Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

FBI's conspiracy theory

It is not inaccurate or misleading in any way to characterize the FBI's hypothesis as to what occured during the World Trade Center demolition as "conspiarcy theory". If you object to the term "conspiracy theory," I can only assume this is because you perceive that characterizing something as "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. Is this the case? Was not the World Trade Center demolition a conspiracy? Does not the FBI offer a theory about the World Trade Center demolition? Is this conspiracy theory offered by the FBI verified or falsified by observable evdience? Granted, calling it a theory is overstating the case, since they have no evidence. Until they find some evidence to support their absurd notions, they should actulaly be called conspiracy "hypotheses". -Plautus satire 17:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. (Yes, IHBT, IHL.) Anthony DiPierro 17:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Osama to Usama, Al-Qaida to Al Qaeda (arabic transliteration standard)

The FBI spells the man's name "Usama"[1] so I feel it is inappropriate to spell it "Osama". - Plautus satire 18:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The USDOJ spells the organization's name "Al Qaeda"[2] so I feel it is inappropriate to spell it "Al-Qaida". - Plautus satire 18:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter since his name is more commonly spelled Osama and the organization is more commonly spelled Al-Qaida. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 01:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the tip. I found at the top of that page: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page." This is talking about people with various names. The FBI does not list "Osama" as one of Usama bin Laden's names and they are the ones saying he is wanted. Because two million people spelled his name wrongly does not mean that two million people get to rename Usama bin Laden or change the spelling of his name. In all English-translated releases from al Qaeda the names are "Usama" and "al Qaeda" not "Osama" and "Al-Qaida". Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Misspelling somebody's name does not mean that name is their alias or pseudonym or nomme de plume or any such thing. Right is right and wrong is wrong. - Plautus satire 01:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just read more of this, hey, you know what, maverick, that page explains how to choose names for title pages, not how to spell names in the body of pages. Presumably the old saw "if it's right put it in, if it's wrong take it out" would apply here... Ya think? - Plautus satire 01:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm just curious here, mav, did you actually read that page before you pointed me to it as the "answer" for this problem? I think you may have been a bit hasty. - Plautus satire 01:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wrote most of that page based on community consensus on the issue. The FBI is just one agency (and not a very neutral one in this matter). Unless you can demonstrate that your preferred spellings are more common, then the agreed to spelling stands. --mav 03:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that page does not describe naming conventions for titling entries but, instead or in addition to, describes a process by which appropriate spellings for names in the body of an arbitrary entry are chosen not by some objective standard but by consensus of Google hits? I'm very reluctant to say this, since I know you will find it offensive, but Maveric149, I really do not find that credible.

If that was the intention of the entry you cited I feel that entry is very poorly written, as all I can glean from reading it is that wikipedia entries should use the idea of commonality in determination of their name so that casual users and "browsers" can more easily find what they are looking for. In a way this is akin to a spellchecker that checks only against commonly tpyoed words like "teh," "beleif," etcetera. It's a systemic attempt to provide people what they want, not necessarily what they ask for. I think this is a good idea since it will make the encyclopedia more useful to more people.

Nowhere in that entry do I see any suggestion that an accurate spelling of a name in the body of an entry should be discarded in favor of a popular misspelling of that name. I would ask for citations that state, suggest, or even hint at this, but honestly the inaccurate spelling used in that entry is just scratching the surface of what troubles me most about it. I find it difficult to read the entry without losing confidence in humanity as a whole for swallowing this absolute utter crap and not just swallowing it but vomitingregurgitating it back up and expecting others to gobble it up just as greedilybelieve in this fable without evidence.

At this point I'd like to retract my proposal that accurate spellings be used in this entry. - Plautus satire 05:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The above changes are still unaddressed, yet two reversions of these changes have now taken place. If it happens again perhaps it's time to seek arbitrationmediation. - Plautus satire 01:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. We are only at step 1. --mav 01:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Plautus, and this has been pointed out to you on your talk page, there is no one correct way of converting from Arabic to English. That's why there always have been variations in the spelling of names such as Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Marwan al-Shehhi, etc. For the purposes of this website, it makes sense to just stick to the one commonly-used spelling.

