theorists as far as I can tell, but the source is self-published and I can't find any mainstream news organisation covering them. The fact that there's a sub-article certainly does not mean we have to give the topic any coverage in this article, as is shown by the huge number of sub-articles with no coverage: [[Communication during the September 11 attacks]], [[Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks]], [[List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks]], [[Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks]], [[List of artistic depictions of September 11 and its aftermath]], and doubtless many others. I am not convinced this topic needs to be covered in this article, though we could put the opinion poll article to [[Template:Sept11]]. '''''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;''''' 12:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::There are quite a number of polls that ask something like &amp;quot;Who do you think was responsible for the September 11 attacks?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Do you think the government is telling the truth about the September 11 attacks?&amp;quot;. Actually, a majority of people answers &amp;quot;Al Qaida&amp;quot;, while answer are more mixed with regard to the second question. But the questions are formulated in a general way, they do not refer to a conspiracy theory, they do not imply that interviewee know about any conspiracy theories. The fact that some people give answers to the questions that imply that they believe some alternative theory about the September 11 attacks would be true does not make such a poll a poll about conspiracy theories. So there is a direct relationship of the opinion polls article to this article, not an indirect relationship (via the conspiracy theories article). However, the text in the September 11 attacks article should be a brief summary, without excessive detail.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::The Zogby poll currently referenced by the article was sponsored by 911truth.org, a conspiracy theorist website, and was commissioned for a conference entitled &amp;quot;9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future&amp;quot;.[http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421] It is therefore clearly linked to conspiracy theories. The 9/11 polls article does not exclusively discuss conspiracy theories but it is still clearly focused on them, as the lead, the first section, and most of the rest of the article discuss either specific conspiracy theorist claims or which organisation was responsible for the attacks. Again it isn't significant enough to include here. '''''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;''''' 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::If something is significant enough to have its own article (and related to 9/11), it is also significant enough to be mentioned in the context of this article. The actual question, in my view, is whether the &amp;quot;link&amp;quot; is ''paragraph -&amp;gt; (sub-)section in sub-article -&amp;gt; sub-sub-article'', or ''(sub-)section -&amp;gt; sub-article''. The Zogby poll is the one poll that has some connection to alternative theories, but there are a large number of other polls that do not. If the text of the 9/11 polls article is too much focused on alternative theories, that would be a problem that should be resolved at that article's page.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
+
+Sorry, I still feel it doesn't belong here. Polls are polls, and can easily be influenced to swing votes on way or another. We've had this debate before, and consensus was not to include. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
+
+:The issue here certainly is notability, not truth - it's not our business to decide whether the results of the polls are true. I feel that this aspect is at least as important as many other pieces of information that are in the article, and thus should be included.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
+
+::Right, and a handful of polls are not notable enough for mention. Again, we have an entire article for this sort of thing. Why do we need to add undue weight here? Reverted again. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::That is a ridiculous and weak argument to try and use WPUNDUE. [[User:Tony0937|Tony0937]] ([[User talk:Tony0937|talk]])  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC).&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!--Template:Undated--&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+::::How so? You wanna back up your claim? --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Since it is the [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html?_r=1 majority view] ''The poll also found that 66 percent of New York City residents and 56 percent of state residents wanted a fuller investigation of the &amp;quot;still unanswered questions.&amp;quot;'' this has nothing to do with WPUNDUE.[[User:Tony0937|Tony0937]] ([[User talk:Tony0937|talk]]) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::You'll need to do better than a poll to include that, and in any case, New Yorkers are not the only people with a stake here. I'm sure you could find other small samples that believe in anything you want. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+::The polls are not significant to the subject. There is no public debate about them, no meaningful discussion about them in mainstream media or reliable sources. They are not &amp;quot;notible&amp;quot; in the sense that they are part of the discussion about 911 topics among academics or experts working in their fields. Not to mention that they are primary sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources]. The article on 911 polls itself should be deleted. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::So the opinions of a New Yorkers don't matter? Thats absurd!! It is the New York Times (secondary source) that reports this so NOR does not apply. 
+:::It's a simple fact that there are a significant number of people that want 9/11 re-investigated and the article needs to reflect that. Whether academics have made comments or not does not change anything. [[User:Tony0937|Tony0937]] ([[User talk:Tony0937|talk]]) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::Why is it not notable that NYC will have a ballot in their next election that if passed will result in a new investigation with subpoena powers? What about the 911 truth group that spoke in Westminster before the house of commons a few weeks ago and has been invited back by MPs? Is it notable that most 911 survivors, victims families and first responders are pushing for a new investigation? Surely this increase in support for a new investigation is notable. As the article stands it implies everyone is happy and there is no significant dissent. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::There is no significant desent. 52,000 out of however many people live in NY/US/World is not significant. You could get that many New Yorkers to sign ''anything''. On the other hand, what academics, mainstream media and reliable sources does matter. Cherry picking small groups of people (even if what you say about them is true, which it isn't) doesn't change that. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::Indeed, in 1997, a 14-year-old high school student got 86% of the people he polled to agree that [[water|dihydrogen monoxide]] should be banned.[http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp]  People are stupid.  9/11 conspiracy theories are proof of that. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::That is not what the New York Times Reports (66% of New Yorkers) which you want us to ignore. 52,000 is the reported number of people who signed the petition but people are still signing it. The City of New York considers it a significant number since the rules for getting a referendum on the ballot is considerably less then that number, but you want us to ignore it as if it did not exist. When academics such as Steven Jones or David Griffin question 9/11 and it is reported on we are supposed to ignore them as well. Absurd. [[User:Tony0937|Tony0937]] ([[User talk:Tony0937|talk]]) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::Ignore them? No. Give them undue weight on an article that does not need their inclusion? No as well. There is a place for their work. That place is not here. This article is not about New York. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 10:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::You seem to be confusing No Weight with Undue Weight. That a significant number of people want a new investigation is also not limited to NY. No one is asking for a whole section but due weight does require that it be mentioned. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::: 52,000 people in New York City (population: 8,000,000) is not exactly a significant number.
+::::::::: '''OT:''' It would be interesting to see how many would actually sign a petition to hold a referendum, and then how the city would vote on the referendum. I wonder why the Truth movement hasn’t done that yet. —&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::We are not restricted to the NYC petition. Polls consistently indicate around 40% of Americans (and a larger %age in other countries) see the need for a new investigation. This is significant by anyones standard. I can't even understand how anyone can argue that 40% is not significant or that only those who signed the NYC petition should be counted to determine the significance. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 07:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::::::It might be significant. What polls are those? Link? —&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::Using that same absurd argument, we can say that since the number of NIST employees is statistically insignificant ([http://www.nist.gov/hrmd/perks.htm &amp;lt; 4000]) we should ignore anything they say. We certainly don't do that, we report what they say. We don't say &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11_attacks&amp;amp;diff=302604369&amp;amp;oldid=302603966 I'm sure you could find other small samples that believe in anything you want]&amp;quot;. Trying to spin things that way is illogical. we report facts. I totally agree with Wayne here, Undue Weight ≠ No Weight. [[User:Tony0937|Tony0937]] ([[User talk:Tony0937|talk]]) 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::: The petition signers are a random sampling of people on the street. NIST employees are experts. In suggesting holding the two as equal, you’re the one who’s being absurd. —&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 19:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
+*It depends what investigation is being called for. Investigation of matters ignored by the 9/11 Commission could be added to the [[9/11 Commission Report]] article.  Investigation of fantasy could be added to the [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] article.  [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk:Peter Grey|talk]]) 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
+:The &amp;quot;40%&amp;quot; are not those who believe &amp;quot;matters were ignored&amp;quot; but those who do not believe the official account in it's entirety. It's a pity it hasn't been broken down into more specific beliefs but it ranges from 911 truthers at the one extreme to those who only believe the government is covering something up without knowing exactly what at the other. To reject it as &amp;quot;fantasy&amp;quot; is offensive as it is irrefutable that governments often conduct cover ups and as such the use of POV perjoritives should be limited to those theories actually disproven. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
+::The point is that some are fantasy, and some are not, and that there is a difference between the two.  [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk:Peter Grey|talk]]) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
+== Motive ==
+
+As well as the intention to kill people, wasn't an important motive the symbolism of the targets? The WTC representing US business, the Pentagon representing the US military and Washington (the Capitol or the White House) representing the US government? I think the symbolism of the particular targets should be noted. Bin Laden was also motivated by revenge for attacks on Lebanon
+&amp;quot;&amp;quot;While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women,&amp;quot; [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/30/content_387058.htm]
+--[[User:Flexdream|Flexdream]] ([[User talk:Flexdream|talk]]) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
+
+:If that were a reliable source, it might be relevant.  However, a credible conjecture would have been that the plane which crashed into the Pentagon was looking for the White House, so the claim that the US military was ''targeted'' is unclear.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
+
+== Is CNN a reliable source ==
+
+Hi!
+
+Basically every source in connection with AE911truth is being said to be non-reliable source. However all those sources supporting the Bush conspiracy theory (the official version, where Al-Quaeda terrorists attack America), aren't though reliable neither.
+
+For short: Why are CNN and NIST accepted as a reliable source but all thbose scientific reports of AE911truth members not?
+--[[Special:Contributions/91.138.29.74|91.138.29.74]] ([[User talk:91.138.29.74|talk]]) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
+:Read [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. '''''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;''''' 10:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
+ </note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_1">
+          <head>Question</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-03T23:18+00" who="WU00707609" xml:id="i.24052003_1_1">
+            <p> What means of assurance Wikipedia has for its readers about editors who work on this article? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Criminalresponsibility"><name full="yes">Criminalresponsibility</name></ref><date>23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-03T23:56+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.24052003_1_2">
+            <p>About the editors themselves?  AFAIK, none.  As far as the article quality goes, AFAIK, it's still none, but if an article meets GA and especially FA status, that's usually a good sign. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-04T00:27+00" who="WU00707609" xml:id="i.24052003_1_3">
+            <p>If the new investigation shows that editors here were wrong, neither FA nor GA status will be a good sign. So, as far as you know, these folks could easily operate from one of those Psy-op centers guided by something like that infamous Joint Psychological Operations doctrine… If there is a 'probable cause', can administrators here check affiliation of particular editor? For example, if the conduct of a certain editor brings doubt about his 'agenda', where would be appropriate place for concerned reader to express and pursue such doubts? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Criminalresponsibility"><name full="yes">Criminalresponsibility</name></ref><date>00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-04T00:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_1_4">
+            <p>Nowhere. Please take your assumptions that editors are somehow government plants elsewhere. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' on Wikipedia, we are only reporting what reliable sources say. If, and this is the biggest if I have said in my entire life, if it does turn out that some new investigation brings to light some evidence that is so impossibly important and groundbreaking that the majority of reliable sources suddenly change their tune and support it, then we would change this article. Other than that, nothing you wish will happen. And I do suggest you refrain from making claims about editors being part of Psy-op centers, lest you find yourself topic banned for your blatant personal attacks that have no grounds what so ever. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-04T00:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_1_5">
+            <p>On another note... who wants to bet this is another sock? Maybe Tachyonbursts is making another attempt... Can we get a check user please? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-04T00:45+00" who="WU00707609" xml:id="i.24052003_1_6">
+            <p>Nowhere? I'm alleging that you are embedded editor who is working here for his own personal gain without any consideration for the guidelines and goals behind this project. There must be a way to put such notions to rest, check's and balances and all that. So, is there a way or not? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Criminalresponsibility"><name full="yes">Criminalresponsibility</name></ref><date>00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_2">
+          <head>Existence of WMD</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-13T09:52+00" who="WU00024384" xml:id="i.24052003_2_1">
+            <p> In the lead section of the article, on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I've amended the phrase ""later it was discovered that there were none"" to ""no such weapons have been found"".  While I'm personally of the view (probably shared by most people by now) that the whole WMD scenario was cooked up to provide an excuse for a military incursion already decided on, the problem Iraq had at the start is the same problem we have now: you can't prove the non-existence of something.</p>
+            <p> In other words, unless someone knows better and can correct me, we have no conclusive way to prove or discover that there were "no" WMD, but have no evidence to suppose that there were.  - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laterensis"><name full="yes">Laterensis</name></ref><date>09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-13T17:25+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24052003_2_2">
+            <p>Disagree.  Whether or not it can be proven in a theoretically absolute sense, the non-existence of WMD is the verifiable conclusion of authoritative sources.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-24T08:53+00" who="WU00024384" xml:id="i.24052003_2_3">
+            <p>Nevertheless, since as I said you can't prove the non-existence of something, this still amounts to the adoption of the most likely conclusion by those sources (a conclusion I would agree with, albeit as a private citizen with only news reports to go on).  So I still maintain the view that "no such weapons have been found" is more factually accurate than "it was discovered that there were none". - <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laterensis"><name full="yes">Laterensis</name></ref><date>08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-13T17:38+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.24052003_2_4">
+            <p>The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article.  Are Iraq's WMDs mentioned in the article?  I don't see it. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-14T16:28+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24052003_2_5">
+            <p>The reference to WMD in the lead (which was added yesterday) should be removed, because the article barely mentions the invasion of Iraq, apart from a sentence saying that the attacks contributed to public support for the invasion. --""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_3">
+          <head>Proposal for introducing a new term</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-29T03:02+00" who="WU00326272" xml:id="i.24052003_3_1">
+            <p> In the interest of NPOV, I believe we should refer to the mainstream theory with regard to the September 11th Attacks as the "official conspiracy theory". This is completely accurate, the theory is official and it proposes that a conspiracy (Al-Queda) executed the attacks. People attempt to use the term 'conspiracy theory' to marginalize alternative arguments, but the term can also be applied to the mainstream theory. The majority of people believe in the official conspiracy theory, but it is still a POV to describe it in one way while describing alternative views in another way, using a term with a negative connotation. Adding the term 'Official' shows that the government backs this particular conspiracy theory, so it adds information while using the same term to neutrally describe different views, without taking the POV that one theory is 'true'. Just because the government and mainstream media choose to be biased on this issue doesn't mean Wikipedia should. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.%20Quickling"><name full="yes">Mr. Quickling</name></ref><date>03:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-29T05:32+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24052003_3_2">
+            <p>Seems pretty awkward, and no reliable sources use the term. This has been talked about multiple times and would be OR to use the term. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-29T09:42+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24052003_3_3">
+            <p>Whilst the "alternative views" you mention are usually described as "conspiracy theories" the same is not the case for the mainstream view (indeed about the only people who use this term are those promoting "alternative views"). In addition the mainstream view doesn't necessarily meet the definition of "conspiracy theory". ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>09:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-30T01:46+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_3_4">
+            <p>I find it amusing that you are upset with us using reliable sources, when this is in fact how Wikipedia runs. I suggest you go read up more before proposing more biased changes. That's right, it would actually BE biased to call it an "official conspiracy theory", rather than the other way around. Then again you would know this if you read the talk archives. So all around, go read more. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-30T04:18+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24052003_3_5">
+            <p>There is nothing 'official' about the mainstream account, and no-one would care if there were. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-31T20:38+00" who="WU00699132" xml:id="i.24052003_3_6">
+            <p> Why can't I edit this article?  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-01T04:28+00" who="WU00177358" xml:id="i.24052003_3_7">
+            <p>Because it's (as far as I know, permanently) semi-protected. Only registered editors can alter it. This measure was enacted to stem the flow of vandalism and the insertion of baseless conspiracy cruft into the article without discussion - most of it has already been addressed, but there are always newcomers who are either unaware or willfully ignorant of previous discussions. ») <signed type="unsigned"><date>04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-01T17:23+00" who="WU00699132" xml:id="i.24052003_3_8">
+            <p>How do you becoem a registered editor?   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-01T19:31+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24052003_3_9">
+            <p>Go to Special:CreateAccount (or click "log in / create account" at the top right). If you want to edit semiprotected pages like this one, your account needs to have been registered for four days and have ten edits. If there's a specific edit you want to make to this page you can just post it here, and if it's appropriate someone will make the edit for you. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-01T21:32+00" who="WU00699132" xml:id="i.24052003_3_10">
+            <p>Thank you very much!   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_4">
+          <head>Protection</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-26T22:47+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_4_1">
+            <p> Can an admin please return the page to semi-protected? A bot got rid of it, and you're seeing the results first hand.</p>
+            <p> I attempted to do it myself but... well... you can see my failure first hand as well. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-27T08:57+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24052003_4_2">
+            <p>You want RFPP. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-08-27T22:19+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_4_3">
+            <p>Alright, I got it protected for a year... though I'd love to have it longer... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-01T10:33+00" who="WU00152303" xml:id="i.24052003_4_4">
+            <p> This article should remain unprotected until the bias in the writing has been addressed by its Wikipedia editors.  It is against the interests of public knowledge and education if people with no credible expertise in knowledge creation continue to censor changes (and challenges) to their article by those that do have such expertise.</p>
+            <p> Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School <signed type="unsigned"><date>10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed>  —Preceding )  </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-03T06:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_4_5">
+            <p>I'm now positive you are completely off your rocker, or you have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works. Just go away. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>06:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-04T22:24+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24052003_4_6">
+            <p>"Creating" knowledge is NOT what an encyclopaedia is for. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>22:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-05T01:26+00" who="WU00096838" xml:id="i.24052003_4_7">
+            <p>In that case, then all this "official" nonsense about planes causing the destruction of the three buildings is not encyclopaedic! It's not like anything on this page outside of the inadequate conspiracy link coverage to the true story at 9-11 conspiracy theories is actually factual. The vast majority of this article is patent nonsense. But majority rules on wikipedia. I'll just go away now. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lostinlodos"><name full="yes">Lostinlodos</name></ref><date>01:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-05T01:49+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.24052003_4_8">
+            <p>I applaud your decision to go away. Way to be the bigger (wo)man! <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-06T02:44+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_4_9">
+            <p>Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_5">
+          <head>{{tl|Muslims and controversies}} template</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-04T00:59+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_5_1">
+            <p> We wouldn't write in the text of the article that 9/11 would be related to the persecution of homosexuals in Iran or to the indignation and outrage in Islamic countries about pictures that ridiculed Muhammed. So we shouldn't have a template in the article that creates exactly this impression. A smaller template, and one that is focused on terrorism, not on "controversies", would be acceptable. If we want to have links to Islam in general, we would need a general template, not a "controversies" template that gives a biased perspective on the topic.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_6">
+          <head>Khalid Sheik Mohammed</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-04T16:39+00" who="WU00707610" xml:id="i.24052003_6_1">
+            <p> There is no evidence that KSM was anything more than a minor recruiter for the 911 attack. For a man to "mastermind" a massive mission that defeated the entire US fighter jet coverage and all intelligence agencies, there has to be some evidence that he drew up the aerial tactical plan while providing logistical and financial support to 19 separate individuals who entered the US without being detected. Without the use of a legal proceeding, this entire article is nothing more than fancy hearsay from third hand sources that were never cross-examined. In this so-called confession, it has been determined that KSM, a man with no aviation or tactical planning history, was brutally tortured while submitting this "testimony." None of his testimony or confessions would hold up in traffic court but wikipedia has determined that he was the mastermind. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Msy2fla"><name full="yes">Msy2fla</name></ref><date>16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-04T17:01+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.24052003_6_2">
+            <p>Even if what you say is true (and I don't think it "is"), we couldn't use it for editing the article unless some reliable source agreed with you.  I don't recall any such source.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-09T17:29+00" who="WU00707610" xml:id="i.24052003_6_3">
+            <p>Perhaps you are tipping your "right" hand when you italicize the word "is"? This article quotes an Al Jazeera interview as proof that KSM was the “mastermind.” Just because a nut wants to take credit for the greatest attack against America, doesn’t deem him guilty of anything. No one has produced evidence of his capabilities as a tactical planner, as a logistical genius or an aviation expert which were all required to pull off the attack. The al Jazeera reporter was certainly not qualified to judge his capabilities or cross-examine his claim. Again, in the biggest criminal act against America, we see a media conviction while KSM sits 100 miles from the US border, recovering from 183 trips to the waterboard. The solution is bringing KSM to trial in the US so he can “confess” to a judge or jury but in order for his “confession” to stand, he must provide the volumes of missing information to explain his enormous victory over every element of US national security. This was a criminal act perpetrated on US soil. Usually, the US will charge then prosecute such individuals. ) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC) </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-09T22:36+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_6_4">
+            <p>Reliable Sources please. This is not a forum. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_6_5">
+            <p> This article on KSM presents the false impression that he has been convicted. I suggest the following addition in order to present a more balanced and truthful account:</p>
+            <p> Several questions remain in regard to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s role in the 911 plot. He has not been afforded a criminal trial and therefore has not been convicted of any crimes against the United States. The 911 Commission’s final report stated that KSM admitted that he lied in a interview with Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda, that a post-capture claim “may be pure bravado” and that “KSM has provided inconsistent information” about an alleged conversation with Osama bin Laden, who has not been charged with involvement in the 9/11 plot. cite book |url=http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm |chapter=Chapter 7 |title=9/11 Commission Report |author=National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States |year=2004</p>
+            <p> While being held by US intelligence agents at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, it has been widely reported that KSM was a victim of a prolonged series of severe torture and was waterboarded at least 183 times. During this incarceration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to his interrogators that he was responsible for the 911 plot “from A to Z” and to 31 other terrorist plots around the world.</p>
+            <p> Although the 911 Commission raised concerns about KSM’s credibility, they nonetheless decided to base the majority of the 9/11 plot on his unverified statements given under duress. The Commission published the following disclaimer that preceded statements attributed to KSM:</p>
+            <p> “Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. . . . Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses . . . is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.“ cite book |url=http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm |chapter=Chapter 5 |title=9/11 Commission Report |author=National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States |year=2004</p>
+            <p> The 911 Commission investigation has been criticized by its two co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton in a co-authored book entitled “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. ISBN|9780307276636 In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the Pentagon and FAA officials. Both men claimed that the 911 Commission was “designed to fail.”</p>
+            <p> The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 also raised doubts to claims by some U.S. intelligence agents that KSM was the mastermind of the attacks: “Neither the CIA or FBI has been able to confirm that KSM traveled to the U.S. or that he sent recruits to the U.S. prior to 9/11.” Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, Part 1, page 31, year 2002 The heavily redacted report detailed a different group of suspects in their report. Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, Part 2, pages 158-180, year 2002These suspects were affiliated with the Saudi Arabian government and there was no mention of KSM being in contact with Omar al-Bayoumi who was determined to be aiding at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Mr. al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Aviation Ministry, denied knowing KSM. Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, Part 2, year 2002</p>
+            <p> added by msy2fla</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-04T22:42+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24052003_6_6">
+            <p>"Mastermind" probably would be overstating his role, but the article quotes the 9/11 Commission Report, which labels Mohammed "principal architect."  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-06T02:46+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_6_7">
+            <p>Wikipedia determines nothing. Wikipedia only states what reliable sources state. I invite you to bring some or "get out". --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_7">
+          <head>number of deaths</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-07T20:57+00" who="WU00707611" xml:id="i.24052003_7_1">
+            <p> the intro and the info box give 2 confusing figures.  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-09T19:55+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24052003_7_2">
+            <p>The figure in the infobox (3017) includes 24 "presumed dead", if you discount these then you get the number in the intro (2993). ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_8">
+          <head>Prewarnings of a Terrorist Attack upon The United States</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T08:59+00" who="WU00116213" xml:id="i.24052003_8_1">
+            <p> It is a fact that there were indications as far back as June 2001, that a terrorist plot was in the works to attack The United States. Even though there was plenty of viaable indicators from various U.S., Foreign Agencies, and reputable public-private officials, most information was dismissed and/or not taken seriously. One of the failures that lead to 9/11, was various communications breakdowns, the lack of agency inter-sharing between various departments. The reports of vague or not giving enough details as to an absolute time, place, or location. Some U.S. and Foreign officials have complained later, that there were enough indicators to issue an advisory. For the record, a possible threat brief was issued to The White House in as early as a month before the eventual incident. It was reported that approximately 72 hours before the 9/11 incident, a scattered number of U.S. Naval ships and submarines were given orders to re-deploy in various areas, expecting something, but giving no clear indication as to why they were re-deployed for a possible attack. This and other communications breakdowns occured before, during, and after 9/11, that should have been considered normal operational protocol. There was no true indication of a conspiracy, but a series of breakdowns that futher confused and diverted vital backups toward national defences. Though it was investigated later that additional 9/11 plots were aborted that day, many agree that the executed events of what we call 9/11 could have been futher prevented if all involved also thought "Outside The Box". <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aedwardmoch">x</ref> Aedwardmoch  08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Aedwardmoch<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aedwardmoch"><name full="yes">Aedwardmoch</name></ref><date>08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T09:02+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.24052003_8_2">
+            <p>Wikipedia is not a forum. Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T09:13+00" who="WU00116213" xml:id="i.24052003_8_3">
+            <p> It was concluded in the investigations by the 911 Commission that a series of breakdowns of communications were a major conributing factor before, during, and after 9/11 in various degrees. I think this should be clearly mentioned in the main article as well. <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aedwardmoch">x</ref> Aedwardmoch  09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Aedwardmoch<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aedwardmoch"><name full="yes">Aedwardmoch</name></ref><date>09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T18:34+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_8_4">
+            <p>Might wanna save it for later. Today is going to be a busy day. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T20:43+00" who="WU00707612" xml:id="i.24052003_8_5">
+            <p>  guesss sooo  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_9">
+          <head>National Day Of Service And Rememberance</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T15:23+00" who="WU00707613" xml:id="i.24052003_9_1">
+            <p> I believe it's relevant to mention (in the Memorial section and in the article summary) the fact that 9/11 has been declared a National Day Of Service and Rememberance by Congress, and the President. Although there is some disagreement over the appropriateness of this action, this is nevertheless the case.  <signed type="user_contribution"><date>15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_10">
+          <head>Citation for Number of Injured</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-12T18:58+00" who="WU00445061" xml:id="i.24052003_10_1">
+            <p> I'm wondering what the source is for the "6291+ injured" claim in the info box.</p>
+            <p> Thanks.  <signed type="user_contribution"><date>18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_11">
+          <head>Number of fatalities</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-12T20:10+00" who="WU00707614" xml:id="i.24052003_11_1">
+            <p> "In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks." Second info paragraph says.</p>
+            <p> Infobox says 2,995 including the 19 hijackers.</p>
+            <p> I know its a minor discrepancy, but I'm just curious what the sources are for the separate figures. Technically, both of those should read "confirmed" deaths, yes? The exact figure can never realistically be figured out, so perhaps they should both "approximately ".   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24052003_12">
+          <head>Eight years and more unanswered questions - world media narrative</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T02:48+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24052003_12_1">
+            <p> discussion top|This is ""'not""' the place to decide whether what happened was what we saw or something else. Fell free to continue this, but I will report it. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-12T20:12+00" who="WU00127848" xml:id="i.24052003_12_2">
+            <p> Eight years after 9/11, it seems to me that the narrative of September 11 attacks is shifting a bit in media. I'd like to include a paragraph or two about multiple questions unanswered by mainstream narrative to this day and source it with these articles from media around the world:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html Asia Times Online: Fifty questions on 9/11</item>
+              <item> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBOWAtLhR_Q RussiaToday: 8 years after 9/11 Americans have many questions unanswered</item>
+              <item> http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-10/911-attack-reasons-towers.html RussiaToday: 911 Reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job</item>
+              <item> http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html Silicon Valley's MetroActive: Explosive Theory</item>
+              <item> http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.commentviewcomment_id=158 WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas... (this one is a comment from AE911truth http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.commentviewcomment_id=160 approved as interesting and published by WAN on their website)</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> What are your opinions on these sources and on general idea of adding a paragraph or section about unanswered questions? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SalvNaut"><name full="yes">SalvNaut</name></ref> salVNaut  <date>20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-12T20:52+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_3">
+            <p>This is an article that actually condenses the content of many sub-articles. So in my view, information that is introduced here should be covered in the subarticles first. There is information that has been reported by numerous media, in many countries. (Asia Times and Russia Today are of course a specific segment of the media.) At this moment, the alternative views do not receive due weight in this article. They should receive more weight because (a) they are a viewpoint held by a significant minority (b) their existence is an important social phenomenon related to the September 11 attacks. The starting point should be an expansion of the existing section, with information that has been reported by multiple media (such as the BBC, Financial Times, the New York Times, European TV channels, and other media such as Russia Today and Asia Times, of course).nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.24052003_12_4">
+            <p>I looked into the first source (Fifty Questions), and found it bizarrely mis-informed. As an example, it claimed that none of the black boxes had been found, when in fact, the CVR tapes have been played for the surviving families. The other sources seem to be no better, repeating free-fall myths, uncollapsable steel buildings, and other bogus claims. These belong in the conspiracy theories article, not this one. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T01:06+00" who="WU00096838" xml:id="i.24052003_12_5">
+            <p>Prove that the black boxes were played for the families. Why did so many of them say they haven't heard them. Free=fall myths? uncollapsable buildings. Bogus? You're blatantly stating your own POV. Anyone can equally claim that "fire's caused the collapse" is bogus, based on scientific facts, or call out "7 collapsed because of debris" as patent nonsense. Ignoring the hundreds of reports of a "giant fireball in the air" when the plane went down in PA could be considered to be pushing a blatant fallacy. Please tone your comments to a more neutral sense. If you are unable to remain neutral, please refrain from posting on wikipedia; which does not allow POV to shape articles. This article is already rife with pro-government propaganda and government-related sources. Is adding a little MAJOR-minority take really going to be the end of the world. PEW and NOPI both have released reports in the last year stating that over 70% of Americans believe that they were not told the entire story about 9/11 and that over 40% believe the entire government story to be a fallacy. Such reports need to be addressed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lostinlodos"><name full="yes">Lostinlodos</name></ref><date>01:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T01:20+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24052003_12_6">
+            <p>Feel free to add it to the conspiracy articles, but it would be ridiculous to add it to this article. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.24052003_12_7">
+            <p>Please read the FAQ. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_8">
+            <p>You can also add http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/11/truth_petition/ Salon.comto that list. The fact is that more and more news organizations are finding a more balanced approach.</p>
+            <p> http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.commentviewcomment_id=160 World Architecture News</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_9">
+            <p>"While it would be easy to dismiss Gage’s opinion, that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was in fact caused by controlled demolition techniques, as nothing more than conspiracy theory, the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration."</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_10">
+            <p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/sep/11/ground-zero-bbc-protest The Guardian UK</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_11">
+            <p>"But here's something I really don't understand: when did it become uncool to ask questions? When did questioners become imbeciles? Who gets to hand out the tinfoil hats? When did it become cool to believe what we're told? In the words of Mr Hicks, did I miss a meeting? When did so many of the cynics and sceptics, so many of the sharpest brains I know (hello Charlie Brooker!) think that the cool thing to do is mock the questioners, and defend the party line. How stratospherically uncool is that?"</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T02:30+00" who="WU00484162" xml:id="i.24052003_12_12">
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed">
+                <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony0937">
+                  <name full="yes">Tony0937</name>
+                </ref>
+                <date>02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T02:53+00" who="WU00088672" xml:id="i.24052003_12_13">
+            <p>Sigh.  Welcome, young ones, to Wikipedia, where one of our core policies for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" but "reliable sources" are required to be "credible" and "trustworthy."  Where mainstream news and government propaganda are considered to be reliable, but any claims that contradict them must cite "exceptional sources."  Where "notability" is based on reputation, but "fringe theories" cannot be given undue weight.  So, even though the 9/11 Commission Report is provably misleading and incomplete, it is accepted as reliable because it is mainstream; but none of your scientific evidence that explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers will ever be included in this article, because the sources for it are ridiculed as "fringe." <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oneismany"><name full="yes">Oneismany</name></ref><date>02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T03:07+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_14">
+            <p> Oneismany, please think about the style of your comment, which may be perceived as condescending. Wikipedia is reporting on relevant views, if their existence can be verified by reliable sources. It's not necessary that these views are correct or "true". We also attribute relevant views to their proponents, so we are just saying: "It's verifiable that XY says Z," we're not saying "Z is true".nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T03:16+00" who="WU00096838" xml:id="i.24052003_12_15">
+            <p>Oneismany is simply pointing out the fact that has been covered time and again, wikipedia is not a collection of "facts" in the strictest sense, but a collection of verifiable quotes. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lostinlodos"><name full="yes">Lostinlodos</name></ref><date>03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T11:02+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24052003_12_16">
+            <p>I love how the of the 'new sources' is a youtube video. Rich. Let's move on now, there is clearly nothing important to discuss here. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T12:05+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24052003_12_17">
+            <p>This has been suggested many, many times before and has always been rejected. A short-term minor increase in coverage on the anniversary, even without discussing the quality of the sources, does not mean that the conspiracy theories are no longer fringe. There is no need to have the same discussion again. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>12:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T03:17+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24052003_12_18">
+            <p> They are fringe because the "science" behind them is ridiculously poor and what little reporting is done is no better (as noted above). It's the anniversary of the attacks and there's a small increase of coverage (as always happens in these situations). It'll go back to normal soon, nothing's changed. If you don't like how we handle sources then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many forums you can visit which are full of people treating facts with a little more...flexibility. But keep the fringe BS out of here please. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>03:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T03:26+00" who="WU00484162" xml:id="i.24052003_12_19">
+            <p>I would not call that statement NPOV. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony0937"><name full="yes">Tony0937</name></ref><date>03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T03:34+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24052003_12_20">
+            <p>This isn't an article, this is a talk page. There's a help page around somewhere that can help you with the difference. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>03:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T04:02+00" who="WU00484162" xml:id="i.24052003_12_21">
+            <p>So you feel free to call what is reported in RS "fringe BS" and say "the "science" behind them is ridiculously poor" and it should be accepted the only possible interpretation? I don't agree.<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony0937"><name full="yes">Tony0937</name></ref><date>04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T04:09+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24052003_12_22">
+            <p>Your opinion is noted. Thank you. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T04:25+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.24052003_12_23">
+            <p> The conspiracy theories that surround what happened on 9/11 are going to perpetuate ad nauseum because for some people, it's simply easier to believe in fiction than it is to know facts when you see them. There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books and going to high priced "seminars". But such is the fortune of misinformation and 9/11 CTers aren't alone in their efforts to capitalize on innuendo and fantasy...much money has also been made by those that have "proof" that bigfoot exists, or the Loch Ness Monster or UFO's as well.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T04:44+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_24">
+            <p>"There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books"... Unlike government officials, who only stand to win if people lose trust in them. nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>04:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T04:54+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.24052003_12_25">
+            <p>I can't see how government officials "win" if people don't trust them...least not in a democratic society...they'll be more likely to lose elections if they're not trusted.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>04:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T04:55+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24052003_12_26">
+            <p><note creation="template" type="WikipediaModel">ec</note> The information is not going in. So GETOVERIT. Harsh but stop arguing as it will get you no where. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T05:26+00" who="WU00707615" xml:id="i.24052003_12_27">
+            <p>Interesting opinion   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>05:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24052003_12_28">
+            <p>Most people have already given reasons as to why it will not be admitted into the article. Care to say why it won't? –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref></signed> "'túrian""'patois"</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T05:42+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24052003_12_29">
+            <p>Sadly the message doesn't always sink in. Every so often single purpose accounts get all excited and start jumping up and down, we have to go over everything once again...rinse and repeat. and when did people get the idea that the US government could keep a secret about anything? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>05:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T05:45+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_30">
+            <p>I agree with your view on this, Mongo. That's exactly why government officials - following their institutional interests - are generally not supporting a new investigation.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>05:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.24052003_12_31">
+            <p>MONGO, I'm reminded of a specific incident, from long ago, where a "downed aircraft" with "an advanced flexible metal" and other odd technology spurned many years of crazy UFO theory crap. We now know know that it was a high altitude weather balloon (the aircraft bit), with silver mylar reflective material lenses (the flexible metal bit, see a balloon shop), designed to sample radiation bursts in the atmosphere during the cold war. The crazies hold on to the old theories, because they're invested in being right. Sometimes literally invested. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T02:46+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.24052003_12_32">
+            <p>LIkewise, and oddly, I took a picture of a cormorant yesterday in the water and noticed it looked almost exactly what was long passed off as a long range image of Nessie...--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T06:56+00" who="WU00484162" xml:id="i.24052003_12_33">
+            <p>I believe in facts and logic not UFO's or bigfoot nor do I have any questions about landing on the moon, but even NIST understands what free fall means: As Shyam Sunder of NIST said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" Since explosive are one way to achieve this in the event of building 7's destruction I have not dismissed the possibility that they were the cause. I do not say it was the cause. However NIST does not demonstrate that this could be achieved via their simulation. Their model is at does not provide an explanation for free fall. So you can understand why am unconvinced that explosives were not used. That does not make me a kook or a nutbar that make me a skeptic.</p>
+            <p> When WAN provides members of ae911truth with a venue to present their case I can understand why they would do so. I can also understand that someone might want to see things differently but I don't ignore facts simply because they don't make me comfortable. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony0937"><name full="yes">Tony0937</name></ref><date>06:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24052003_12_34">
+            <p>
+              <note creation="template" type="WikipediaModel">collapse bottom</note>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_24685587.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,407 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 49</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">24685587.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>MiszaBot I et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 49</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2049" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">24685587</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2009-10-20T07:27:42Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass>
+        <keywords>
+          <term/>
+        </keywords>
+      </textClass>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 49</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{talkarchivenav}}&amp;lt;&amp;gt;__TOC__
+
+== Al-Qaeda? ==
+
+I think we all know 9/11 was a conspiracy and the media played a vital role in it, no plane what so ever crashed into the buildings, for example the nose of the plane came out of the other side of the building, very strange. I think this needs to be more developed in the article. [[Special:Contributions/90.194.14.181|90.194.14.181]] ([[User talk:90.194.14.181|talk]]) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
+:This is what you're looking for. [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
+: Wait… the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building is proof that ''there was no plane''? I don’t get it. —&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
+::The so-called &amp;quot;no-planers&amp;quot; argue that the images of planes hitting the building are really created by CGI, and that the nose sticking out of the other side of the building is a mistake that was made while the images were being generated. And to answer your next question--yes, there are people who are that stupid. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+== Immediate military response ==
+
+I don't see anything on the immediate military response to the hijacking in the article. Without any coverage of this, the article creates the impression that the US military would have done nothing during the time the planes were in the air, which was not the case. In my view, something about 500-800 characters (not including sources) would be appropriate.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+:[[WP:SOFIXIT]]. –[[User:Turian|'''&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#000000;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;túrian&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;''']][[User_talk:Turian|''&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:green;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;patois&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;'']] 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+:There is an article...maybe we just need a quick link under a heading somewhere...see: [[U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks]]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+::Adding that I think that article was branched off to keep this one from getting too long.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+::We already do have a link in the Immediate response section...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Immediate_response]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+:::But we know why there was no immediate military response to the hijackings, it's because NORAD stood down and then lied to the 9/11 Commission and to the American people, here, a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNQ-HywKG5Q quick link] for you hard working boys. Is this information referenced in the article MONGO? [[User:MisprisionofTreason|MisprisionofTreason]] ([[User talk:MisprisionofTreason|talk]]) 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+:::I was going to write (''It's a complex subject to boil down into 800 characters, but it wouldn't be out of place. [[U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks]] is a long article about the subject. The second paragraph could be the basis of something. But it needs to be a very who what where type of thing without introducing CT stand down claims''), but the last thing we need is another lever to add CT crap (see above comment). The current link to [[U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks]] is fine, if you want to highlight it somehow that'd be fine. But otherwise, no. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+::::(ec) We would need a &amp;quot;main article&amp;quot; link and a short summary. It should not be in the section &amp;quot;Aftermath&amp;quot;, as it's about the response during the attacks. Remark: This is article is probably not the appropriate place for [[WP:SOFIXIT]], [[WP:BOLD]], [[WP:IAR]] etc. ;-) And well, yes, they could certainly have done more, but they actually DID do quite a lot of things.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+:::::What exactly are you folks doing here? RxS did you just called former senator conspiracy theorist? It will not look good in front of 'galactic council' you know. [[User:MisprisionofTreason|MisprisionofTreason]] ([[User talk:MisprisionofTreason|talk]]) 04:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+::::::K - we'll see ya there...[[WP:SPA]]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+::::: The second paragraph of [[U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks]] is rather odd as a lead section paragraph. It's probably best to write a decent lead section for that article first.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+::::::The whole thing is a bit of a mess. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+These are serious issues, who is responsible for such mess? Oh, look, [http://www.scribd.com/doc/15677016/911-Commission-Documents-on-Referral-of-False-Statements-by-FAA-and-NORAD a set of documents] about the referral of false statements by FAA and NORAD officials. [[User:MisprisionofTreason|MisprisionofTreason]] ([[User talk:MisprisionofTreason|talk]]) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+We'd also need a link to [[United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001]].&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 04:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+:I don't see why, that's just a page about operations already in process with nothing to do with responses to the attacks. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+::Because these operations and exercises have interfered with the procedures taken as a response to the hijackings.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+:::Look&amp;gt; [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274570/Zelikow-Memo-about-Referral-of-False-Statements-by-NORAD-and-FAA-Officials Zelikow Memo about Referral of False Statements by NORAD and FAA Officials], with timetables. [[User:MisprisionofTreason|MisprisionofTreason]] ([[User talk:MisprisionofTreason|talk]]) 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+== Article Neutrality in Question ==
+
+Stating as fact that 19 Al-Qaida terrorists attacked on 9/11 is against the ideals of neutrality of Wikipedia.
+
+Many influential people around the globe assert that the US government and the CIA, not Arab terrorists, demolished the 3 towers; people such as Fujita Yukihisa, member of the Japanese Diet (Parliament).