The opinion expressed by many is that there is no accurate spelling of Usama that is not dependent on Google hits, not that there is no one correct way of spelling proper names. - Plautus satire 15:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the FBI does spell it as Usama bin Laden - I've seen his wanted poster. But just don't worry about it. Include the alternate spelling on bin Laden's wikipedia page (if not already there) and move onto other matters. Arno 11:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why move the proper spelling to the status of alternate and use an unofficial spelling as the proper one? - Plautus satire 15:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

For the reasons I have noted above, and quoted and cited below, I intend to fix the spelling errors with regards to the numerous misspellings of Usama in this entry. These misspellings (Osama) do not accord with accepted transliteration principles as outlined in the only demonstrated (to or by those discussing this issue) published transliteration standards for Arabic[3],[4]. In my opinion a popular mistake is not preferable to an unpopular objective fact. - Plautus satire 17:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. There is no such thing as a "misspelling" when transliterating from one alphabet to another. And the name as is is the most common spelling known by English speakers. RickK 04:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RickK, let me first express the sincere sentiment that I value your opinion on this issue as much as I value my own. This, however, is a case where there are established, published standards and conventions for transliteration of Arabic. I do not see how opinion enters into this. The spellings in the body of the entry "Osama" are inconsistent with these accepted and published, though not universally known, standards and conventions. Is mass ignorance to be used as an excuse for mass errors in wikipedia? This is a clear-cut case of an arbitrary misspelling of a proper name that is in violation of known, published, accepted standards and conventions, not a difference of opinion. If there is any difference of opinion I can detect, it's the apparently prevailing opinion that Arabs do not know their own languages (or the English language) well enough to establish transliteration standards and conventions for their own language. I feel that many users would prefer to stand by a common misspelling that violates these standards and conventions rather than give the Arabs sovereignty in that (or any) respect. If you want my honest opinion, this protest against fixing spelling errors is cryptoracism. - Plautus satire 04:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I have been searching for other transliteration standards and conventions for transliterating Arabic and I have been unable to find any. After a reasonable amount of time passes, if there are no conflicting standards offered, I will again correct the numerous misspellings in this entry and any other place I can find "Osama bin Laden" in wikipedia. - Plautus satire 04:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(deleted misplaced discussion for placement below--TomND 11:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Arabic Transliteration Standards

Transliteration standard from The Encyclopaedia of Islam (with minor variations).

Nowhere in this source is there anything that lends credence to transliteration of any Arabic letters to the "O" letter or sound. Minor changes from The Encyclopaedia of Islam are noted below:

The differences between the system of transliteration of the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the system used here, are mainly due to the complex interaction of the database with the html-script. The differences can be summerized as follows:

1. The emphatic letters Saad, Daad, Taa', and Zaa' as well as the letter Haa', which are transliterated in the Encyclopaedia of Islam with a dot beneath a small letter, are represented in our system with the corresponding capital letters.
2. The emphatic letter qaaf is transliterated with a "q" in our system instead of a "k" with a dot.
3. The letter jiim is transliterated by "j" in our system instead of "dj".
4. The letter cayn, which is transliterated by c in the Encyclopadia of Islam, is represented by * in our system.
5. Long vowels are represented by writing the vowel twice instead of a dash above the letter.

The website you refer to was describing the standards that it had chosen to use to translate Arabic on its website. It never said that these standards were universal. Furthermore, nowhere in the above quote does it say that Osama bin Laden must be spelt with a "U". If there is anything on the website that says that you can, I'm sure that you'll let me know. Arno 06:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The website(s) to which I refer feature the only known published, accepted standards on this issue. I rest my case. Nowhere in these standards is there any mention to an "O" letter or sound. I rest my case, again. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Qalam: A Convention for Morphological Arabic-Latin-Arabic Transliteration in plain text format.

Nowhere in this source is there anything that lends credence to transliteration of any Arabic letters to the "O" letter or sound. The conventions are listed in plain text format and no appearance of the letter "O" or mention of the "O" sound is made.

And where does it say that spelling bin Laden's name with a U is current and correct? Arno 06:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what the only known, published, accepted standards dictate. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whether "Osama bin Laden" is a "misspelling" or not, it's the name that, at least, most Americans will recognize, and it's the name that they're going to look for. The Wikipedia policy of use most common names should apply. RickK 23:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is the policy for spelling the titles of entries, I have not seen where it is policy to accept misspellings in entry bodies on the basis of popular misspellings. - Plautus satire 01:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the policy applies to article titles. Furthermore, there really are very few policies -- most policies are simply pages and "votes" which more aggressive users have created. Lirath Q. Pynnor

(moved here from section below) (more moving of plautus satire's comments around, silsor can you come and reversion this so my comments are not context-challenged?) - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is a policy for American vs British spelling. That policy to to follow whatever was being used in the article itself. The OBL spelling is what was used before and most people who have commented on this think that that spelling should stay. --mav 02:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can you please show me where you got this notion that accepted, published standards and conventions for transliteration should be forever ignored if they were ignored in the original entry? I've searched many places and none of them mention that misspelling words in the body of an entry is okay if there is precedent for it. Of course I also found no explicit statement that spelling errors should be fixed, but there is more than enough implicit evidence that spelling errors should be fixed. - Plautus satire 05:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should dictionaries be replaced with group consensus? Just curious. - Plautus satire 05:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, there is no standard for transliteration of Arabic to English. Thats because its not a misspelling. You can spell Arabic names in many ways correctly. WhisperToMe 06:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems there is some confusion as to the "proper" translation (transliteration) of the name "Osama"/"Usama" into the romanized spelling. Well, as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no "proper" way to do this, seeing as how the first character in bin Laden's first name has no western counterpart ([5]).

Yes, there is a proper way. A published, accepted way of transliteration. It is not merely up to group consensus of the world. The confusion stems from people like you and many others who believe there are no standards, or the standard is relative amount of Google hits. Again, I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the west there have been competing standards developed to aid in the transliteration of Arabic to western language, and those give rise to the "Osama"/"Usama" dilemma.

There are no competing standards. Show me one other than the two I cited that are virtually identical. Do you think Arabs do not know enough about their own language to establish transliteration standards? I rest my case. Again. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Which is correct? Well, given the immense press coverage of the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent "War on Terror", it is safe to say "either". At this point there can be no doubt that anyone reading either spelling will know precisely who is being discussed.

Well, given that there are established, published, accepted standards, the proper spelling is correct, not the improper spelling that violated the only known, published, accepted standards. Again, I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From Sullentrop's article [6]:

"A variety of systems exist to Romanize Arabic letters and words, but there is no dominant one. The International Journal of Middle East Studies offers one system, the Library of Congress a slightly different one. And not all publications consistently follow one system, either."--TomND 18:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate these standards? So far the only two published standards cited agree with me. - Plautus satire 18:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your Slate article (I stopped reading when they started charing, Kinsley is a fruitcake) also states: The AP stylebook says, ?people are entitled to be known however they want to be known as long as their identities are clear.? - Usama bin Laden has made many "press release" style announcements. In ever case he transliterated (or was transliterated for him) as "Usama". Should the AP stylebook be abandoned as well as the only published transliteration standards? - Plautus satire 18:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think you misread, the AP style book uses "Osama". "That hasn?t been enough to get the AP or Slate to change their stylebooks." That, alone should be enough to end this silliness. There is no "standard", the most common usage is "Osama", so let it be.--TomND 18:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I know I did not misread. Show me the AP stylbook and quote where it says what you claim. The AP stylebook is a stylebook, not a factbook, and as such would contain no policy on specific names, particularly proper names of people who choose to spell it differently. The AP stylebook says let people spell their names however they like, and accept it. Violate the AP stylebook. Violate accepted, published standards and conventions. But do not misrepresent your violation as obedience. - Plautus satire 18:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to Norm Goldstein, stylebook editor for the Associated Press [7]: "It's a question of transliteration. "Arab vowels commonly become A, I or U; E and O don't really exist except for personal preference. And since we're not going to ask Osama bin Laden his preference, Osama -- more often than not -- is spelled with an O."--TomND 19:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see, so you are suggesting that the style sheet be abandoned specifically in the case of bin Laden, since Norm Goldstein is not going to ask bin Laden how he wants his own name spelled. Thank you for demonstrating your (and Mr. Goldstein's) prejudice on this issue. I see when prejudice is popular enough it is justifiable in your mind. Thank you again for making your position on this matter crystal clear. I still maintain that the AP should follow the guidelines of its own style sheet, regardless of the personal feelings of Mr. Goldstein. - Plautus satire 19:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So practically the entire world uses the term "Osama", yet you have determined that is not correct, and are determined to set the record straight? Best of luck to you. However the preponderance of evidence, as well as the AP stylebook, supports the current usage and I believe it is proper for this site to continue to use it.--TomND 20:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You seem to think that "practically the entire world" speaks English. I know for a fact that the most common language on the planet Earth is Chinese. Does that mean a billion Chinese spell it "Osama"? Have you polled them? What about the Indians? Do they also spell it "Osama"? When you say "practically the entire world," who do you mean, exactly? If "practically the entire world" beleived in a flat Earth, people who could prove otherwise would be met with ridicule and prejudice, just like the prejudice you espouse in terms of Usama bin Laden's capacity to choose how his own name is transliterated, a right I'm sure you would not contest if it were applied to Albert Einchrist. Thank you so much for your patience on this issue, I realize your seething ocean of boiling and roiling self-conflicting prejudice makes it difficult for you to discuss this calmly. - Plautus satire 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

" I realize your seething ocean of boiling and roiling self-conflicting prejudice"... I mean really, is your constant abuse necessary? Do you need to ask why everybody here "persecutes" you? I try to debate this like an adult and you try to turn it into a flame-fest. Sorry, I'm not biting. Grow up.--TomND 00:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The point was made that, since the FBI uses the "Usama" spelling, that is somehow the "official" spelling. A few disagreements with that line of thought. First, as seen here[8], here[9] and here[10], the FBI uses the spelling "Osama" quite often in press releases, so obviously they are not as concerned about the "proper" spelling as we may be led to believe.