+
+Therefore, all statements on this page should be phrased &amp;quot;It is asserted that...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;The official belief is that...&amp;quot;
+
+Until this article is worded correctly, Wikipedia will be known as a CIA propaganda tool.  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.118.1.51|165.118.1.51]] ([[User talk:165.118.1.51|talk]]) 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+:That would violate [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:WEASEL]]. '''''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;''''' 06:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
+
+Anything different than the &amp;quot;official&amp;quot; story is called a conspiracy theory.  I wonder how many times &amp;quot;reliable source&amp;quot; was mentioned on this page.  Reliable to whom?  Nothing to get mad over though, If &amp;quot;it&amp;quot; were me , you could bet your ass I wouldn't let anything but my truth appear on a site owned and ran by civilians I ruled over.  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.122.53.3|76.122.53.3]] ([[User talk:76.122.53.3|talk]]) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+
+:''&amp;quot;I wonder how many times &amp;quot;reliable source&amp;quot; was mentioned on this page.&amp;quot;''  Apparently, not enough.  [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+
+The time has come to give up the separate versions of &amp;quot;reality.&amp;quot;  We now have a reliable source (peer reviewed, outside the 9/11 Truth community, professional in its technical discipline) concluding the article with this sentence:  “… we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” Does this belong in the conspiracy theory version, or the &amp;quot;what really happened version&amp;quot;? (The source is the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009)[[User:Lookunderneath|Lookunderneath]] ([[User talk:Lookunderneath|talk]]) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+
+Lookunderneath, thie article you cite is not from outside the 9/11 truth community. It was co-authored by Niels Harrit of scholars for truth and Gregg Roberts from Architects and engingeers for 9/11 truth among others. It also concludes by thanking David Ray Griffin who is not a scientist, but simply a leader of the 9/11 Truth community.   &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.99.193.149|81.99.193.149]] ([[User talk:81.99.193.149|talk]]) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+
+Firstly. There is no criteria that demands that anyone has to be &amp;quot;outside the 911 truth community&amp;quot;. Thats a logical fallacy and pure intellectual dishonesty as well as just plain old common dishonesty. Just supposing anyone held a critical view, they would be banded together with the 911 truth movement anyway. But the crux of the dishonesty is pretending that a label, any label somehow disqualifies _anyone_ from presenting evidence. [[User:Nunamiut|Nunamiut]] ([[User talk:Nunamiut|talk]]) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
+
+
+:Anyone with the essential analytical expertise, and access to the necessary equipment and untampered WTC dust samples, can corroborate the results presented in this journal document. This is unlike the NIST computer modeling results, where the modeling parameters are kept secret. Hence, this journal document is more verifiable and reliable than the official account, in terms of putting forward evidence for the possible cause of collapse. It's time for Wikipedia to allow verifiable documentation to be put forward, instead of holding the topic hostage to hypotheses which can only be taken on faith. At the very least, it stands as another reason to note that the article's neutrality is in dispute. [[User:The Original Wildbear|The Original Wildbear]] ([[User talk:The Original Wildbear|talk]]) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+
+::It is not wikipedia's place to try to prove that something other than the official report is true. If and when a preponderance of reliable sources question the official story, then you've got something. Until then, it's fringe theory. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+::Only idiots are stupid enough to think the WTC was blown up by explosives.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+::::Do you have citations for that claim? And no fair citing ''this page''. :) [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+:::MONGO, may I suggest taking a pause to review [[WP:EQ|Wikipedia:Etiquette]].  It's something we all should do from time to time.  Especially when editing on contentious topics like this one. [[User:The Original Wildbear|The Original Wildbear]] ([[User talk:The Original Wildbear|talk]]) 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+:::: Ok, wikipedia version is the one from the Official Comission that investigated the attacks. Why nowhere is mentioned that the 60% of the commission declared publicly that the investigation was a fraude, and that the Pentagon adn the White House worked actively to obstruct the investigation? Is that what this zelous editors are trying to save here? It's passed the time wikipedia content is freed from the hands of CIA.[[User:Echofloripa|Echofloripa]] ([[User talk:Echofloripa|talk]]) 10:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
+
+What you see as a &amp;quot;CIA propaganda tool&amp;quot; I see as a factual, reliably sourced article that has survived repeated attempts by morons to compromise its integrity in favor of their preferred conspiracy theory. The reason this article is a good one is because of the hard work of several editors. Go away, you are not wanted here. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+:Typical answer: moron/conspiracy theory, bla bla bla bla. &amp;quot;Go away, you are not wanted here&amp;quot;. You can't just want to take the ownership of a public content, on which a lot of people based their understanding on. let's keep to facts.
+
+If neutrality is to be maintained then I think &amp;quot;and by the community of civil engineers&amp;quot; should be redacted from the following statement:
+
+&amp;quot;This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the community of civil engineers, who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.
+
+I'm not sure what &amp;quot;community of civil engineers&amp;quot; is being referred to here, but clearly the most visible, organized, and vocal set of professional civil engineers who are expressing an opinion on this subject are members of AE911Truth.  The web site is here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ and there are literally hundreds of degreed, certified, and well experienced CEs who are willing to provide their names and their credentials.  Thus there is no need to refer to some vague and anonymonus &amp;quot;community of civil engineers&amp;quot; in this matter.  It amazes me that nowhere in this supposedly impartial article is this web site listed.  
+
+In the name of neutrality the main article should provide a pointer to http://www.ae911truth.org/, even if it resides in the conspiracy theory section.  This is not the article trying to make any statements for or against conspiracy thinking, it is simply acknowledging that conspiracy investigators are out there and where they can be found.  On that site you will also find a documented admission that the NIST investigation never considered the possibility of an inside job and thus they did not look for evidence of it.  Thus I find the mention of the NIST conclusion used as a mechanism to refute the conspiracy investigator's conclusions a bit disingenuous.  We all know it is embarassing to have to admit that Bush's henchmen laid the thermite charges which brought down not only the 2 buildings hit by air craft but also a 3rd building which was not hit by aircraft (WTC7).  But Wiki is supposed to be neutral and if there are people saying he did it and offering verifiable proof to the fact that nobody has been able to refute to date, just report the facts as they exist, no more, no less.  Let the people do their own research after a pointer is provided.
+
+If Wiki cannot be fair and neutral in these sorts of matters I fear for the future of this otherwise very fine and usable public resource.  You simply can't fool all the people all the time.  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.193.67.233|74.193.67.233]] ([[User talk:74.193.67.233|talk]]) 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+
+: Oh for fuck’s sake… do you twoofer idiots even read what you type? —&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
+
+21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~
+My, that was a well thought out response.  Who are you and what right have you to respond like that on this forum?  Where is a moderator when it comes to this sort of thing?  Is that the only way you can respond to requests that Wiki live up to its neutrality commitment?  Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks.  We are all just trying to make Wiki a better global information resource.  Of course if there is some intent to hide aspects of the truth then let's discuss why that seems to be so important to some on this thread.  All I am suggesting is that the article is clearly NOT neutral in that it makes statements that are clearly inaccurate as I outlined above.  I even suggested some changes that I thought would remedy the situation.  I really don't think profanity is appropriate in this forum.  Try to elevate yourself, please.
+21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.193.67.233|74.193.67.233]] ([[User talk:74.193.67.233|talk]]) &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+
+:This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
+
+: You know, you’re right. You’re new here, so I should give you a chance.
+: I’ll give you a bit of advice too: Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not conspiracy theories and innuendo. —&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
+
+::You're being too kind to people who do not come here in good faith. Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about reliable sources. AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be. Hence, &amp;quot;This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away.&amp;quot; --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
+Kidding...it was the giaant squid!  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.129.15.92|72.129.15.92]] ([[User talk:72.129.15.92|talk]]) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+
+&amp;quot;Wikipedia is about verifiable facts&amp;quot;
+I know that.  Its what makes Wiki so valuable.  But AE911Truth is full of verifiable facts and just because some profane fool writes &amp;quot;AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be&amp;quot; does not change the fact.  Those guys even used electron scanning microscopes to VERIFY the presence of unburned micrograin thermite.  It is a fact that this substance does not occur naturally in big cities.  Where is the counter proof that AE911Truth is not credible?  They came up with the electron scanning microscope data so I really don't think it neutral to simply dismiss that as &amp;quot;not reliable&amp;quot;.  What, in fact, WOULD serve as reliable proof?  Only things that agree with your way of thinking, it appears.  And I may be new here on this discussion forum but I suspect I have been around a good deal more than many people posting here.  &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: smaller;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;autosigned&amp;quot;&amp;gt;—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.193.67.233|74.193.67.233]] ([[User talk:74.193.67.233|talk]]) 06:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- Template:UnsignedIP --&amp;gt; &amp;lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&amp;gt;
+
+::Ummmm.... You know thermite is just rust and metal shavings, right? Where oh where would we find rust and shaved metal on an old metal building that has been blown to hell and back by the impact of a multiple ton aircraft full of jet fuel? Saying you found thermite there, and using it as proof that it was detonated manually, is like saying you found burn marks, and they were proof that it was detonated manually. That's not even to mention how implausible it is to demolish a building using thermite, since thermite is a slow burn, not a fast pop like you'd want to destroy support columns. I want source that this magical thermite exists. The &amp;quot;nanotechnology thermite&amp;quot; that is incredibly effective, burns hot and fast enough to take down a building cleanly, and yet has never been used since on any demolition, much less commonly enough for anyone to even know what the hell it is outside of wtc debates. I want source, and I want the source to NOT come from a wtc truth supporter website, since I'm pretty sure creating a website, then sourcing that website on wikipedia to support your views, is against everything this site stands for. [[Special:Contributions/72.95.110.27|72.95.110.27]] ([[User talk:72.95.110.27|talk]]) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::[[Nano-thermite]] is not created accidentally in a building collapse.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;border:1px solid;color:#000085&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User talk:Cs32en|&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:#000085;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) </note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-09T20:07+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.24685587_1_1">
+            <p>Questions like this are exactly the reason why a new and credible investigation is needed.  Such an investigation must include independent scientists and engineers who can examine the evidence and answer such questions in a believable and scientifically verifiable manner.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref> Wildbear  <date>20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-09T23:47+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_1_2">
+            <p>Fullerene is a configuration that represents a local energy minimum at high temperatures, nano-thermite is not.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-09T20:21+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24685587_1_3">
+            <p>This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-06-18T01:33+00" who="WU00722193" xml:id="i.24685587_1_4">
+            <p> I think that treating conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories is an unreasonable statement. I mean, the writers of this wiki nor anyone that I know of nor me have the truth about what happened; but, what's the meaning of verifiable? I have a master in physics and looking at the evidence that the official commission presented I can say that there are affirmations that ARE NOT verifiable; the less verifiable is the strange theory about the building 7. I will say to you one more thing: I live in Argentina; I don't know about anyone, not just one single person, that believes that the government is not implied in the "attacks". I have to say that average argentinian is not a conspiracy fanatic.</p>
+            <p> So, what's the meaning of verifiable? why I an average reader of wikipedia have to read statements presented as truth if that statements are not based on verifiable evidence? at least we have to add "the government/official version" somewhere.   <signed type="unsigned"><date>01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-07-09T19:48+00" who="WU00086786" xml:id="i.24685587_1_5">
+            <p>Wikipedia:Verifiability  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheffieldSteel"><name full="yes">SheffieldSteel</name></ref> SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK <date>19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_2">
+          <head>New and independent investigation</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T04:05+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24685587_2_1">
+            <p> discussion top|We won't be needing this anymore –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T21:06+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_2">
+            <p> There is a simple choice upon us; 'in a last minute decision', Reuters carried the news wire which states that the New York City Coalition for Accountability successfully delivered submission which secures 'referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November'.http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS206808+10-Sep-2009+PRN20090910</p>
+            <p> Now, we will either put this 'mainstreamed info' straight into this article along with clear explanation of why are the "'9/11 family members, first responders and survivors,"' along with free people around the globe calling for new investigation or we're going straight to ArbCom to deal with the editors who 'own this article' and refuse to let go.</p>
+            <p> Choose. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T07:16+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24685587_2_3">
+            <p>Hi Tachyonbursts! This your new account is it? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T22:03+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.24685587_2_4">
+            <p>Hmm, your first edit is to your user page and your second references ArbCom. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're not new here. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-13T22:13+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_5">
+            <p>Hmmm, I'm afraid you didn't get it right, and your first post is personal question, while you should have stated your opinion, if any? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T02:41+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.24685587_2_6">
+            <p>Lots of people have this article on their watchlist and they work hard to remove unreliably referenced junk science...but no one owns the article.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T02:59+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_7">
+            <p>I've noticed your arguments above; it was a motivation of a sort, if you would try to pull such stunt on 'free grounds' you'd get such feedback as this unfortunate fellow http://www.examiner.com/x-17336-Midland-County-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m9d12-Charlie-Sheen-is-an-idiot-and-so-are-you? here. Perhaps you could provide some support? Certainly unusual, but it seems he has a really hard time defending his views. Well, lets get back to issue at hand, is there any objection for adding the section about 'Calls for new investigation into 9/11 attacks'? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:06+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24685587_2_8">
+            <p>""...we're going straight to ArbCom to deal with the editors who 'own this article' and refuse to let go"." That kind of attitude will get you ""'nowhere""'. And demands are not going to get you anywhere a little bit faster.</p>
+            <p> Now, where were we? (See what incivility does to a discussion?) I think it is possible for a subsection to be placed within the "'Investigations"' section; however, if more information appears (the referendum passes), then it could be its own page. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:13+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24685587_2_9">
+            <p>No need to add it at the moment, if it passes we can add something...but right now it's just a petition. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:36+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_10">
+            <p>It's a bit more than a petition I'm afraid, it is the mainstream. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6177194/Charlie-Sheen-urges-Barack-Obama-to-reopen-911-investigation-in-video-message.html. Let's see if there are more turians out there, before we take this to 'galactic council'. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:45+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24685587_2_11">
+            <p>No, still just a petition. If it passes we can add something. Not sure what Charlie Sheen has to do with it...we're not required to add everything that appears in the mainstream. And many times we don't. 80,000 people are a tiny minority...<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:46+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.24685587_2_12">
+            <p>Charlie Sheen is an actor...not an expert on anything related to the events of 9/11. I'm not sure what else will be discussed at any further 9/11 inquiries...I haven't seen any new information which refutes the known evidence. Sounds like it will be the same old arguments which will be laughed out of any reasonable court of inquiry.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>03:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:57+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_13">
+            <p>What are you folks doing here, exactly? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T03:59+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.24685587_2_14">
+            <p>Refuting inaccuracies. Hehe, the caption under Sheen's image is comical...""Truthers make Birthers look like Rhodes Scholars"."--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>03:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T04:12+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_15">
+            <p>I'm more amused by that feedback I've pointed out. It's a blast, isn't it? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T04:40+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_16">
+            <p> Look, there is http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS188449+09-Sep-2009+BW20090909 more,http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/11/truth_petition/:</p>
+            <p> 'Lost in the media noise about the resignation is the reality that Obama is not</p>
+            <p> living up to his promises of transparency, and the raw fact we have never had a</p>
+            <p> credible, independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks.'</p>
+            <p> What are you folks doing here, exactly? You speak about hard work, perhaps you should retire, this place obviously needs some fresh blood. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T09:37+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24685587_2_17">
+            <p>You want to source something to a "press release"? This belongs in articles about the 9/11 truth movement or 9/11 conspiracy theories (if anywhere), not here. Note the NYC CAN petition isn't going to go on the ballot yet. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>09:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T12:39+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_18">
+            <p>Perhaps I wasn't clear, we are discussing addition of the section about the 'Calls for new investigation into 9/11 attacks', please consider all sources provided and restrain from making suggestions of redirection to the non-related articles. Thanks. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T17:34+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24685587_2_19">
+            <p>There are two main reasons why the suggestions you have made can't be implemented, leaving aside sourcing issues.</p>
+            <p> Firstly 9/11 is a huge topic, and the amount of encyclopedic information is huge. All this information cannot possibly go in this article, because it would quickly become so large nobody would read it. Therefore we have a summary of the topic in this article, and leave the details to sub-articles. To get this material in this article you have to show that it is one of the most important pieces of information relating to 9/11. Right now it is a petition which, "if approved", will go on a ballot paper, and "if passed", will create a new investigation. This does not make it significant. If this investigation is actually created then it will probably be worth a few lines here. (Note the 9/11 Commission report only gets a short paragraph.)</p>
+            <p> Secondly the content relates to conspiracy theories, which are fringe views (this has been established here many times). Wikipedia cannot give a particular view undue weight, and since the conspiracy theories are a tiny minority view, they cannot get more than a tiny amount of coverage in this article. They can be (and are) covered in more depth in sub-articles. The fact that an actor has publicly supported the theories does not make them mainstream. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T22:37+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_2_20">
+            <p>I've been watching this discussion for few years now, these two arguments are... I'll stay polite. You fellows have a huge fault, I think it is the fault you've deliberately choose to make and it is silly to expect that people will not point this out, since articles like this one allow folks to refer to Wikipedia as to the Ministry of Truth.</p>
+            <p> - The failure of initial 9/11 investigation and resulting call for another one should be one of the corner stones of this article, yet it is marginalised and omitted to the point of vanquishing. This cannot be misjudgement on behalf of the editors involved, I expect a decent explanation for such omission as I restrain to call it as it is.</p>
+            <p> - The conspiracy talk defence mechanism is broken, when you say that "'9/11 family members, first responders and survivors"' who are calling for the new investigation on the ground of 'unanswered questions' are conspiracy theorists, you fellows are hitting the rock bottom. Failure to distinguish between conspiracy theories and unanswered question cannot be misjudgement on behalf of the editors involved, as I restrain from calling it as it is, I doubt that any of you 'regulars' here can explain such fault. Prove me wrong. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_3">
+          <head>[[Able Danger]]</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T04:11+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_3_1">
+            <p> Could someone please explain why the article about Able Danger is not linked here? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T04:14+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_3_2">
+            <p> United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 would probably be the the primary article that we should link to.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed> Sorry, I got that wrong. The intelligence stuff is not my specialty. -- We currently have a large section "Attackers and their motivation". Much of that content should be moved to a subarticle (or to several sub-articles), and a sentence to intelligence activities related to Al Qaida (including a link to Able Danger) should be inserted there.nbsp; 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</p>
+            <p> Is it, why? Is it because there is no room to link here? Why the article about Able Danger fails to state that alleged hijackers were staying across the NSA headquarters?</p>
+            <p> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/10/bamford-intervi/ (These) hijackers (were staying) just across the highway, basically (from NSA headquarters). And the NSA is not going the extra step and telling anybody where they are….</p>
+            <p> You know, I'm amazed, what in the world are you boys doing here? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref></signed>  04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T04:39+00" who="WU00722194" xml:id="i.24685587_3_3">
+            <p> No, that article needs a lot of improvement, once factually accurate, it should go in the section about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLKu8VtfIc Cover up, where is that section? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisprisionofTreason"><name full="yes">MisprisionofTreason</name></ref><date>04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T05:18+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24685587_3_4">
+            <p> The sock has been blocked, I recommend archiving and moving on. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>05:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T05:38+00" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.24685587_3_5">
+            <p>I would suggest that we consider the idea of adding Able Danger, the PDB (you know which one), and other "warnings" to the article, as it would help give some back-story, BUT (and it's a big "but") this is text that would likely require some serious hashing out in the community of editors working on the topic. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref><date>05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T06:22+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24685587_3_6">
+            <p>Undue. No. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>06:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-16T09:46+00" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.24685587_3_7">
+            <p>Undue. Yes. Giving credence to the "we had no idea, no warnings, it just happened" line seems just as broken as giving credence to the "we knew it was going to happen, and did nothing" line... I tend to think both are flawed perspectives, especially on something as complex as this issue.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref><date>09:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-16T21:24+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.24685587_3_8">
+            <p>I mean it doesn't belong on this page. It'd be find on a 'build up to Sept 11th' page, which I believe it already is. Otherwise it's too much detail for an article on just the event. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-16T21:32+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_3_9">
+            <p>I would agree if there wasn't so much stuff in the article that is not about just the event.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_4">
+          <head>There should be a reference to the War in Iraq</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-16T16:52+00" who="WU00722195" xml:id="i.24685587_4_1">
+            <p> In the fourth paragraph where the writer asserts that the United States launched a "war on terrorism" and went into Afghanistan....there is no mention that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and used now discredited information in order to do so.</p>
+            <p> I have never commented on anything prior so I don't know how this works. I just feel there should be a reference to this and you can easily footnote it with the information we now know from congressional and other sources.  —Preceding ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-17T01:11+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24685587_4_2">
+            <p>The Iraq War was not a consequence of the September 11 attacks. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_5">
+          <head>Bin Laden</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T12:08+00" who="WU00422697" xml:id="i.24685587_5_1">
+            <p> I added a note which I believe is highly notable, that Bin Laden is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, which someone would assume reading the main artible on bin laden.<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Echofloripa"><name full="yes">Echofloripa</name></ref><date>12:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T10:48+00" who="WU00422697" xml:id="i.24685587_5_2">
+            <p> On the http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm F.B.I.’s Most Wanted list, Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of ) <signed type="unsigned"><date>10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_5_3">
+            <p>Why the change has been reverted, isn't it highly relevant, taking in a account the involvement of Bin Laden on the attacks is the main reason, according to the Bush regime, that EUA is for 8 years on this war on Afghanistan?</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-15T13:24+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24685587_5_4">
+            <p>Looks like original research, since you're drawing conclusions from the fact that a source doesn't mention something. If you want the article to say that the FBI does not want bin Laden, you need to provide a source which explicitly says this. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>13:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-16T13:15+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24685587_5_5">
+            <list>
+              <item>That's not how the Most Wanted List works. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></item>
+            </list>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_5_6">
+            <p>The point is: They don't want bin laden for the attack to the twin towers. I'm not making this up. If he was really responsible for the attacks, why it doesn't mention any of that on the FBI page? This is not original research. If he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, just be logical.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-17T22:30+00" who="WU00009799" xml:id="i.24685587_5_7">
+            <p>Bin Laden was already "most wanted" before the September 11 attacks.  He can't become any more wanted than that.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter%20Grey"><name full="yes">Peter Grey</name></ref><date>22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_6">
+          <head>Section &amp;quot;Planning of the attacks&amp;quot;</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-18T23:39+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_6_1">
+            <p> The following sentences can be dropped, as they are not essential to the coherence of the text:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>"At that point, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan." (The significance of this information is not explained in the text anyway.)</item>
+              <item>"In late 1998 or early 1999, bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot." (Bin Laden's role is already covered elsewhere.)</item>
+              <item>"Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in the United States in mid-January 2000, after traveling to Malaysia to attend the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit." (The significance of the information is unclear, unless you click on the links.)</item>
+              <item>"New recruits were routinely screened for special skills" (Does that contribute to the understanding?)</item>
+              <item>"Hanjour arrived in San Diego on December 8, 2000, joining Hazmi. They soon left for Arizona, where Hanjour took refresher training." (Why is it significant that Hanjour arrived in San Diego, and not Kansas?)</item>
+              <item>"Binalshibh also passed along Bin Laden's wish for the attacks to be carried out as soon as possible." (Without any reason given for Bin Laden's instruction, this does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic.)</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_7">
+          <head>Number of deaths, again</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T14:25+00" who="WU00722196" xml:id="i.24685587_7_1">
+            <p> The first infobox says that 2 993 people died (including the 19 hijackers) while the second infobox (under the section Casualties) says that 2 976 people died (excluding the hijackers).</p>
+            <p> 2 993 - 19 = 2 974 ≠ 2 976, right?  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-14T15:39+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24685587_7_2">
+            <p>Done. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T09:21+00" who="WU00722197" xml:id="i.24685587_7_3">
+            <p>CNN.com says 3031 deaths were that day. or did they miscalculate? they have the list of victims. pls reply on my talk page --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Md%C3%B6nci"><name full="yes">Mdönci</name></ref><date>09:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.24685587_8">
+          <head>The article is much too long.</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-18T22:49+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24685587_8_1">
+            <p> If you edit the article, you get the message:</p>
+            <p> "This page is 129 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."</p>
+            <p> See also SIZERULE.</p>
+            <p> While each individual section may not be too long, as <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> said in his edit summaries, it's the large amount of such sections that make the article too long. In addition, some subarticle get much more coverage in this article than others. As we have subarticles for almost every section and subsection of this article, shortening is rather easy. We may also check whether the information is actually present in the sub-article (which is of course a prerequisite for being included here), and possibly transfer information to the respective sub-article.nbsp; <date>22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-18T23:07+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.24685587_8_2">
+            <p>Then we can remove the conspiracy section in just put it in a See Also section. I never really liked the size rule, because the content of some requires the massive length, even with subarticles. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-18T23:17+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24685587_8_3">
+            <p>If you're worried about how long it is, the solution isn't to shorten one section and lengthen another (which is what you just did). I reset it, please suggest better ways to  lessen your concerns. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-18T23:31+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_8_4">
+            <p>I removed about 1000 bytes and added about 400, so a net shortening of about 600 bytes. There are four other sections that can be shortened easily. I agree that this article should possibly not be shortened to 60 KB, but 90 KB would be a reasonable size. And of course, we need some flexibility to be able to present the content of sub-articles in a coherent way. Yet, there are a number of details in the sections that can just be dropped without losing the coherence of the text.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-18T23:48+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24685587_8_5">
+            <p>You removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=314807608oldid=314805402 content from the planning section and added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=nextoldid=314807608 content to the Conspiracy theories section (a topic you edit almost to the exclusion of all others). Hardly a consensual way to shorten the article, plus Wikipedia:Article size is only a guideline. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T00:05+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.24685587_8_6">
+            <p>The Conspiracy theories section is one of the shortest sections, many other sections, including the one I have shortened, are four times as large, or even larger. And guidelines are supposed to be followed, aren't they?nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T00:54+00" who="WU00049992" xml:id="i.24685587_8_7">
+            <p>I see no reason for a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories or even a See Also link.  This is a serious article about a serious historical topic.  9/11 conspiracy theories are nothing more than trivia within this context.  If the article's too long, this is an obvious candidate for removal. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A%20Quest%20For%20Knowledge"><name full="yes">A Quest For Knowledge</name></ref><date>00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T10:07+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.24685587_8_8">
+            <p>I don't think we actually have to cut the article down. Though the raw article content is over 120kb, more than half of that is references. In terms of text the reader will actually read the article is only about 55 kb, which isn't that problematic. (Note that "readable prose" is what SIZE actually counts.) This is a very big topic and an article which is slightly longer than normal can be justified. We could remove the conspiracy section, and I can see several comparable articles which have done this, but I would recommend leaving a see also link instead. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>10:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T13:49+00" who="WU00096838" xml:id="i.24685587_8_9">
+            <p>Attempts to remove the conspiracy section en entre are BPOV, and violate neutrality. HOWEVER; I would suggest "'breaking every section"', including the "conspiracy" section into separate articles. This article could be more of a base index and background for all the various subsections. If done correctly, it would also re-establish neutrality to this currently lopsided point-of-view riddled article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lostinlodos"><name full="yes">Lostinlodos</name></ref><date>13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T15:03+00" who="WU00518669" xml:id="i.24685587_8_10">
+            <p>They already all have their own articles. See the main article notes on each section. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RxS"><name full="yes">RxS</name></ref><date>15:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_25076351.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,479 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 50</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">25076351.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>PrimeBOT et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 50</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2050" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">25076351</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2017-07-08T03:05:38Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 50</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{talkarchivenav}}&amp;lt;&amp;gt;__TOC__
+
+== air defense? ==
+
+&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;boilerplate metadata discussion-archived&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;
+:''The following discussion is archived. &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:red&amp;quot;&amp;gt;'''Please do not modify it.'''&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:One more forum like conversation trying to push a POV of fringe is going to get reported. All members involved, you have already been warned multiple times. Just stop. –[[User:Turian|'''&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#000000;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;túrian&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;''']][[User_talk:Turian|''&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:green;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;patois&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;'']] 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
+::One more forum like conversation trying to push a POV of fringe is going to get reported. All members involved, you have already been warned multiple times. Just stop. –[[User:Turian|'''&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#000000;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;túrian&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;''']][[User_talk:Turian|''&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:green;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;patois&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;'']] 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
+----</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T14:35+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_1">
+            <p> how comes this article has no info about inactivity of air defense on that day?   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T06:06+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.25076351_1_2">
+            <p>This is documented in Wikipedia's article U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks.  Evidently, the military response is not deemed very important to the 9/11 topic; as it has only received a wikilink in the article, and nothing more.  By contrast, the Attackers and their motivation section comprises more than 15000 bytes of text. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref> Wildbear  <date>06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T07:23+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_3">
+            <p>"...is not deemed very important..." but my question is by whom? why doens't it deserve a single sentence at least in this article? i think it is a fundamental question, how there were no military jets intercepting even one of these hijacked plains, even after they started hitting buildings, one by one, with decent time passing between the crashes?   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>07:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T08:37+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_1_4">
+            <p>Reliable sources. You may think it's fundamental, but if reliable sources don't, then it isn't. Just like if I think it's a fundamental question to ask if Abe Lincoln was a robot or not, doesn't mean it's important for the encyclopedia. Understand? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>08:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T09:55+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_5">
+            <p>how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacksReferences these sources?   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T20:20+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_1_6">
+            <p>Hmm... I admit I was wrong and didn't see those. But even then, in that case there already is a proper section in that article, and there doesn't need to be one here. Thanks for pointing that out though. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T20:58+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_7">
+            <p>you don't seem to understand my concern. why is there not even a mention about that in THIS article, which btw has pages and pages of other info. for example, there is a whole article about   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-23T05:25+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_1_8">
+            <p>I don't know about the other editors here, but to me, it doesn't feel like it belongs here. Since it is already mentioned elsewhere, and since it isn't extremely vital to this article, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. You can ask some of the other editors though. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>05:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-23T10:30+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_9">
+            <p>it does seem someone else asked similar question above   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-23T10:32+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_10">
+            <p>i would add it, but the page is semiprotected...  <signed type="user_contribution"><date>10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-23T18:41+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_1_11">
+            <p>There is a quick and easy way to remedy that. Simply register an account. --<ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage">x</ref> Tarage  18:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>18:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="10" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-23T18:46+00" who="WU00730227" xml:id="i.25076351_1_12">
+            <p>been there, done that. wikipedia is full of stalkers, so this is my preferred way ;)   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="11" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T07:56+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_1_13">
+            <p>Alright, but in this situation, you'll be hard pressed to find someone to edit for you, unless you find someone who agrees with what you are proposing. Sometimes bold edits are the way to get the ball rolling. Though other times they cause frustration. It's a double edged sword. I hope in the future you decide to register. While you do occasionally get 'stalked', the benefits outweigh the risks. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="11" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T08:05+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_1_14">
+            <p>Maybe it's best if you write down the exact changes/additions to the article that you are suggesting, so that a registered user may insert them into the article, or we would have a more focused discussion on the proposal at the talk page here.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T15:23+00" who="WU00730228" xml:id="i.25076351_1_15">
+            <p> - maybe to start with something like this (from above linked military article):</p>
+            <p> "The U.S. military response during the September 11, 2001 attacks was ineffective in preventing both World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon from being hit by hijacked airplanes. While 911 Commission stated that FAA failed to notify NORAD in time of hijacked planes, ATSC director stated that everyone who needed to be notified was notified, including the military."</p>
+            <p>
+              <signed type="user_contribution">
+                <date>15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T15:59+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_1_16">
+            <p>The first sentence appears useful. As for the second sentence, I don't think we can assume that readers know enough about the 9/11 Commission, FAA, NORAD and ATSC to understand the meaning of the sentence. Prior to adressing the question of who said what at which point of time, we should start with those facts that are basically undisputed, e.g. at which time fighter jets were actually scrambled.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T19:11+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_1_17">
+            <p>That first sentence seems bad to me. I think something more neutral would be better. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T21:02+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_1_18">
+            <p>You guys have been warned about this fringe information yet you continue to push it? –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_1_19">
+            <p>"The above discussion is preserved as an archive. "'Please do not modify it."' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section."</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-24T23:53+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_20">
+            <p>what the hell is this? archiving an ongoing discussion? your disagreement doesn't make it fringe.    <signed type="user_contribution"><date>23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T03:14+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.25076351_1_21">
+            <p>I agree with 93.86.164.168 on this.  Turian is out of line in archiving this ongoing discussion about a topic which most definitely is "not" fringe.  (See a list of references here if you don't believe that this topic is extensively covered by reliable sources.)  This is a complex topic which is difficult to boil down to a few sentences, but the editors discussing the subject are doing so in good faith and without evident intent to compromise the quality of the article.  Quite the contrary; the air defense response is a very important topic in the 9/11 matter, and any general overview of 9/11 is incomplete without some inclusion of the air defense issues. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref> Wildbear  <date>03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T05:20+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_1_22">
+            <p>This discussion obviously focused on a suggestion on how to improve the article. Not agreeing with the suggestion is not a valid reason for closing the discussion.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>05:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T07:20+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_1_23">
+            <p>I don't incorporate my opinion into my decision making. It is fringe based on the fact that many people question (the conspiracy theorists) whether the government even tried. So it IS fringe. Take it to appropriate article and stop discussing it here, unless you want it brought up at AN/I. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>07:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T07:38+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_1_24">
+            <p>why is conspiracy theory relevant here? we are talking about what NORAD, FAA, and other GOVERNMENT AGENCIES stated. stop abusing wikipedia rules.   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>07:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T11:01+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_1_25">
+            <p> Not only have multiple reliable sources, including the most prominent media in the U.S., widely reported on the information that is missing in the article, the issue has made headline news over a time span of several years (2001, 2004, 2006, see the sources below). I ask <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> to reopen the discussion on the on the proposal made by the IP editor.nbsp; <date>11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_2">
+            <head>Sources</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:16+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_2_1">
+              <list>
+                <item>cite news|last=Weisman|first=Jonathan|title=Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos|journal=USA Today|date=September 16, 2001|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Wald|first=Matthew L.|title=Pentagon Tracked Deadly Jet but Found No Way to Stop It|journal=New York Times|date=September 15, 2001|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15CONT.html|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|title=Officials: Government failed to react to FAA warning|publisher=CNN|date=September 17, 2001|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Milbank|first=Dana|title=Cheney Authorized Shooting Down Planes|journal=Washington Post|date=June 18, 2004|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/06/18/AR2005040311317.html|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Schrader|first=Esther|title=Cheney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets|journal=Los Angeles Times|date=June 18, 2004|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/18/nation/na-cheney18|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Gumbel|first=Andrew|title=US jets were just eight minutes away from shooting down hijacked plane|journal=The Independent|date=September 20, 2001|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-jets-were-just-eight-minutes-away-from-shooting-down-hijacked-plane-670044.html|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Shenon|first=Philip|title=Tapes show confusion in U.S. military on 9/11|journal=International Herald Tribune|date=August 3, 2006|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/world/americas/03iht-tapes.2379082.html|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Burkeman|first=Oliver|title=Panic and delay wrecked 9/11 response|journal=The Guardian|date=June 18, 2004|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/18/alqaida.september11|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|last=Burkeman|first=Oliver|title=9/11 tapes expose flaws in military chiefs' testimony|journal=The Guardian|date=August 3, 2006|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/03/september11.usa|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|title=9/11 panel: Bid to intercept jets was flawed|publisher=MSNBC/AP|date=June 17, 2004|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5232563/ns/us_news-security/|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+                <item>cite news|title=Feds Would Have Shot Down Pa. Jet|publisher=CBS News|date=September 16, 2001|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/archive/main311011.shtml|accessdate=September 25, 2009</item>
+              </list>
+              <p> No, like I said, you need to take it to the relevant article. Sources of a bunch of people questioning the even that is mainstream sounds like fringe. And I am not stupid, their is some implication of fringe whenever you you guys have ever talked about the attacks. So no, I will not open the discussion. Take it to where it is highly relevant, but leave it out of here. And yes, I will be monitoring discussions over there as well. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>12:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:35+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_2_2">
+              <p> do as you will, report to an/i, but i will continue discussing the matter here, as seems few others will too. you are minority, and you don't have   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:39+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_2_3">
+              <p>I don't need consensus to withhold policy. And I told you to get off of my talk page because I don't want you guys taking it there. I don't want you guys discussing it here. Discuss where it is relevant, or it "'will"' be considered fringe, and it will be reported, with proposed topic bans on every single 9/11 issue. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>12:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:43+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_2_4">
+              <p>we disagree. you think it's fringe and irrelevant, few of us think it is not fringe and it is relevant. do whatever you want, that's your problem.   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>12:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:44+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_2_5">
+              <p>Also, the minority is not automatically wrong. You guys are question mainstream events. That is conspiracy at its basic form. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>12:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:46+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_2_6">
+              <p>I am not questioning anything, i am citing official government sources, and above you can find a few mainstream sources. the only conspiracy seems to be in your perception of above arguments.   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T12:52+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_2_7">
+              <p> - so let's try to write an informative paragraph about the topic. other editor noted that my suggestion may not be NPOV worded. does anyone have another suggestion?   <signed type="unsigned"><date>12:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+              <p> I will not be able to participate in the discussion on this talk page from September 27 until October 10, per the result of an arbitration enforcement procedure. I encourage editors to use the sources above, as well as other reliable sources, in order to find the most important points of information concerning this issue. It's best to present the sources in a factual way and to describe the facts in a way that is accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject of the article.nbsp; 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</p>
+              <p> For the record, I've been saying from the beginning that this doesn't belong on this article. I've just been trying to say it in nicer terms. But <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian">x</ref> "'túrian"' is correct, this feels very much like a POV push. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref></signed>  18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T19:51+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_2_8">
+              <p>Tarage and Turian, are you willing to consider the relevance of these news media items independently of who presented them, or started the discussion on this issue here?nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-25T20:57+00" who="WU00257690" xml:id="i.25076351_2_9">
+              <p>I don't care ""'who""' is talking about it, all I know is that it is fringe. You have even had an arbitration case, yet you "continue" to push the issue. Perhaps it should have been a topic ban forever. –<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian"><name full="yes">Turian</name></ref> "'túrian""'patois" <date>20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T04:51+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_2_10">
+              <p>Citeable? Yes. Worth inclusion in this article? No. There is a place for everything, and everything in it's place. This is not the place. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>04:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T00:37+00" who="WU00005181" xml:id="i.25076351_2_11">
+              <p>I have a very nice source I can bring to this later this evening. It's certainly a relevant and non-fringe topic.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John"><name full="yes">John</name></ref><date>00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T06:13+00" who="WU00730229" xml:id="i.25076351_2_12">
+              <p> "X failed to do Y" contains the implicit assumption that Y was X's job to begin with. It is not an automatic job of any agency to go around gunning down hijacked planes, conspiracy theorists' claims notwithstanding.   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>06:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T07:18+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.25076351_2_13">
+              <p>NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) Mission Statement: ""In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and "'unauthorized air activity"' approaching and "'operating within"' these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America."(http://www.norad.mil/about/vision.html ref) (Emphasis mine)  Unless I missed something, no one discussing editing this article talked about "gunning down hijacked planes".  The topic under discussion concerns air defense actions, inactions, and responsibilities as documented by the government and reliable sources, in relation to the attacks of September 11, 2001. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref> Wildbear  <date>07:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T19:45+00" who="WU00005181" xml:id="i.25076351_2_14">
+              <p>Right. And there should be nothing controversial or forum-like in proposing here that there should be some coverage of this in the article. There certainly seem to be reliable sources we can use. Still looking for mine. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John"><name full="yes">John</name></ref><date>19:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T21:21+00" who="WU00005181" xml:id="i.25076351_2_15">
+              <p>Here we go. Andrew Brookes, "Destination Disaster" (2002), ISBN|0711028621, p84. "Marwan al-Shehhi on the flightdeck of United 175 had learned enough in his training to turn off the transponder that enabled ground controllers to pinpoint the airliner's altitude and position. From now on, watchers on the ground would have to rely on raw radar returns. These were used to scramble two F-15 interceptors from Otis Air Force Base at 08.39hrs, but no one on the ground understood what was happening or what should be done. Even if they had put in full afterburners, the F-15 pilots could have done little because the first airliner was just six minutes' flying time from Manhattan." --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John"><name full="yes">John</name></ref><date>21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-01T09:58+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_2_16">
+              <p>any suggestions about what exactly to place into the article?   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>09:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-12T09:47+00" who="WU00053310" xml:id="i.25076351_2_17">
+              <p>I say leave it out. It already has reliability issues. That excerpt contains an important factual error. Transponders encode altitude and identification, but not position. Primary radar echo returns still give position.</p>
+              <p> Aside from that, there's already a page dedicated to the U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. It's currently being guarded by a person who wants to make sure her/his opinions of blame remain in the article. If anyone seriously wants to put together an encyclopedic article about the military response, that article would be a great place to go. The article right now is full of WP policy violations and lacking in discussion, except for discussions between me and the other person. I'm done arguing with her/him myself. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcs002"><name full="yes">Dcs002</name></ref><date>09:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-12T10:05+00" who="WU00053310" xml:id="i.25076351_2_18">
+              <p> Say <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turian">x</ref> "'túrian"', how do you report these fringe/POV problems? I want to report violations like this, but I don't know where to go or what to do. You said you'd be monitoring the page U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks, which is overflowing with these problems, but I haven't seen you there. Like I said, it's being carefully guarded by a single user who treats it like her/his personal web page, making sure his conclusions and findings of blame remain in the article. Have a look at the discussion page. I'm a newbie  I need help over there. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcs002"><name full="yes">Dcs002</name></ref><date>10:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_3">
+          <head>Prosecution</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T02:46+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_3_1">
+            <p> Were the bodies of the hijackers found? Were they prosecuted posthumously? If not, aren't they innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? What are the implications of that on this article?? JiminezWaldorf <signed type="unsigned"><date>02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T04:09+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.25076351_3_2">
+            <p>From Newsweek, January 3, 2009: "...scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified."(http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724 ref)  Were the hijackers prosecuted posthumously?  I don't know.  Implications for the article?  More references would be needed to establish notability.  Interestingly, Wikipedia's Flight 11 article only mentions the remains of two hijackers being found, and the Flight 175 article mentions none.  This probably needs updating, as the Newsweek article mentions finding the remains of "four" of the New York hijackers. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref> Wildbear  <date>04:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T08:35+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_3_3">
+            <p>Court of law. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We say what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say they are guilty, then so do we. Funny how that works huh? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>08:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-12T09:24+00" who="WU00053310" xml:id="i.25076351_3_4">
+            <p> "Guilty" is a legal term, which has its limitations. The 19 hijackers cannot be found guilty because the US does not prosecute dead people. However, there are criminal investigations, in this case by the FBI, and those investigations draw evidence-based conclusions. In addition, one defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui, was tried in a US court for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, and he was found guilty based on the conspiracy scenario involving the 19. The evidence is overwhelming, widely reported and available, represents a worldwide consensus, and it all points toward the 19 (and their Al-Qaeda hierarchy). A criminal trial produces a legal verdict, which does not represent a finding of factual certainty. The evidence in this case has been reviewed and scrutinized by experts and scholars around the world. A guilty verdict only represents the opinions of 12 ordinary people. I think what we have is more reliable than a guilty verdict. The only advantage a guilty verdict would bring to an encyclopedia is freedom from libel, which is not an issue when the potentially libeled are all dead by their own crime. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcs002"><name full="yes">Dcs002</name></ref><date>09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-12T22:57+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_3_5">
+            <p>Also, Wikipedia is NOT a court of law. We can call someone guilty if the reliable sources infer this. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>22:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-13T07:16+00" who="WU00053310" xml:id="i.25076351_3_6">
+            <p>I respectfully disagree for one reason. "Guilty" is a legal term indicating a finding of legal guilt, which in the US means a court verdict. True, there are other definitions of the word (such as the emotion), but I think we should avoid the term because of it's implied legal meaning. I think we have plenty of justification to say the 19 committed this act, without qualification. They did it, and we all know it. And since, as you say, we are not a court of law, I think we should avoid using the word "guilty." (I don't know of any reliable sources that have used that word.) Just say they did it. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcs002"><name full="yes">Dcs002</name></ref><date>07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-14T01:59+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_3_7">
+            <p>I believe we have tried in the past to just flat out say this, but many objected, so we are stuck with the current version. Feel free to change it from guilt to straight implication if you want. I just can't guarantee it won't be reverted. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_4">
+          <head>Parody on 9/11.</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T19:11+00" who="WU00102923" xml:id="i.25076351_4_1">
+            <p> It's actualy parodied in Postal movie. I didn't saw it competely but in the begining there is a clear parody on terrorist pilots and their passanger victims.</p>
+            <p> Yeah very smart and funny to play such things on tragedys.</p>
+            <p> Also there is no "9/11 in culture" part in the article. And its influencing such things like movies and so on. Some of them where canceled/edited as for their terrorism content. Also I've heard that pig cops where removed from Duke Nukem Forever to show respection to police officers who died there.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oleg%20Str"><name full="yes">Oleg Str</name></ref><date>19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-22T20:22+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_4_2">
+            <p>Hmm... for such a serious and important article... I'm not entirly sure where a 'pop culture' section would go. You could always be bold and add it yourself. As for Postal, that's that Uwe Boll film right? Yeah, he isn't known for having taste... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-23T18:50+00" who="WU00014836" xml:id="i.25076351_4_3">
+            <p>We already have List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks. ""'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut%208.5"><name full="yes">Hut 8.5</name></ref>""' <date>18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-26T21:37+00" who="WU00005181" xml:id="i.25076351_4_4">
+            <p>Strongly object to having a pop culture section on the article. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John"><name full="yes">John</name></ref><date>21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_5">
+          <head>see also</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-30T22:41+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_5_1">
+            <p> is this relevant   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-01T08:14+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_5_2">
+            <p>Nope. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>08:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-01T09:26+00" who="WU00662225" xml:id="i.25076351_5_3">
+            <p>u r right, i posted this in wrong article, should have been in conspiracy theories one.   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-28T11:25+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_5_4">
+            <p> Discussion top|1=  Enough of this, user has been blocked -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>11:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_6">
+          <head>Where is  the evidence</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-19T06:50+00" who="WU00730230" xml:id="i.25076351_6_1">
+            <p> What is this based on?</p>
+            <p> I find it insulting, that im expected to believe this.</p>
+            <p> how much evidence would be required to have this article updated?  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-20T08:44+00" who="WU00652291" xml:id="i.25076351_6_2">
+            <p>The article's sources are fairly transparent, as are wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you find the article insulting, work on improving it with    <signed type="user_contribution"><date>08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-20T15:54+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_6_3">
+            <p>Couldn't have said it better myself. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-25T22:07+00" who="WU00720338" xml:id="i.25076351_6_4">
+            <p>What is transparent is your misdemeanor. I would like to know for how long we'll have to bare this hegemony of few… I'll stay polite. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ManComesAround"><name full="yes">ManComesAround</name></ref><date>22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-25T22:20+00" who="WU00040405" xml:id="i.25076351_6_5">
+            <p>You need to "bare" it only as long as it takes you provide better sources than are already present. So, what have you got? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rockpocket"><name full="yes">Rockpocket</name></ref><date>22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-26T13:37+00" who="WU00720338" xml:id="i.25076351_6_6">
+            <p>We have record breaking archive here with whole plethora of pretty good sources, let me ask, why we lack section about unanswered questions and calls for new investigation?</p>
+            <p> We have well referenced article about 9/11: Press for Truth, who and for what end made a decision to omit this historical call from this article? What would be the reasoning behind such decision? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ManComesAround"><name full="yes">ManComesAround</name></ref><date>13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-26T17:47+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_6_7">
+            <p>You're assuming that there are some "'facts"' in 9/11: Press for Truth.  Our article is neutral on that issue.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-27T07:55+00" who="WU00720338" xml:id="i.25076351_6_8">
+            <p>You're assuming assumptions... and that will lead us nowhere. We are not here to determine factual accuracy, obviously so. If there is notable call for new investigation then there's a notable call for independent investigation - INDISCRIMINATE. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ManComesAround"><name full="yes">ManComesAround</name></ref><date>07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-27T08:09+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_6_9">
+            <p>Hmmm.  So, I misspoke.  You're assuming there's a "notable" call for an investigation in 9/11: Press for Truth.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>08:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="9" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-27T08:18+00" who="WU00720338" xml:id="i.25076351_6_10">
+            <p>I'm assuming that you are able to assume good faith as you contribute to the project, perhaps I'm wrong? Let me repeat that question. Why we lack section about unanswered questions and calls for new investigation? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ManComesAround"><name full="yes">ManComesAround</name></ref><date>08:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="10" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-27T14:42+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_6_11">
+            <p>Almost all of them belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Those few calls for a new investigation which "do not" presuppose a conspiracy theory could possibly be here.  I believe 9/11: Press for Truth should be noted "somewhere", but in which subarticle?  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="11" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-27T15:26+00" who="WU00720338" xml:id="i.25076351_6_12">
+            <p>You knocked me off my feet Arthur, let's discuss these possibilities, do you think that futile take of NY Coalition for Accountability meets the merit? Or rather, before we move on, could you kindly give a few arguments of why to exclude the Press for Truth? Have you read our article about it, there is no conspiracy to be found, not a single world, nothing but questions there. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ManComesAround"><name full="yes">ManComesAround</name></ref><date>15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="12" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-28T02:06+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_6_13">
+            <p>You are quite delusional if you believe what you are asking for is NPOV. I'm getting sock puppet vibes. I think I may request a check user... --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-28T08:00+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_6_14">
+            <p> Looks like I was right. Carry on. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-28T08:07+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_6_15">
+            <p>Sorry about replying to the DUCK.  Still, it seems to me that if there were any non-conspiracy-theory requests for reinvestigation, there should be some note about it in one of the related articles.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-28T11:12+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_6_16">
+            <p>I think we had enough of this inane gibberish, someone should close this ridiculous exchange. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_7">
+          <head>Act swiftly</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-03T11:19+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_7_1">
+            <p> User: The Original Wildbear, reverted my edit made on solid grounds and implied that Mr. Rumsfeld is a pig http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksaction=historysubmitdiff=323549441oldid=323504694. I think he should be dealt with swiftly. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-03T14:34+00" who="WU00001674" xml:id="i.25076351_7_2">
+            <p>Lipstick on a pig is a well-known expression and does not typically imply that the subject is a pig. TOW restored well-sourced material.  Please propose controversial changes on the talk page first. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohnoitsjamie"><name full="yes">Ohnoitsjamie</name></ref> OhNoitsJamie  <date>14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-03T16:01+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_7_3">
+            <p>Yeah, I'm certain editor wasn't implying a thing there. What's this about controversial changes? What is the purpose of that quote? It looks like someone stick it there out of the blue. No explanation, nothing, someone just smacked it there, for what reason? I'm certain there are better places where editors can provide more insightful "'opinions"' about 'things related or not'. I'm saying that Mr. Rumsfeld's quote is redundant to this article which is easy to read and easy to understand, at least until that point. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-03T18:27+00" who="WU00205022" xml:id="i.25076351_7_4">
+            <p>This particular well-sourced material is especially informative and interesting, as it evidences, just hours after the attacks, a mindset which seemed to guide the Bush administration through most of its major policies and actions in the months and years which followed.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Original%20Wildbear"><name full="yes">The Original Wildbear</name></ref> Wildbear  <date>18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-03T18:46+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_7_5">
+            <p>I'm sorry, I don't find it informative at all, if anything, it's a quote without context. Look at it as if you would see it without knowing any of the 'evidences' you allege here. See, it means nothing and it says nothing, it should be removed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_8">
+          <head>numbers  discrepancy</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-06T07:50+00" who="WU00730231" xml:id="i.25076351_8_1">
+            <p> In the opening paragraph, death toll is mentioned as 2993. In the table immediately to the right, it's stated as 2995. Which one's correct?  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            <p> "</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_8_2">
+            <p> Italic text"</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_9">
+          <head>hijackers included?</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T02:57+00" who="WU00012662" xml:id="i.25076351_9_1">
+            <p> Why are the deaths of the hijackers included? Does the gov. count their deaths as well?<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jlujan69"><name full="yes">Jlujan69</name></ref><date>02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-11T05:30+00" who="WU00037648" xml:id="i.25076351_9_2">
+            <p>Didn't they die? -<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jordgette"><name full="yes">Jordgette</name></ref><date>05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-09-19T09:19+00" who="WU00722197" xml:id="i.25076351_9_3">
+            <p> I've just read on CNN.com: 3031 deaths... than which one is true? pls answer on my talk page --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Md%C3%B6nci"><name full="yes">Mdönci</name></ref><date>09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-06T09:06+00" who="WU00730232" xml:id="i.25076351_9_4">
+            <p> Al quida hijackers that the United States intelligents "claims" crashed the airplaines into the twin towers have been found alive. Bringing the validity of these intelligent reports along with the whole official story into question</p>
+            <p>
+              <signed type="user_contribution">
+                <date>09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)</date>
+              </signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-10-06T15:40+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_9_5">
+            <p>Yet another false statement.  Perhaps more accurate (but still irrelevant to "this" article) would be that people have been identified as (some of the) 19 hijackers were discovered later.  Those identifications have not been substantiated.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-03T16:15+00" who="WU00730233" xml:id="i.25076351_9_6">
+            <p> The Al Qaeda terrorists should not be included in the number dead; rather, there should be a separate column.  —Preceding   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+            <p> The number of dead is a matter of statistics, a fact, as best as can be determined, and the hijackers should be included in that, but an asterisk stating that "x" number of fatalities were hijackers would be appropriate.  Removing emotion from the equation, the hijackers WERE among the dead.76.88.76.161  07:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_10">
+          <head>Gaming the system</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-11T09:07+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_10_1">
+            <p> At the top of this page we have a notice about 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories arbitration case, upon reviewing the statements and learning about deeper context I would like to note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theoriesDecorum decorum has been broken by the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksaction=history two editors who have previously shown continuous tenacious approach to this article. These two editors are clearly a part of the wider group which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system Gaming the system and whose interests have nothing to do with guidelines and principles established by Wikipedia Community. In line with their previous efforts, these editors have shown disregard to the editorial process while removing and/or omitting publicly known, notable and well referenced material from the article. There is no doubt that their refusal to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge' has no valid or logical foundation and that their actions hurt the project, fuel unnecessary vandalism and unwelcome behaviour. Since this is historically repeating occurrence that is well know within and outside of Wikipedia, I would at this time ask for swift and appropriate action of the administrate. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-11T18:22+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_10_2">
+            <p>I'm afraid, that if I were to ignore AGF, I would be forced to assume that you were one of the two editors.  However, "refusing to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge'" but does "'not"' appear in any reliable sources is exactly what should be done.</p>
+            <p> As an aside, it appears you are being reverted both by editors who lean toward both the "truther" and "mainstream" positions, suggesting that your changes do not meet with consensus.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-11T22:18+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_10_3">
+            <p>Regards, is it so? Perhaps the fact that I've been reverted by both 'twoofez' and 'debunkez' means that I don't care much about 'twoofewizm' and 'debunkewizm' or something as strange as that..? Perhaps not. Either way, I'm glad that you've showed some restraint. I'd appreciate if you'd review the edits made, before you 'divulge' what should and what shouldn't be done. By doing so, you'd see that your allegation is made with.. without foundation, since I've done nothing but provided clear links to notable, well referenced articles that already showed their ability to stand alone and that are not just related, but deeply entangled with topic at hand. As you bare in mind that edits were made after discussion and apparent consensus, I'll most strongly reiterate; if information is available outside of Wikipedia and if it is considered to be (notable and well referenced) 'common knowledge', then our inability to reference such information serves little (as a matter of fact is serves no) purpose, while it does real and tangible harm to this project.</p>
+            <p> Take that as you will, as for my 'rant', I'm afraid that reputation of certain editors precedes them, and although I'm exercising restraint in AGF manner, I'm ready to 'prove' what's written above while using most basic queries to search engines, queries  that 'divulge' real meaning (and incivility) of 'tenacious editing'. Ok? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-13T00:51+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.25076351_10_4">
+            <p>Yes...we shall not tolerate tenacious editing or incivility like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacksdiff=prevoldid=322515117 this one, a "first edit" by you. I checked out those that reverted your edits...they look fine to me, BTW.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>00:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-13T08:49+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_10_5">
+            <p>I knew you'd like it, after examining the history here I've concluded that rudeness goes a long way on these pages, so I've deployed some and I'm sad to say that results confirm expectations. You know, I agree, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11,_2001_attacksdiff=46414207oldid=46413974 everything is fine. I'll move out of your way now, keep up the good fight against those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/EvidenceMONGO_has_repeatedly_violated_our_Civility_and_No_personal_attacks_policies 'trolls, jerks, bigots.. or worse'!  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>08:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-23T05:16+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.25076351_10_6">
+            <p>I don't suffer fools well...especially when they keep trying to screw up articles with conspiracy theory idiocies. I believe in a zero tolerance plan in dealing with trolls and previously banned editors...my plan includes to make sure they know they are unwelcome...so I sure hope I didn't disappoint you.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>05:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.25076351_11">
+          <head>'I make up stories'</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-14T14:53+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_11_1">
+            <p> There are two famous statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed</p>
+            <p> 'I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z' statement.</p>
+            <p> And less famous, 'I make up stories,' statement. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009342668_gitmo16.html</p>
+            <p> I would appreciate some opinions on why would second reference be of lesser value than the first one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksaction=historysubmitdiff=325765264oldid=325695037 POV pushing? How in the world, and omission of 'admission by torture' is… what?). I'd also like to discuss lack of 'torture section'. Although I'm not surprised that information about torture of Kahtani, Zubaydah and others is missing... I'd really like to see some non-conspiratorial and decent work actually being done here, so http://tachyonbursts.blogspot.com/2009/10/dissmissal-on-grounds-of-torture.html here is the link to the blogspot article which is, imo, referenced well enough to serve as a good starting point for suggested discussion. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-14T23:14+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_11_2">
+            <p>Can you explain why the "tachyonbursts" article is not (a) "'completely"' unreliable (as we define RS) and (b) written by an editor banned from Wikipedia.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T00:23+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_11_3">
+            <p>a) Could you kindly "'point out"' where I've said it was reliable? b) What to hell is a tachyon burst? c) there is really no way we can have a decent discussion here, yes? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T00:43+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_11_4">
+            <p>a) If it's not reliable, it can't go in the article.  It might be used to "find" reliable sources, but....</p>
+            <p> b) User:Tachyonbursts is a banned editor.  If that's his blog, then adding information he provides is proxying, and could lead to your being blocked, even if the information were actually of use.</p>
+            <p> — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>00:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T00:55+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_11_5">
+            <p>I don't agree with this interpretation of PROXYING. If someone finds information on a website that is presumably being maintained by a banned user, this does not mean that this editor is acting "at the direction of a banned user". In most cases, such websites would not be considered reliable sources anyway. If the website points to a reliable source, then the existence of such a reliable source is a valid reason for the possible inclusion of a piece of information in an article, independent of how the reliable source has been found. The situation is probably different if a banned user would publish templates for WP edits on a webpage, and someone else would use them verbatim to edit WP articles.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>00:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T01:21+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_11_6">
+            <p>I didn't want to bring up the hypothesis that InnerParty was already a sock of Tachyonbursts.  I was asked to investigate, and declined, on the grounds that my sock identification skills were lacking.  If he had responded to the proxying allegation, it might have provided some insight.  Oh, well.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T01:44+00" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.25076351_11_7">
+            <p>Well, referring to an article which is presumably written by a banned user is, umm, a very questionable strategy if you are a sock of that same user. A SPI would be in order, of course, and would be not too difficult, as the potential sock puppeteer is already identified. The potential benefit of tricking some user into revealing more than he or she wants to do does not outweigh the damage that may result if other users are being led to follow a misleading interpretation of actual Wikipedia policies.nbsp; <signed type="unsigned"><date>01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="7" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T09:39+00" who="WU00578643" xml:id="i.25076351_11_8">
+            <p>I guess this turned out to be discussion about torture after all, there is not much information about expulsion of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_ActLone_wolf_amendment subject, was he removed by the USDHS? Well, after this interesting exchange I'll admit I'm deeply concerned for my privacy, therefore I'm definitely done with editing Wikka-wakka, have fun, <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InnerParty"><name full="yes">InnerParty</name></ref><date>09:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="8" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-16T07:40+00" who="WU00094105" xml:id="i.25076351_11_9">
+            <p>Wow, it's devastating for the project to lose an editor of your caliber. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ice%20Cold%20Beer"><name full="yes">Ice Cold Beer</name></ref><date>07:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-15T10:31+00" who="WU00177357" xml:id="i.25076351_11_10">
+            <p> Should I even bother with a sock check? I mean honestly, he made it far too easy this time, especially considering this 'new editor' appeared directly after the last sock was blocked. I would say that this "I suddenly agree with everything you guys say" approach was interesting, but really, this is just tedious. I had my doubts from the very first edit. Can someone else put in the request this time? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarage"><name full="yes">Tarage</name></ref><date>10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-16T08:26+00" who="WU00002873" xml:id="i.25076351_11_11">
+            <p>I'd rather not.  I'm having enough trouble keeping track of ResearchEditor socks.  — <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur%20Rubin"><name full="yes">Arthur Rubin</name></ref><date>08:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-23T04:44+00" who="WU00011798" xml:id="i.25076351_11_12">
+            <p>The Cter's are idiots...it's not surprising they are too stupid to know how to mask new accounts that at least make it a real challenge to ID them without checkuser.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO"><name full="yes">MONGO</name></ref><date>04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2009-11-23T05:57+00" who="WU00001644" xml:id="i.25076351_11_13">
+            <p>I think the assumption is that if enough low-tech assaults are unleashed, that somehow technology will be rendered useless. Alternately, since there are so many lock-step ideas in the truther movement, it's entirely possible that an army of meat-puppets simply argue the same points. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronabop"><name full="yes">Ronabop</name></ref><date>05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_2659113.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 12</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">2659113.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>PBS et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 12</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%2012" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">2659113</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2015-02-03T20:45:38Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 12</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{Automatic archive navigator}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_1">
+          <head>Terrorist</head>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_1_1">
+            <p>Arguing over terms is the best way to bury and lose facts.  HUGE NUMBERS of wikipedia discussion pages are trash-talk and term argument, especially anywhere that "terrorist" is used.  Stick to the dictionary.  It's the only way to ensure a true null point of view.  Terrorist:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist  Terrorism:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism ...  This simple policy KILLS this discussion entirely.  The remainder of your argument is deciding whether or not the attacks had a goal or not, because they were certainly "calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians".  "in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"? ... that essentially means that any act of violence against civilians (wherein civilians are not simply collateral damage, but their buildings/homes/businesses the target) that has an aim... is terrorism.  Changing titles to more obscure things that will cause them to be filtered out of a search for "terrorist attacks" is bad authoring.</p>
+            <p> All you little "freedom fighter" supporting types need to learn that fighting for freedom is done properly by attacking the ESTABLISHMENT of power that is in conflict with your FREEDOM.  America causes civilian casualties in Iraq with quite some frequency.  However, America is NOT TERRORIST because we do not TARGET CIVILIANS.  Aiming a plane full of civilians at a building full of civilians in the middle of a city full of millions of civilians for the purpose of attacking an enemy for supporting Israel sounds like an ideological driven act of violence to me.  There should be no truces or compromises in calling things what they are as defined in the dictionary, sensationalist or not.  If you let people, they will argue that black is not a color, that trees falling in forests don't make sounds, and various other retarded crap.  This all just gets in the way of disseminating facts and it needs to be STOPPED.  There are better places than an encyclopedia for this kind of trashy, worthless discussion.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2005-07-09T20:55+00" who="WU00005120" xml:id="i.2659113_1_2">
+            <p>That discussion is currently dead.  Calling human-caused attacks terrorism is fairly redundant, even if the term wasn't POV; redundancy is not a synonym of concision.  Further, a discussion hardly overrules a policy: an example on the NPOV page. mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olathe"><name full="yes">Olathe</name></ref><date>20:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2005-07-09T20:30+00" who="WU00005120" xml:id="i.2659113_1_3">
+            <p>(moved from below) I agree with what Rebroad said about removing the word entirely.  Simply describing the acts is enough.  Those who already believe it is terrorist will find nothing to argue with.  Those who already believe it is freedom fighting will find nothing to argue with.  Calling it either or both is POV, as evidenced by the lovely, time-wasting debates about it (you can hardly say that either side is trolling).  Let's leave the characterization of actions to the readers.  The article will lose nothing important for it.  mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olathe"><name full="yes">Olathe</name></ref><date>20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00444882" xml:id="i.2659113_1_4">
+            <p> Notice from the person that probably caused all of this.  A few days ago (July 7 2005 maybe?) I replaced the words "Islamist" with "CIA" in describing the persons involved in the attack.  The "controversy" seems to have erupted since then regarding the definition of terrorist.</p>
+            <p> Certainly there can be no question that the attacks were a terrorist attack.  But the evidence that it had anything to do with the religion of Islam is utterly absurd.  Bin Laden was a CIA operative when Al-Qaeda was set up, and evidence suggests that the relationship still exists.  If Al-Qaeda committed the attacks, they would be the best friends the Bush regime ever had, having given the regime the public support needed to bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq.  The administration's old business buddies made out quite well building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and giving Halliburton and the arms industry billions in development deals.  The White House's cozy relationship with the Bin Laden family, exposed in detail in ) 23:58, 10 July 2005</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2005-04-27T22:51+00" who="WU00000159" xml:id="i.2659113_1_5">
+            <p> "==Muslim Celebrations==</p>
+            <p> Muslims throughout the world celebrated the attacks. Most famously, people in Gaza and the West Bank danced and fired guns in the streets.</p>
+            <p> "</p>
+            <p> can anyone claim this didnt happen?</p>
+            <p> Yes. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle"><name full="yes">Kingturtle</name></ref><date>22:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2005-07-09T22:30+00" who="WU00002912" xml:id="i.2659113_1_6">
+            <p> Yes. 'throughout the world' is an untrue description of what amounts to a disputed video recording of, at most, ten or twelve people (most of whom were children). <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will%20Lakeman"><name full="yes">Will Lakeman</name></ref> illWill <date>22:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_1_7">
+            <p>Discussion of interpretation of the politics of the people behind the attacks belongs in a section below, since much of this is tied up with POV and conspiracy theories.</p>
+            <p> On many occasions, President Bush has emphasized that Islam was not responsible for the attacks on USA, and the US war is not with Islam, rather, the enemy is an extreme viewpoint not representative of the Muslim religion.  To say otherwise is to deny what the Bush administration has repeatedly emphasized.</p>
+            <p> The movie Fahrenheit 911 was a failed propaganda effort designed to defeat President Bush in an election campaign.  Repeating any assertions from that source need some corroboeration.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_1_8">
+            <p>Phraseology of next two sentences deliberately similar to make the point that yesterday's friend is tomorrow's enemy  vica versa in the world of international politics that have got so bad that there is a war.</p>
+            <p> In Iraq today, much of the resistance to the USA coalition (but not all of it) comes from foreign fighters from outside of Iraq, who feel a duty to oppose what they think the USA and its coalition stands for there.</p>
+            <p> In Afghanistan several years ago, when the former Soviet Union invaded, much of the resistance to the Russians (but not all of it) came from foreign fighters from outside of Afghanistan, who felt a duty to oppose what they believed the USSR's goals were there.  </p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_1_9">
+            <p>bin Laden was a leader of a major faction of those foreign fighters, and received aid from the CIA because during the Cold War the USA and USSR were engaged in a struggle that to those nations, was more important than the various nations they were struggling in.  Once the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan, motivation for the CIA to support the rebels in Afghanistan against a foe that was no longer there, evaporated.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2005-07-26T02:00+00" who="WU00005023" xml:id="i.2659113_1_10">
+            <p>
+              <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlMac"><name full="yes">AlMac</name></ref>| <date>02:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)</date></signed>
+            </p>
+          </post>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_2">
+            <head>Economic Recovery</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_2_1">
+              <p> Anyone else pissed that Bloomberg Actually has the balls to use his so called downtown recovery, as a reason to re-elect him, If I see another 90 second TV spot for Bloomerg "I'm" going to run against that crook,</p>
+              <p> If the economy is recovering, and if he's doing so much then why are the blocks and blocks boarded up businesses, creeping further and further uptown,</p>
+              <p> there are midtown neighborhoods for gods sake, that are starting to go under under his 'leadership'</p>
+              <p> He hasn't done a single thing for this city except keep the poverty south of his townhouse..</p>
+              <p> He's a "very" slight improvment over Rudy(the little nazi) and any body who votes either of them into "any" political office deserves to have their citezenship revoked..</p>
+              <p> and, so it's not off topic, someone please tell me how someone can be the 'hero of 911' if he was elected months after 911?</p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_3">
+            <head>Motive</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_3_1">
+              <p> I've changed the motive section to try and be more accurate and comprehensive; feel free to alter it, but I wanted to make sure that the following problems with the previous version were addressed: (1) the article gave Al Qaeda's beef with Israel a prominence disproportionate to that in the source it cited, yet (2) gave no mention of Al Qaeda's opposition to US economic  policy in the Middle East or (3) allegations that the US oppresses the people of the Middle East - both of which are extremely important motivating factors. (4) It did not mention the White House's explanation of the motivation for 9/11, which is by far the most widely held in the media. (5) It was kinda repetitive. (6) Although I believe Al Qaeda was, obviously, responsible for 9/11, the article was a bit off-handed to people who think otherwise, and didn't mention the motivations attributed to the alternative perpetrators, which the motive section ought to do. I thought it was also important to point out that Islam was a motivation, but tried to temper that by suggesting Al Qaeda has a distinct interpretation of the religion.</p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_4">
+          <head>Fourth flight's target</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_4_1">
+            <p> I read the sentence "Captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is rumored to have said that Flight 93 was definitely targeting the Capitol" as being POV and almost as if it were trying to be dramatic (how "can" a rumour be definite?).</p>
+            <p> I have changed this to "Captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is rumored to have said that Flight 93's target was the Capitol" to (hopefully) get a more NPOV.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2005-08-18T18:19+00" who="WU00013443" xml:id="i.2659113_4_2">
+            <p>There's no contradiction between "rumoured" and "definitely". Think about it, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is "rumoured" to have said (something like) "Flight 93's target was "definitely" the Capitiol". <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cadr"><name full="yes">Cadr</name></ref><date>18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_5">
+          <head>Muslims and 9/11</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_5_1">
+            <p> Osama bin Laden's second interview and denial of commiting the attacks should be mentioned. Otherwise this article will be completetly biased against Muslims. Also it should be stated that the Israel-Palestine Two-state solution was to be made public the day after the attacks and cannot be looked at as just coincidental http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/etc/script.html. "Is a predominantly Christian country and therefore is heretical and islamophobic" is not in the quoted article http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm so I have removed it.</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_6">
+          <head>Request for Comment:Links section (kinda sucks)</head>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_7">
+            <head>Current</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_7_1">
+              <p> Here's the current layout of all the see also / links section:</p>
+              <list>
+                <item>Media</item>
+                <item>See also</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_7_2">
+              <list>
+                <item>Victims</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_7_3">
+              <list>
+                <item>References</item>
+                <item>External links</item>
+                <item>Video</item>
+                <item>Photos</item>
+                <item>Books</item>
+                <item>Victims and damage</item>
+                <item>Further reading</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+          <div type="thread" xml:id="i.2659113_8">
+            <head>Proposal</head>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_1">
+              <p> In a word: bleh.  Here's my proposal:</p>
+              <list>
+                <item>Further information</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_2">
+              <list>
+                <item>Media</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_3">
+              <list>
+                <item>Audio</item>
+                <item>Video</item>
+                <item>Photos</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_4">
+              <list>
+                <item>Further reading</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_5">
+              <list>
+                <item>Books</item>
+                <item>Internal links</item>
+                <item>External links</item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_6">
+              <list>
+                <item>References</item>
+                <item> Two-state solution </item>
+              </list>
+            </post>
+            <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.2659113_8_7">
+              <p>("victims and damage" and "victims" can be merged into one of these categories)</p>
+            </post>
+          </div>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_28035.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,537 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 2</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">28035.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>KslotteBot et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 2</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/Archive%202" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">28035</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2010-09-22T00:27:32Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/Archive 2</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{aan}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.28035_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_1">
+            <p> Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.</p>
+            <p> (New comments go on the bottom of the page.)</p>
+            <p> See also Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.</p>
+            <p> Old talk archived at Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000317" xml:id="i.28035_1_2">
+            <p> Can anyone think of deadlier terrorist attacks? I have trouble imagining one. Wars, battles, and government-driven massacres have killed more people in one day, but nothing that could be reasonably described as a terrorist incident. Correct? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Cunctator"><name full="yes">The Cunctator</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2002-09-29T01:55+00" who="WU00001227" xml:id="i.28035_1_3">
+            <p> I think that it may go to the definition of "terrorist", which is notoriously problematic.</p>
+            <p> Are government-driven massacres terrorist attacks?</p>
+            <p> I'm inclined to say that they are, since a major purpose is to instill fear in the remaining population; "state terrorism" is not an oxymoron to me.</p>
+            <p> Others will disagree, of course.</p>
+            <p> So in any case, in order to be impartial on the state terrorism issue, we would have to say "deadliest non-state terrorist incident".</p>
+            <p> I made the change when I did specifically because I realised that I no longer saw US news media describing the attack as the worst ever, only as the worst in the US.</p>
+            <p> Perhaps they were simply being cautious, but should we not be as cautious?</p>
+            <p> Ultimately, I think that the burden of proof rests on those making the claim, and I didn't see any attempt to justify it on the talk page; if I had, I'd have added to that discussion first.</p>
+            <p> But I may have missed something, so let me know.</p>
+            <p> mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby%20Bartels"><name full="yes">Toby Bartels</name></ref> Toby <date>01:55 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_4">
+            <p>Unless you can provide an example of a deadlier terrorist attack, I am reverting it to deadliest in the "world". --rmhermen</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2002-10-29T06:02+00" who="WU00001227" xml:id="i.28035_1_5">
+            <p>I can't imagine why you think the burden of proof lies with "me".</p>
+            <p> It would be one thing if most other sources agreed with you.</p>
+            <p> But they don't; outside of right-wing literature, I usually see only phrases like "deadliest terrorist attack in US history" or "deadliest act of terrorism on US soil".</p>
+            <p> It would be one thing if I were saying lsaquo;What most people think that they know isn't necessarily so.rsaquo;.</p>
+            <p> But I'm not; instead, you're the one that's advocating a stronger statement than the other media are making.</p>
+            <p> In an attempt to do your research for you, I looked for historical surveys of terrorist incidents with death tolls, as well as for examples of deadlier terrorist incidents.</p>
+            <p> I found nothing useful either way.</p>
+            <p> So perhaps the other news media simply don't know.</p>
+            <p> Well, fine, but we don't know either.</p>
+            <p> We can't just make up information since we suspect that it goes one way rather than the other.</p>
+            <p> Since you are advocating making claims that you don't know to be true, while I am not, I say that "you" should provide a reference to a comprehensive survey that ranks this attack deadliest "before" putting such a phrase in.</p>
+            <p> This is nothing more than simple intellectual integrity, on the part of all of us.</p>
+            <p> mdash; <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby%20Bartels"><name full="yes">Toby Bartels</name></ref> Toby <date>06:02 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00020366" xml:id="i.28035_1_6">
+            <p> I agree with Bryan Derksen a few comments back that, as great as a lot of it is, much of the material on 9/11 is out of place in an encyclopedia. Which only goes to show why both Britannica and World Book have issued newsy "yearbook" editions along with their standard encyc. sets for years. Look like a WikiYearbook side project is called for. -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JDG"><name full="yes">JDG</name></ref></signed> Oct. 3, 2002</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00011437" xml:id="i.28035_1_7">
+            <p> On the morning of, I remember hearing one of the tv broadcasters saying that the air force had 'taken care of' the final hijacked plane still in the air. does anyone else remember anything like that? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tubby"><name full="yes">Tubby</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00025006" xml:id="i.28035_1_8">
+            <p>No, and it's been more-or-less denied ever since, even though it would have been semi-reasonable to do so at that point, and even though it looks like that's what happened (the official conspiracy theory does not explain the 8-mile debris field).</p>
+            <p> The one vanishing report I "do" remember from that day, is of a plane going down in/around Colorado. I suspect it's related to the plane that hit the Pentagon, which is supposed to have been off radar until reappearing over DC.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:kwantus"><name full="yes">kwantus</name></ref></signed> Kwantus.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2002-11-09T15:23" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_9">
+            <p> We may want to fix edit by 211.28.96.8 (<signed type="unsigned"><date>15:23 Nov 9, 2002</date></signed> September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack). Comments?</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_10">
+            <p> "Some people claim that it was the deadliest terrorist attack in the world."</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000710" xml:id="i.28035_1_11">
+            <p>Can somebody point me to a deadlier terrorist attack that ever took place? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric149"><name full="yes">Maveric149</name></ref></signed> mav</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00025007" xml:id="i.28035_1_12">
+            <p> depends on your definition of terrorism im sure...<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vera%20Cruz"><name full="yes">Vera Cruz</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00002517" xml:id="i.28035_1_13">
+            <p>Exactly. And on what you consider a single attack. And on whether you consider indirect deaths as counting. Perhaps "many people" would be more acceptable? -<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice"><name full="yes">MyRedDice</name></ref></signed> Martin</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_14">
+            <p>Based on our own definition at terrorism. --mav</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000315" xml:id="i.28035_1_15">
+            <p>I'll go check out our definition, but for a discussion of deadlier attacks, Noam Chomsky, for example, http://www.zmag.org/chomskyhitchens.htm argues that the attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant had a far greater death toll in total, so it depends on your definition of terrorism and how you count the deaths.  (3 edit conflicts so far.)  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DanKeshet"><name full="yes">DanKeshet</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_16">
+            <p>"Terrorism refers to the systemic or calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, to instill fear in an audience for purposes of obtaining political goals"</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00002517" xml:id="i.28035_1_17">
+            <p>The holocaust would do then. Note that terrorism has an entire section on "Problems with the definition"... -<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice"><name full="yes">MyRedDice</name></ref></signed> Martin</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-04T10:29+00" who="WU00025008" xml:id="i.28035_1_18">
+            <p>Using this definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, was the greatest terrorist attacks (calculated use of violence against the civilian population, to instill fear in an audience of obtaining political goals) <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:62.212.110.113"><name full="yes">62.212.110.113</name></ref><date>10:29 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_19">
+            <p> Make it something like: "Many people claim that it was the deadliest terrorist attack in history. But this view varies based on how a terrorist attack is defined." and I'll be happy. --mav</p>
+            <p> It was the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil,</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_20">
+            <p>Could this also depend on definition? How big were some of the masacres of Native Americans? http://iss.k12.nc.us/schools/nms/nativeacleansing.htm talks about 4000 deaths in  'removal' from land.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2003-01-15T00:40+00" who="WU00004805" xml:id="i.28035_1_21">
+            <p>The biggest argument against this is that this removal took place through and by many, many separate acts. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel%20C.%20Boyer"><name full="yes">Daniel C. Boyer</name></ref><date>00:40 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00002517" xml:id="i.28035_1_22">
+            <p>But that wasn't terrorism. If anything that was either a war or genocide. --mav</p>
+            <p> More importantly, it wasn't on ""'US""' soil: the United States not having been formed at that time....-<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice"><name full="yes">MyRedDice</name></ref></signed> Martin</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_23">
+            <p>It fits the above definition of terrorism, but I concede that the US wasn't formed. However, I have could "US soil" be taken to mean soil that is now part of the US? I have heard people say "the Romans once ocupied British soil".</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-01-15T00:40+00" who="WU00004805" xml:id="i.28035_1_24">
+            <p> Include section (linking to separate article) on philatelic history of September 11, 2001 (stamps commemorating the events, pictorial cancellations, c.)? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel%20C.%20Boyer"><name full="yes">Daniel C. Boyer</name></ref><date>00:40 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-01-24T11:16+00" who="WU00001097" xml:id="i.28035_1_25">
+            <p> My bad... Need sleep :)</p>
+            <p> But shouldn't the search for "nine eleven" find it? Is it because of the capitalization? What can be done? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zocky"><name full="yes">Zocky</name></ref><date>11:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00002517" xml:id="i.28035_1_26">
+            <p>"'expletive deleted"'. See Wikipedia:Common words, searching for which is not possible - "nine" is on the list <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice"><name full="yes">MyRedDice</name></ref></signed> Martin</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_27">
+            <p> I do not understand how anyone can state this was "among the deadliest single events of asymmetric warfare in history". What about almost any colonization? The foreign power invades with more powerful technology or in the case of North America, non-native germs, and slaughters the native race. Far more asymetric are the more recent wars launched by the US against Iraq (through 1990s and now in 2003), Central America, Africa (destroying the medicine factory in Sudan, and causing the death of millions), etc etc. Wake up, there were _only_ 3000 people killed. It's terrible but happens daily around the world. The author should have said, "among the deadliest single events of asymmetric warfare in AMERICAN history". -evg</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_28">
+            <p>for a definition of asymmetric warfare, see that entry. The colonisation of america wasn't asymmetric by the modern definition, though many events in it would probably qualify as genocide. Also, the entry says "single" events, which distinguishes 9/11 from protracted wars and battles. Given both those qualifiers, I think that's a balanced intro...</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00025009" xml:id="i.28035_1_29">
+            <p> I'm new here, but had a brief and minor comment on the paragraph at the end about the use of the term "nine eleven".  Most other major disasters are named for their location -- Hiroshima, Waterloo, etc.  I think the adoption of "nine eleven" is a simple consequence of the fact that the act took place in multiple locations, so there was no simple geographical shorthand for the enormity of it.  Although the worst damage was in New York, calling it the "WTC disaster" doesn't begin to address everything that happened that day.</p>
+            <p><signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro"><name full="yes">CatherineMunro</name></ref></signed> Catherine</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00002517" xml:id="i.28035_1_30">
+            <p>Good point, Catherine.</p>
+            <p> Btw, there is a discussion at m:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties on the movement of pages to the sep11.wiki site from this one. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice"><name full="yes">MyRedDice</name></ref></signed> Martin</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_31">
+            <p> The attacks on September 11 were not strictly speaking terrorism, for these reasons:</p>
+            <list>
+              <item>they were not focused strictly on civilian targets, but included the Pentagon and corporations and markets that vend US debt that fund the US military - by the same definitions that have always been used in war, these are military targets, albeit in the WTC's case there was also a lot of collateral damage</item>
+              <item>their primary impact was the physical destruction of infrastructure actually useful in war, that being, the command and financing infrastructure of the USA.  if not for various precautions in offsite backup, they could have done serious damage to the US economy - thus this was a serious military attack not a fear-generating exercise</item>
+              <item>even with these precautions and rapid reactions on the part of traders and authorities, the overall impact was estimated at close to US$1T over the next month, and could be said to be much higher if we include present slow growth rates, economic friction introduced by 'national security' measures, and costs of new wars, not to mention risks of diplomatic alienation over same</item>
+              <item>the objective of the attacks, if Al Qaeda was indeed behind them (which is an assertion never proven by any judicial process, and we should note that), was to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia.  This is certainly a military objective and a very clear and focused one.</item>
+              <item>they were coordinated so effectively as to demonstrate true military capacity.</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> I submit that this is exactly what is meant by asymmetric warfare, and not what is usually meant by terrorism.  Thus the article title could reasonably be 'September 11, 2001, hijackings' or 'September 11, 2001, attack on the USA' but 'terrorist attack' is just biased.  History will remember this as the first successful hit of a large scale war fought over normal military objectives and with normal military targets, not an isolated incident involving mostly civilians.  Some even say that the Pentagon workers were 'civilians' since they did not carry weapons.  This kind of nonsense absolutely boggles the mind.  Nor, for the same reasons, was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole a 'terrorist' attack.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000710" xml:id="i.28035_1_32">
+            <p>The Cole attack was not terrorism but the killing of nearly 3,000 civilians can be nothing other than terrorism. It is very silly to suggest that those people were valid military targets. I thought you were banned? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric149"><name full="yes">Maveric149</name></ref></signed> mav</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00004805" xml:id="i.28035_1_33">
+            <p>The Pentagon (and not the WTC) would (certainly) have been a valid military target, but the method of attack was a patent atrocity and plainly illegal. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel%20C.%20Boyer"><name full="yes">Daniel C. Boyer</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-03-02T03:54+00" who="WU00003462" xml:id="i.28035_1_34">
+            <p> Why not my new definition? -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TakuyaMurata"><name full="yes">TakuyaMurata</name></ref> Taku <date>03:54 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00007455" xml:id="i.28035_1_35">
+            <p>For one it was misspelled... mav made it a little clearer.  Thanks mav! -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goatasaur"><name full="yes">Goatasaur</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00000710" xml:id="i.28035_1_36">
+            <p>No problem - is everybody happy now? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric149"><name full="yes">Maveric149</name></ref></signed> mav</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_37">
+            <p> "The WTC Towers were constructed almost entirely from steel coated in asbestos, and the attacks released dense clouds of dust into the air of Manhattan. Death usually follows asbestos inhalation only after fifteen years or more - so is possible that other victims of the attacks may die over the decades to come."</p>
+            <p> I remember either the TV or newspaper specifically saying at the time that the WTC towers didn't contain asbestos, which account is incorrect?</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-09-18T08:00+00" who="WU00001125" xml:id="i.28035_1_38">
+            <p>Both! _New York Times_ and/or public-broadcasting coverage in first few weeks clarified that the design called for lots of asbestos, and that this was significant but not complete in construction of the tower that was begun first.  The second followed a revised design thru-out, and had at most a very small fraction of the asbestos that the first did.  Neither had as much as originally planned. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerzy"><name full="yes">Jerzy</name></ref><date>08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-04-30T01:36+00" who="WU00000159" xml:id="i.28035_1_39">
+            <p> I am quite sure that naming this article took a great deal of debate and deliberation, however shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack""'s""'"? They may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle"><name full="yes">Kingturtle</name></ref><date>01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-04-30T01:36+00" who="WU00000159" xml:id="i.28035_1_40">
+            <p> "Text moved from the Village pump"</p>
+            <p> RE: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack....shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack""'s""'"? The attacks may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle"><name full="yes">Kingturtle</name></ref><date>01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-05-04T06:46+00" who="WU00006404" xml:id="i.28035_1_41">
+            <p>Apparently so! Googling reveals that 20,000 "September 11 Attack" pages and 200,000 "September 11 Attack""'s""'" pages. 14,000 "9 11 Attack" and 60,000 "9 11 Attack""'s""'." Time to move page? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menchi"><name full="yes">Menchi</name></ref><date>06:46 May 4, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" who="WU00002517" xml:id="i.28035_1_42">
+            <p>I'd suggest being conservative here - there are quite a few pages, and they're linked from all over the place, so a change of name will actually entail a fair bit of work. But if you do move, consider whether "terrorist" and "attack" need capitals... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice"><name full="yes">MyRedDice</name></ref></signed> Martin</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_43">
+            <p> "End of moved text"</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2003-05-12T08:33+00" who="WU00009643" xml:id="i.28035_1_44">
+            <p>"September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" looks like a better title to me -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sannse"><name full="yes">Sannse</name></ref> sannse <date>08:33 May 12, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2003-05-17T22:15+00" who="WU00000159" xml:id="i.28035_1_45">
+            <p>I've changed it to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks for the above mentioned reasons. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle"><name full="yes">Kingturtle</name></ref><date>22:15 17 May 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2003-05-17T22:25+00" who="WU00000159" xml:id="i.28035_1_46">
+            <p>But now I realize the seriousness of this change. It might be too overwhelming to change all the associated pages. I think I better changing them all now. It is probably best for me to change them back to the original name, no? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle"><name full="yes">Kingturtle</name></ref><date>22:25 17 May 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-05T04:01+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_1_47">
+            <p>Aside from which, the whole matter strikes me as being woefully pedantric. Fortunately, this whole matter seems to have ended on the grounds of difficulty.<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>04:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-05T12:27+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_1_48">
+            <p>The insurance company which insured the WTC didn't think so. They tried to declare it one attack so they only had to pay one settlement while the tower owner declared it two attacks and wanted double the money. It went to court -don't know what happened, though. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>12:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="6" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-10T07:58+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_1_49">
+            <p>Ah, but we're not an insurance company! <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>07:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-05T17:49+00" who="WU00025008" xml:id="i.28035_1_50">
+            <p> User:Rmhermen remove every links or information about 6wtc and 7wtc destruction events. (6wtc was partially destroyed by an explosion at 8;04am (I give a link to a short movie in gif) and a link on plane photography that explain the thing. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:62.212.110.113"><name full="yes">62.212.110.113</name></ref><date>17:49 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-10T07:58+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_1_51">
+            <p>Can anyone else comment on this? My initial thoughts were that this CIA office business was pure conspiracy theory, but there is that NY Times link that 62 refers to. Unfortunately it is rather vague. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>07:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-10T17:01+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_1_52">
+            <p>User:62.212.110.113 is pushing a conspiracy theory wherein only a couple buildings were destroyed by the attacking planes and the others were bombed from within possibly by the CIA or other US forces. Also having an office in a 47 story office building hardly makes that entire building a CIA building. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>17:01 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00025011" xml:id="i.28035_1_53">
+            <p> User:<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skeptical"><name full="yes">Skeptical</name></ref></signed> Some disinformation or misinformation may have crept into the detailed and well articulated articles relating to the terrorist attack(s). I see little consideration in these discussions regarding the possibility of disinformation, with the notable exception of the French site linked to on the Pentagon-Flight 77 page. July 8, 2003, 3:15 PM Chicago time.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-13T08:49+00" who="WU00001153" xml:id="i.28035_1_54">
+            <p> Is there a reason for the capitalisation in the current title of this page ("September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack")? Is this a proper name, by which it is widely known? Or should it be at September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, or indeed September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Do all the separate events count as a single attack, or as several? Yes, I know moving the page would require lots of redirects to be changed, but I don't mind doing that. -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oliver%20Pereira"><name full="yes">Oliver Pereira</name></ref> Oliver P. <date>08:49 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-13T08:54+00" who="WU00006404" xml:id="i.28035_1_55">
+            <p>Yes, User:Kingturtle questioned the plurality and attempted to move, but didn't go thru with it once he found out the numerous re-Wikification required. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menchi"><name full="yes">Menchi</name></ref><date>08:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-13T10:41+00" who="WU00001153" xml:id="i.28035_1_56">
+            <p> Okay, in that case I'll move the page to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks if I hear no objections. I'll leave it a week, just to give people plenty of time to respond, because I don't fancy doing all those changes if they're going to have to be changed back again later. :) -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oliver%20Pereira"><name full="yes">Oliver Pereira</name></ref> Oliver P. <date>10:41 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000548" xml:id="i.28035_1_57">
+            <p>No objection. I'll try to help a little with the wiki-work. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tannin"><name full="yes">Tannin</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-13T11:26+00" who="WU00006404" xml:id="i.28035_1_58">
+            <p> "'Capitalization"'</p>
+            <p> Should we cap?</p>
+            <list>
+              <item> No cap: because it's not a proper noun, nor is it established</item>
+              <item> Cap: First World War-like? (but world war isn't used here literally anyway, but like a given name)</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menchi"><name full="yes">Menchi</name></ref><date>11:26 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-29T16:41+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_1_59">
+            <p> I removed this sentence:  Other weapons used on at least one flight included bombs and air spray.</p>
+            <p> I am not aware that any other weapons were confirmed. I think I remember that they might have threatened to have a bomb. I am not sure. And what is "air spray"? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>16:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-07-31T06:58+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_1_60">
+            <p>Phone calls from both Flight 93 and Flight 11 made references to bombs being being displayed , probably to scare people into submission. It is possible that the one on Flight 93 was a phony. Also, according to phone calls from Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong, the hijackers on Flight 11 used some kind of air spray to discourage passengers from entering the first-class area where they were. See the Flight 11 article. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>06:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-08-14T23:19+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_1_61">
+            <p> Shouldn't this be plural "Attacks"? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref><date>23:19, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-08-14T23:21+00" who="WU00006404" xml:id="i.28035_1_62">
+            <p>User:Kingturtle and User:Dante Alighieri said they were gonna change (separately). I don't know what happened. Too many already singular links I guess. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menchi"><name full="yes">Menchi</name></ref><date>23:21, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_1_63">
+            <p> Should I go ahead and move? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-08-14T23:56+00" who="WU00006404" xml:id="i.28035_1_64">
+            <p>You could, but even though I don't know what happened with Dante Alighieri (I believe he was the second guy), I know that Kingturtle started to change and realized the multitude of the 911 linking web (in the hundreds), so gave up. If you still want to do it, give it a try, and if you need help, try the Pump. I'll tell you now that many people won't bother to help you! (Including me, sorry, I'm not really interested in 911 enough to fix it. How selfcentric of me). The title could use an improvement, but we may not have the manpower to make that improvement. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menchi"><name full="yes">Menchi</name></ref><date>23:56, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2003-08-15T00:00+00" who="WU00006404" xml:id="i.28035_1_65">
+            <p>Although, I wonder, wouldn't just a simple tweak of the redirects (can't be more than a dozen) do it? But I don't know what happened technically. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menchi"><name full="yes">Menchi</name></ref><date>00:00, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-08-15T00:05+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_1_66">
+            <p> I think I can take care of the redirects. I won't change the wrong links though. I think we can live with those redirecting. This article and related subjects needs a lot of cleaning up (bad formatting, etc). --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref><date>00:05, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_1_67">
+            <p>done</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-08-30T08:43+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_1_68">
+            <p> We need to rename/merge (some of them dont seen too well written) all these subpages. How should they be renamed? September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/World economic effects  to World economic effects of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks seems a bit lengthy.</p>
+            <p> See also: Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Footer template</p>
+            <p> --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref><date>08:43, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-09-11T18:41+00" who="WU00001101" xml:id="i.28035_1_69">
+            <p> http://msnbc.com/news/958136.asp Wasn't this person released later than January 2002? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evil%20saltine"><name full="yes">Evil saltine</name></ref><date>18:41, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-09-11T19:31+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_1_70">
+            <p>I guess that depends on the definition of "hospital". The article says that she was tranfered to "Rusk Rehabilitation Center" sometime before April. It then goes on to call that facility a hospital. But USA Today and the Today Show ran stories on Jan. 18 about the last survivor being released from the hospital (probably others but that is what I found online). <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>19:31, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.28035_2">
+          <head>911 name</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_2_1">
+            <p> I'd like to put something in the article about how 911 is the emergency services phone number in the USA, since this is a reason people refer to the attacks as 9/11 instead of September 11, but I can't think of a graceful way to do it.</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-09-18T08:00+00" who="WU00001125" xml:id="i.28035_2_2">
+            <p>Whatever you do along these lines, i urge you be sure to acknowledge that their oral versions provide more distinction than the silent slash would suggest. I think that before 9/11 occurred, pronouncing "911" as "nine one one" was nearly universal while pronouncing "9/11" that way was a bizarre affectation if it occurred.  Even tho the coincidence is undeniably striking, many of us don't pronounce (let along write) them the same, and may even comment when others blur the distinction. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerzy"><name full="yes">Jerzy</name></ref><date>08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-10-24T05:53+00" who="WU00005459" xml:id="i.28035_2_3">
+            <p> I see no mention here of the plane that went down in rural Pennsylvania the same day.  Is this due to oversight or otherwise?  I myself do not know much more than that it happened and so do not want to make the changes myself.  -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zandperl"><name full="yes">Zandperl</name></ref> zandperl <date>05:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-10-24T05:58+00" who="WU00012732" xml:id="i.28035_2_4">
+            <p>It's there.  Look at the second paragraph of Overview. -- <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VeryVerily"><name full="yes">VeryVerily</name></ref> VV <date>05:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-10-29T14:42+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_2_5">
+            <p> I tried to update the casualty numbers but there may be problem. The new number for the World Trade Center is 2752 to which we add the 10 hijackers which I think they do not count, so 2762. Then we subtract the 157 casualties on the airplanes which hit the Towers because we list them separately, so a total of 2605 who died on the ground at the WTC. However the article used to list the number as 2650, and the new number is supposed to be 40 less than the old which would give 2610. I think the 2605 is probably correct. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>14:42, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-11-19T00:04+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_2_6">
+            <p> After the U.S. attack removed the Taliban from power in many parts of Afghanistan, a videotape was discovered abandoned in Kabul, the Afghan capital, which showed bin Laden discussing the attacks in language that seems to show he intended to indicate his foreknowledge.</p>
+            <p> There must be a better way to right this sentence. If I could come up with it myself I would have already changed it. Any ideas? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>00:04, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2003-11-19T02:49+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_2_7">
+            <p>Separate it into two sentences. The first clause is only remotely connected to the rest of it. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref><date>02:49, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.28035_3">
+          <head>New section</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-06T09:03+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.28035_3_1">
+            <p> I made a new section. It describes about how the attack was being planned and the movements of the hijacker pilots, the "brawny men", and the financiers back in Europe and the UAE. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>09:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-07T22:43+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_3_2">
+            <p> I removed this section from the page. It is certainly not NPOV and I wonder if it is even necessary.</p>
+            <p> "Columnist for The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, also attempts to deceive the American public, "Their terrorism is not aimed at reversing any specific US policy. Indeed, they made no demands." The demands that America stop specific foreign polices in the Middle East prove Friedman is lying."</p>
+            <p> Any comments? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>22:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-08T15:36+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.28035_3_3">
+            <p> It seems strange to me that we redirect people to a sub-page on September 11 responsibilty that is shorter than the responsibility section on the main page! Should they be merged to eliminate out of synch editing or should the main page be summarized (which I would prefer)? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>15:36, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-18T03:44+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_3_4">
+            <p> "There were early plans to have 20 hijackers, but the final list always did consist of 19 hijackers." Where do claims like this come from? Robert Muuml;ller made it quite clear there was zero evidence.http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm Not surprising given that at least nine of The Nineteen were still alive on 9-12.http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ Was he lying, undercutting his case, in order to pitch the 1984 state? Or is "the final list..." stuff some of the ravings and delusions extracted by Mr Kilovolt and Mme Thumbscrew?</p>
+            <p> OK , a few replies. The Mueller interview referred to in http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm 2 was dated April 2002. The revelations involving the hijackers came well after this date.</p>
+            <p> As for claims that some of the hijackers being alive, well, I suppose that some of them could have been flung clear of the explosion when those planes hit the WTC, and survived their 70-80+ floor fall by landing on a a large pile of mattresses in a truck that happened to be driving by when the attack took place. Alternately, I suppose the UFO that allegedly appeared at the World Trade Centre after the attacks could have dived in and saved them. Perhaps the owner of the Devil's face pulled a few Satanic strings and resurrected them. But you know what? I don't think any of that happened. In the words of Charles Dickens, the hijackers are as dead as doornails. Cremated doornails at that.</p>
+            <p> Ditto with the Flight 77 "survivors" and the Flight 93 "survivors". The references in the welfarestate site are given, but I don't think that their owners checked them out very thoroughly, or sought any updates.</p>
+            <p> If you must cite this kind of thing, then I suggest that you do so on the September 11 Rumours and misinformation page. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>03:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_3_5">
+            <p> First i like to express my sorrow for the loss of life during this attack on the people of the united states.</p>
+            <p> Secondly i sincerely think that a lot of people don't believe the official documented history of this event.</p>
+            <p> Like after pearl harbour the american people got involved in an international</p>
+            <p> struggle following the attack on americans. Take this into consideration:</p>
+            <p> If the media would have announced the perpetrator to be from switserland probably the us airforce would have retaliated against the swiss cities and blowing up terrorists in caves in the alps.The media is a powerfull tool in shaping peoples opinion.</p>
+            <p> It is not to late to bring the perpetrators to justice and to correct the course of action taken after 911. All it takes is some investigation and a suspicious mind to find the truth. I know because i did just that.</p>
+            <p> The united states can be a powerfull force in the world to put things right only if the people want it. The us armed forces is the most powerfull force in the world today. If you compare the armed forces to a gun you have to ask: who is pulling the trigger and where is the barrel pointing at?</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.28035_4">
+          <head>2wtccrash.JPG</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-15T05:47+00" who="WU00000710" xml:id="i.28035_4_1">
+            <p> image:2wtccrash.JPG"United Airlines Flight 175, moments before crashing into The South tower of the World Trade Center"</p>
+            <p> Do we have permission to use this photo? There isn't even "any" attribution so we could not even begin to pretend it is 'fair use'. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric149"><name full="yes">Maveric149</name></ref> mav <date>05:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-16T03:44+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.28035_4_2">
+            <p> It came from the Chinese Wikipedia. I guess I should have put a note of attribution in the first place X_X <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>03:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2003-12-16T18:54+00" who="WU00001531" xml:id="i.28035_4_3">
+            <p> Anthere said that the person who uploaded it on the original French Wikipedia never provided a desc, so out it goes... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe"><name full="yes">WhisperToMe</name></ref><date>18:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.28035_5">
+          <head>the term terrorist is POV</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-03T01:55+00" who="WU00000159" xml:id="i.28035_5_1">
+            <p> Yes, the events of September 11, 2001 were henious and caused great pain and hardship. Nevertheless, the term "terrorist" is POV. The definition changes through time, and can be debated. President Reagan said it best: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." He said this when defending the actions of people he supported who were accused of being terrorists. Terrible acts of this kind that you support, you can call freedom fighting. The word "terrorist" can only exist with a POV.</p>
+            <p> I realize it is difficult to change all the related pages, but they should really all be renamed "September 11, 2001 attacks".</p>
+            <p> P.S. No, I do not think the attackers were freedom fighters. But I don't think they were terrorists either. "Terrorist" is a label placed. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle"><name full="yes">Kingturtle</name></ref><date>01:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_5_2">
+            <p>OK, so what what would you call the ,er, attackers? And , also, what would your definition of the word "terrorist" be? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T20:01+00" who="WU00003299" xml:id="i.28035_5_3">
+            <p>This is bizarre--I've never actually heard anyone (outside Wikipedia) argue that they "weren't" terrorists.  Purposely killing civilians on a large scale is a fairly canonical example of terrorism.  I've heard people claim that the terrorism was "justified", but never that it wasn't terrorism at all. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delirium"><name full="yes">Delirium</name></ref><date>20:01, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:49+00" who="WU00025012" xml:id="i.28035_5_4">
+            <p> Do we want to change Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Terrorist bombing of Dresden in World War II? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Fellowship%20of%20the%20Troll"><name full="yes">The Fellowship of the Troll</name></ref><date>22:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_5_5">
+            <p> Page has a formatting problem. At least with Mozilla browser, if the browser window is not wide enough the table of contents is on top of the image.</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.28035_6">
+          <head>Moving pages</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-14T23:26+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_1">
+            <p> You may not move this page w/o moving the associated talk page and fixing the many double redirects linking to the new article. Why singular, not plural? The phrase "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" is the overwhelming convention used. Please make your case before moving and move it properly if you do, or it will be moved back again. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>23:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T14:52+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_2">
+            <p>See above. "Terrorist" has taken on an inherently negative meaning, just like the word "murder". It is not a simple technical term. If we were to talk about "Israeli terrorism" when Israel bombs civilian centres in the occupied territories, people would object too. So please move it back. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>14:52, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T19:58+00" who="WU00003299" xml:id="i.28035_6_3">
+            <p>I don't see why that's a problem.  Murdering an office-building full of civilians is a canonical example of terrorism.  The fact that that has inherently negative connotations is hardly surprising, as most people consider killing civilian inhabitants of an office building an inherently bad thing.  Are you going to argue that we can't say Charles Manson had anything to do with murder now, because that would be characterizing him in an inherently negative way?  Should we neutrally say that he caused the lives of some people to end? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delirium"><name full="yes">Delirium</name></ref><date>19:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T20:56+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_4">
+            <p>We can't pass off moral judgments as fact, even if they are held by "most people". Some people do justify those attacks, so we can't use language that implies condemnation. Those who justify it don't call it terrorism. If this article is not moved, anyone might as well describe Israeli or U.S. military actions as (state) terrorism. Remember the U.S. killed some 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan alone, and an additional 10,000 in Iraq. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>20:56, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T21:48+00" who="WU00003299" xml:id="i.28035_6_5">
+            <p>So we can't call Charles Manson a murderer either, because that implies condemnation? I don't see the difference. In this case, it's held by "nearly all people".  Even Iran calls it "terrorism" (they imply the US brought it on itself, but still use the term "terrorism"). "State terrorism", by contrast, is far more controversial. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delirium"><name full="yes">Delirium</name></ref><date>21:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T22:17+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_6">
+            <p>We are to report facts, not make moral judgments. Why call Charles Manson a murderer and not George W. Bush, who is responsible for many more killings? We should only report factually who killed whom, and let the readers make their own moral judgment. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>22:17, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T21:46+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_7">
+            <p> What do those who disagree with the label "terrorist" call these attacks then? I don't see how these attacks don't meet "our" definition of terrorism - "calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, usually for the purpose of obtaining political or religious goals." --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>21:46, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T22:17+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_8">
+            <p>Simply "attacks". The title "September 11, 2001 Attacks" is absolutely sufficient and unambiguous. I think "our" definition of terrorism is incomplete, missing the inherent negativism. The term is not used in this merely technical sense; the actual "terrorists" rarely see themselves as "terrorists". --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>22:17, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T23:03+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_9">
+            <p> Al-Jazeera uses "terrorist" http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FC73D48E-EE6F-4C4E-BD67-C8C1179E97CC.htm. Can you show me links of how the Arab/leftist media refers to these attacks? Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" and terror: "1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect  c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands " What's wrong with this definition? --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>23:03, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-15T23:39+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_10">
+            <p>Well, many don't use the word "terrorist". Just do a Google search for "September 11 attacks". What's wrong with the definition is that it misses the fact that people only call those actions terrorism that they want to condemn and not those that they support. I wouldn't mind if we were to use your definition consistently, but I have a feeling you may be the first to protest when Israeli or U.S. actions were to be described as terrorist. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>23:39, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T01:41+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_11">
+            <p> Sure many people don't use the word "terrorist", but more people do. I would like us to use a term commonly used elsewhere. Proof that the other name is common must be given.</p>
+            <p> Whenever a state's action is deemed 'terrorist', we "should" acknowledge the claim that it is state terrorism. I find it only derogatory for states to be "terrorist" when they have armed forces at their disposal, removing the necessity to attack civilian targets to make their voice heard. Calling an organization "terrorist" only has negative connotations in that attacking and frightening civilians is wrong, not because the word is obscene or innaccurate. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>01:41, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T04:35+00" who="WU00025010" xml:id="i.28035_6_12">
+            <p>Well, many do use the word terrorist.</p>
+            <p> The events of Sep 11 were terrorist by definition (as pointed out above), and I see no need to remove the word on the grounds that are, at best, pedantric. It's like what Delirium said - where do we stop if this starts? What would be call the acts of Charles Manson, or a peodophile, or anyone else involved in a major crime? It's a particularly ridiculous form of censorship, and we can do without that here. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arno"><name full="yes">Arno</name></ref><date>04:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_13">
+            <p>We should call things by factual NPOV terms. The "Britannica" also has its article at "September 11 attacks". The word "Terrorist", even if it were NPOV, would be unnecessary in the title. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:38+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_14">
+            <p>It doesn't matter if the title has unnecessary words. It's not up to us to coin the name of these attacks. We go by what's most common. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>22:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:46+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_15">
+            <p>Well, there is no proper name for it. There are endless possible permutations and not one that stands out, so we can choose a concise and NPOV term, and "terrorist" is both unnecessary and POV. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>22:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:57+00" who="WU00006979" xml:id="i.28035_6_16">
+            <p>There are over 100 definitions of "terrorist", and this attack includes all of them.  Include "Terrorist".  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempshill"><name full="yes">Tempshill</name></ref><date>22:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T01:09+00" who="WU00025012" xml:id="i.28035_6_17">
+            <p>Isn't the problem to do with inconsistant use of the term? Do we want to rename the Allied Carpet bombing articles (like the Dresden Bombing pages) terrorist bombings? After all, they were deliberate attacks on civilian centers - the problem is that if we apply the word 'terrorist' to one group of people, even if everyone agrees, we are implicitly saying that attacks which do not have the word terrorist in the them are not, or are somehow on a different moral level. Better to avoid unecessary and inherently POV language across the board than have to fight the battle of someone picking every attack on a group of civilians and adding the word terrorist to the title. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Fellowship%20of%20the%20Troll"><name full="yes">The Fellowship of the Troll</name></ref><date>01:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T01:49+00" who="WU00006979" xml:id="i.28035_6_18">
+            <p>Speaking objectively, the September 11 attacks fulfilled every definition of a "terrorist" attack.  The word is emotionally loaded, yes, but so what?  They were, objectively, terrorist attacks, and they are so called by nearly all our readers.  I don't agree that it's extraneous and unnecessary.  If your fear is that we will have a Wikipedia-wide move-war over adding "terrorist" to attacks of some sort whose terrorism is disputed: That war can be fought over those articles, and, with time, it will be fought, whether or not we label this one a "terrorist" attack.  If any incident qualifies to be called a terrorist attack, it's this one.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempshill"><name full="yes">Tempshill</name></ref><date>01:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="3" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T02:19+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_19">
+            <p>It fulfills every "technical" definition, but so does Dresden, yet calling the latter terrorism will never go through, because the term has an inherent negative implication and for that reason alone many people will not want to associate it with what they consider part of a fight for a good cause (against the Nazis). But this is a subjective POV, and people who consider the fight against the U.S. a good cause should have the same right to reject this disparaging term. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>02:19, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="4" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T08:46+00" who="WU00006979" xml:id="i.28035_6_20">
+            <p>This is doublespeak.  Your logic is flawed.  By your argument, we should also go through and get rid of the term "massacre" everywhere it is used in Wikipedia, because it is disparaging.  I don't care whether it is disparaging -- it is accurate, and so is, without dispute, the use of "terrorist" in this case.  "People who consider the fight against the U.S. a good cause" don't have the "right" to reject a term that they consider disparaging if the use of it is accurate.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempshill"><name full="yes">Tempshill</name></ref><date>08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="5" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T15:30+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_21">
+            <p>Well then other people don't have this right either. So, "Terrorist Bombing of Dresden" will be OK with you? If not, it is you who's doing the doublespeak. And yes, "massacre" should be avoided too, except when it's part of a firmly established name for an event (e.g. Amritsar Massacre); history hasn't settled yet on a similarly fixed name for 9/11, so we can't use the title "September 11 Massacre", just as we can't use "September 11 Terrorist Attacks" - both are POV. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>15:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T04:38+00" who="WU00005111" xml:id="i.28035_6_22">
+            <p> Shouldn't this be at September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RickK"><name full="yes">RickK</name></ref><date>04:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_23">
+            <p>The media doesn't capitalize. I don't see why should we. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref></signed> Jia</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T18:19+00" who="WU00004719" xml:id="i.28035_6_24">
+            <p> Perhaps there should also be a picture of the twin towers before 9/11?  At the moment all the pictures are of the aftermath of the attacks.  It would emphasise the scale of destruction in a very visual way.  Especially useful for those of us who aren't American and so don't auctomatically know what they looked like.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabiform"><name full="yes">Fabiform</name></ref><date>18:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00005377" xml:id="i.28035_6_25">
+            <p> Could you discuss the new title here instead of making all these moves ? <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere"><name full="yes">Anthere</name></ref></signed> PomPom</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.28035_6_26">
+            <p>I was just editing the page to prevent further moves...</p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:38+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_27">
+            <p> Again, a move is not appropriate unless you fix those gazillion double redirects. Please do not move until consensus emerges on this page to change the status quo. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>22:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:46+00" who="WU00006330" xml:id="i.28035_6_28">
+            <p>I have already fixed most of them. --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wik"><name full="yes">Wik</name></ref><date>22:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T22:57+00" who="WU00000548" xml:id="i.28035_6_29">
+            <p> OK, Wik can be an annoying bugger sometimes, but this time he is right. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tannin"><name full="yes">Tannin</name></ref><date>22:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-16T23:06+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_30">
+            <p>Even if he is right, he should refrain from moving pages until he has convinced others that he is right.--<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>23:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T08:46+00" who="WU00006979" xml:id="i.28035_6_31">
+            <p>He isn't right, and Jiang is correct. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempshill"><name full="yes">Tempshill</name></ref><date>08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T05:30+00" who="WU00000547" xml:id="i.28035_6_32">
+            <p> "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" has 7500 more hits on google than "September 11, 2001 attacks": http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22September+11%2C+2001+attacks%22q2=%22September+11%2C+2001+Terrorist+Attacks%22B1=Make+a+fight%21compare=1langue=us, but "September 11, 2001 attacks" (same exact phrase) is used on Encarta and Britannica (Columbia doesn't have an article, but refers to them as "terrorist attack". --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jiang"><name full="yes">Jiang</name></ref> Jia <date>05:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2004-01-17T08:46+00" who="WU00006979" xml:id="i.28035_6_33">
+            <p> There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please.  In the form of a vote.  Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please.  <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempshill"><name full="yes">Tempshill</name></ref><date>08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2006-01-20T20:19+00" who="WU00025013" xml:id="i.28035_6_34">
+            <p> The Bush administration makes the following claim in their recent 42-page defense of illegal domestic spying: "On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network launched the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history." This doesn't refer to a terrorist attack, so they are saying that Sept 11, 2001 was the deadliest foreign attack in history, but I think that is wrong. Surely there were Revolutionary war attacks that killed more people at one time. The war of 1812 surely had high casualties. I have been searching, but so far have not found any hard numbers. Strange... <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randwolfe"><name full="yes">Randwolfe</name></ref><date>20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_433583.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">433583.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>Mgasparin et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">433583</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2019-07-18T17:10:23Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass>
+        <keywords>
+          <term subtype="problem" type="other">{{Controversial}}</term>
+          <term>Lionsdude148</term>
+          <term>{{FAQ</term>
+        </keywords>
+        <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment"><ref target="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Bons_articles" targetLang="fr">BA</ref></classCode>
+        <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment"><ref target="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Bons_articles" targetLang="fr">BA</ref></classCode>
+        <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment"><ref target="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Bons_articles" targetLang="fr">BA</ref></classCode>
+        <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment"><ref target="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Bons_articles" targetLang="fr">BA</ref></classCode>
+        <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment"><ref target="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Bons_articles" targetLang="fr">BA</ref></classCode>
+        <keywords>
+          <term>US=yes</term>
+        </keywords>
+        <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment"><ref target="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Bons_articles" targetLang="fr">BA</ref></classCode>
+      <classCode scheme="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contents"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_articles" targetLang="en">GA</ref><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_articles" targetLang="en">GA</ref><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_articles" targetLang="en">GA</ref><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_articles" targetLang="en">GA</ref><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_articles" targetLang="en">GA</ref><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_articles" targetLang="en">GA</ref></classCode></textClass>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{pp-move-indef}}
+{{Talk header|search=yes}}
+{{Ds/talk notice|topic=9/11}}
+{{Not a forum}}
+{{Calm}} {{Article history|action1=RBP
+|action1date=January 19, 2004
+|action1link=Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
+|action1result=kept
+|action1oldid=2188400
+
+|action2=FAR
+|action2date=February 26, 2004
+|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks
+|action2result=demoted
+|action2oldid=2553382
+
+|action3=FAC
+|action3date=January 10, 2005
+|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1
+|action3result=failed
+|action3oldid=9272183
+
+|action4=FAC
+|action4date=29 December 2006
+|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2
+|action4result=failed
+|action4oldid=96577662
+
+|action5=GAN
+|action5date=27 January 2007
+|action5result=failed
+|action5oldid=103691180
+
+|action6=GAN
+|action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32
+|action6result=failed
+|action6oldid=107932109
+
+|action7=GAN
+|action7date=October 16, 2007
+|action7result=failed
+|action7oldid=164806833
+
+|action8=GAN
+|action8date=May 19, 2008
+|action8link=Talk:September 11%2C 2001 attacks/Archive 42#GA review
+|action8result=listed
+|action8oldid=213408835
+
+|action9=PR
+|action9date=01:58, 29 May 2008
+|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1
+|action9result=reviewed
+|action9oldid=215415204
+
+|action10=FAC
+|action10date=02:53, 10 July 2008
+|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive3
+|action10result=not promoted
+|action10oldid=224667994
+
+|action11=GAR
+|action11date=21:18, 20 August 2008
+|action11link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA1
+|action11result=kept
+|action11oldid=233054238
+
+|action12=GAR
+|action12date=19 June 2010
+|action12link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1
+|action12result=delisted
+|action12oldid=365085475
+
+|action13=GAC
+|action13date=5 July 2011
+|action13link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2
+|action13result=not listed
+|action13oldid=437810140
+
+|action14=GAN
+|action14date=20:05, 25 July 2011
+|action14link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3
+|action14result=listed
+|action14oldid=441341484
+
+|action15=PR
+|action15date=11:51, 23 August 2011
+|action15link=Wikipedia:Peer review/September 11 attacks/archive1
+|action15result=reviewed
+|action15oldid=446303582
+
+|action16=FAC
+|action16date=14:43, 30 August 2011
+|action16link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1
+|action16result=not promoted
+|action16oldid=447487536
+
+|action17=GAR
+|action17date=16:23, 25 September 2011
+|action17link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2
+|action17result=delisted
+|action17oldid=452181614
+
+|action18=GAN
+|action18date=May 24, 2013
+|action18link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4
+|action18result=not promoted
+|action18oldid=556498139
+
+|action19=GAN
+|action19date=July 13, 2015
+|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5
+|action19result=promoted
+|action19oldid=671152132
+
+|topic=World history
+|currentstatus=GA
+|action20 = FAC
+|action20date = 2018-10-27
+|action20link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2
+|action20result = failed
+|action20oldid = 865779234
+{{On this day|date1=2004-09-11|oldid1=9955831|date2=2005-09-11|oldid2=23006719|date3=2006-09-11|oldid3=75188318|date4=2009-09-11|oldid4=313246231|date5=2012-09-11|oldid5=511650593|date6=2013-09-11|oldid6=572507707|date7=2017-09-11|oldid7=800113517|date8=2018-09-11|oldid8=859078369}}
+{{serial killer|class=GA}}
+{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|WPCD=y|class=GA|category=History|importance=high}} {{press 
+| title = On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’
+| author = Noam Cohen
+| date = 11 September 2011
+| month = January
+| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html
+| org = [[The New York Times]]
+{{Top 25 Report|September 8, 2013}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.433583_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.433583_1_1">
+            <p> User:MiszaBot/config</p>
+            <p> |archiveheader = <note creation="template" type="WikipediaModel">aan</note>__TOC__</p>
+            <p> |maxarchivesize = 200K</p>
+            <p> |counter = 62</p>
+            <p> |minthreadsleft = 5</p>
+            <p> |algo = old(30d)</p>
+            <p> |archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d</p>
+            <p> Old moves|list=</p>
+            <list>
+              <item> RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, "'Moved"', 20 August 2008, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 44RFC on page title and comma</item>
+              <item> RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, "'Not moved"', 13 October 2010, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 54Requested move</item>
+              <item> RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, "'Not moved"', 31 March 2014, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 60Requested move 2 (or more)</item>
+            </list>
+            <p> |collapse=yes</p>
+            <p> merged|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks</p>
+            <p> User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn</p>
+            <p> |target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index</p>
+            <p> |mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive </p>
+            <p> |leading_zeros=0</p>
+            <p> |indexhere=yes</p>
+            <p> __TOC__</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.433583_2">
+          <head>Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2019-04-30T03:02+00" who="WU00161715" xml:id="i.433583_2_1">
+            <p> It says that this happened 17 years ago when really it happened 18 years ago   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>03:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2019-04-30T03:06+00" who="WU00018412" xml:id="i.433583_2_2">
+            <p>20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' Not 18 years until September. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QueerFilmNerd"><name full="yes">QueerFilmNerd</name></ref><date>03:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2019-04-30T03:08+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.433583_2_3">
+            <p>Not an error. And it is kept up to date by a template. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>03:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.433583_3">
+          <head>New photos found</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2019-06-19T19:19+00" who="WU00001957" xml:id="i.433583_3_1">
+            <p> Hi. Per https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48689783 this story on the BBC News site, it states they've all been uploaded to Flickr (link in the article), so I assume they could be used on WP. Thanks. "'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lugnuts"><name full="yes">Lugnuts</name></ref>"'  <date>19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2019-06-19T22:40+00" who="WU00001222" xml:id="i.433583_3_2">
+            <p>No. They are copyrighted but the author is still unknown. They are classic orphan works. <signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmhermen"><name full="yes">Rmhermen</name></ref><date>22:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="2" mode="written" when-iso="2019-06-20T11:14+00" who="WU00001957" xml:id="i.433583_3_3">
+            <p>Thanks for clarification. "'<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lugnuts"><name full="yes">Lugnuts</name></ref>"'  <date>11:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.433583_4">
+          <head>Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2019-06-26T15:12+00" who="WU00161716" xml:id="i.433583_4_1">
+            <p> Could the date field be changed to either 18 years ago or some code be put in to automatically update the date, from "DateSeptember 11, 2001; 17 years ago"</p>
+            <p> Thank you and I think this page is very important to protect. Please could you email [email protected] when the change is made. Thanks again   <signed type="user_contribution"><date>15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+          <post indentLevel="1" mode="written" when-iso="2019-06-26T16:26+00" who="WU00061248" xml:id="i.433583_4_2">
+            <p><note creation="template" type="WikipediaModel">done</note>, I added the number of months. As of now, the attacks occurred 17 years, 9 months ago. ---nbsp; <signed type="user_contribution"><date>16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.433583_5">
+          <head>North Tower impact zone - not identified</head>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" when-iso="2019-07-13T08:58+00" who="WU00007060" xml:id="i.433583_5_1">
+            <p> Phrase "impact zone" occurs three times in the article, but (unless I'm missing it) is never identified. (So if a reader comes to this article to learn what floor(s) in North Tower the passenger jet struck, they'd be unable to find.) --<signed type="signed"><ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ihardlythinkso"><name full="yes">Ihardlythinkso</name></ref> IHTS  <date>08:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)</date></signed></p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>

EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_5174078.tei.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<?xml-model href="../cmc-wikitalk.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
+<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
+  <teiHeader>
+    <fileDesc>
+      <titleStmt>
+        <title>Talk:September 11 attacks/archive8a</title>
+      </titleStmt>
+      <publicationStmt>
+        <publisher>French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019;
+Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès</publisher>
+        <pubPlace>Mannheim</pubPlace>
+        <pubPlace>Toulouse</pubPlace>
+        <date when="2020"/>
+        <idno type="filename">5174078.tei.xml</idno>
+        <availability>
+          <licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">
+            <p>Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.</p>
+          </licence>
+        </availability>
+      </publicationStmt>
+      <sourceDesc>
+        <biblStruct>
+          <analytic>
+            <respStmt>
+              <persName>Fuhghettaboutit et al.</persName>
+              <resp>Collaborative authors</resp>
+            </respStmt>
+            <title type="main">Talk:September 11 attacks/archive8a</title>
+            <ref target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September%2011%20attacks/archive8a" type="page_url"/>
+            <idno type="wikipedia-id">5174078</idno>
+            <textLang mainLang="en">English</textLang>
+          </analytic>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
+            <edition>English language version</edition>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="https://wikipedia.org/"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <monogr>
+            <title>enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</title>
+            <edition>Dump file</edition>
+            <idno type="dump-filename">enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current</idno>
+            <imprint>
+              <publisher>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc</publisher>
+              <pubPlace>
+                <ref target="http://dumps.wikimedia.org"/>
+              </pubPlace>
+              <date type="year">2019</date>
+              <date type="month">08</date>
+              <date type="day">01</date>
+            </imprint>
+          </monogr>
+          <relatedItem type="articleLink">
+            <ref n="23499068" target="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%2011%20Attacks" targetLang="en">September 11 Attacks</ref>
+          </relatedItem>
+        </biblStruct>
+      </sourceDesc>
+    </fileDesc>
+    <profileDesc>
+      <creation>
+        <date type="last-change">2008-08-28T03:06:36Z</date>
+      </creation>
+      <textClass/>
+    </profileDesc>
+  </teiHeader>
+  <text>
+    <body>
+      <div type="talk">
+        <head>September 11 attacks/archive8a</head>
+        <note creation="template" type="header">
+      {{talkarchive}}</note>
+        <div type="thread" xml:id="i.5174078_1">
+          <head/>
+          <post indentLevel="0" mode="written" who="WU00000000" xml:id="i.5174078_1_1">
+            <p> The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 1) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. That morning, nineteen men affiliated with al-Qaeda23 4 hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The attackers crashed two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, resulting in the collapse of both towers within two hours.</p>
+            <p> This statement is made as though it is proven fact, in actuality it should say that on the morning of semptember it is alledged that 19 men affiliated with al-queda hijacked... etc</p>
+            <p> the fact of the matter is that there is no proof for any of the claims that have been made in the 9-11 commision report, or of any official claims that have been made.  Valuble evidence based on fact, eyewitness testimony, and even video of the actual attacks has either been supressed, or ignored.  And the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the american public remains in the dark to the fact that no actual investigation into any of the events  of that fateful day actually took place, those thing which should have raised questions in the minds of investigators have been ignored or brushed aside as menial details to be explained in connection to the story that was already impressed upon their minds.  It was said in dumb hollywood movie "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to make the world believe he didn't exist" to decieve those right in fron t of their eyes, grand scale slight of hand. a scale so grand that even the eyes of the experts overlook the nuiances that should tell them somthings wrong...</p>
+            <p> the fact is in investigating 9/11 science, was forgotten, it's the grandest crime of the past 100 years and the lessons taught us by that great and fictional detective Sherlock Holmes have been completely forgetten by those who should remember them best.</p>
+            <p> For the real story, which includes actual scientific analysis, eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, check out this video</p>
+            <p> video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801q=loose+change</p>
+            <p> Did you know that of 19 hijackers at least 9 were confirmed alive after 9-11; how could someone who was supposedly flying the plane that hit wtc 1 be still alive and working as a flight instructor in Syria after 9/11/2006?</p>
+          </post>
+        </div>
+      </div>
+    </body>
+  </text>
+</TEI>