No, the point was made that the FBI uses an "U" which is correct, so that spelling should be used, as it accords with the only known, published standards. I rest my case once more. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But, more importantly, we see the Department of Justice (of which the FBI is a part) use the spelling "Osama" in LEGAL filings, [11] and [12]. It would seem that if the DOJ/FBI were concerned about a "correct" spelling, they would use it exclusively, especially in the hypertechnical legal field.

You're exactly right, and I was waiting for somebody to point this out. The original "wanted poster" and statements from the FBI also initially used an "O". Why did the FBI correct their mistake? I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, legal definitions of words commonly conflict with real definitions of words, like insane. In the context of the law, insane has a valid meaning. In the context of objective psychology, clearly it does not. This isn't a case of different spelling, but shows quite clearly how out-of-step the law can be with observable reality. - Plautus satire 19:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The FBI updated the wanted poster in November 2001 [13], however, the FBI used the term "Osama" in a press release on March 4, 2003, and the DOJ used "Osama" in a legal filing in 2003 [14]. If they "corrected" the mistake, they corrected it to "Osama". That, however, is not the case because both spellings are used.--TomND 17:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All you are really demonstrating here is that the FBI is inconsistent. Sometimes they spell it "Osama" and sometimes they spell it according to accepted, published standards and conventions. - Plautus satire 17:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, your original statement was "The FBI does not list "Osama" as one of Usama bin Laden's names and they are the ones saying he is wanted." I proved that they do use the name "Osama", so your reasoning (the FBI uses it so it must be right) is incorrect.--TomND 17:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am prepared to admit I misspoke when I said that the FBI does not use "Osama" and "Usama" variably. I must admit I was attempting to appeal to authority on this one, as everyone else is also doing. I thought the FBI would lend credibility to my claims. Clearly by citing the FBI as a source I have set myself up for ridicule. I withdraw my claim that the FBI never spelled it "Osama," they spell it both ways. One way accords with known, published standards and conventions for transliteration, the other does not. - Plautus satire 18:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So what we are left with ,essentially, is the "tyranny of citation", as Sullentrop calls it in his Slate article. Spellings become entrenched and thus become standard. We see that now with "Osama". According to Arab Gateway the "Osama" spelling is used 92% of the time, so it would be correct to use it as the spelling on this site.

Right is right, wrong is wrong. I rest my case one final time. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) And that link is dead. An old Slate article also should not overturn published, accepted standards. I was told that there were "many accepted standards" (never mind the oxymoronic nature of that phrase) on transliteration of this type when in fact I can only find two and they agree with me. No other published, accepted standards or conventions have been identified or proposed, aside from consensus of Google hits. - Plautus satire 17:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is the fixed link to Arab Gateway [15]. In it, please note the following statement, "The ideal solution would be to have a standard, internationally agreed, system. Several have been proposed but unfortunately none has been universally accepted." Which completely invalidates your "known, published standards and conventions for transliteration".--TomND 21:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies things.--TomND 11:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand that you intend to see this misspelling left in the document and intend to justify it by saying many others have made the same mistake and there is no reason for wikipedia to be factual when it can instead be "popular". I guess facts don't make as much money as fairy tales. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling! There is no standard. End of story. WhisperToMe 00:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, WhisperToMe, you and others have already made your prejudices crystal clear. Use objective standards, but only until you decide not to based on personal dislike or disgust of people. I understand you now. - Plautus satire 01:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very old and persistent misinformation and noise in World Trade Center demolition entry

I suggest that this entry contains so many factual and thematic errors that it needs to be re-written from the ground up. The piecework is just making a huge mess of an already messy entry. - Plautus satire 18:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to put in the time and completely re-work this entry? I feel it is much too noisy and contains way too many factual and thematic errors to make it of any use except as a smear piece on Usama bin Laden. There are numerous references to bin Laden in this piece and yet no evidence has ever surfaced that implicates bin Laden in any way. All of the videotapes where bin Laden "confesses" are in dispute, and it seems only "official" DoD translations arrive at the conclusion that bin Laden had foreknowlege. But then what is the English-speaking world to believe? The DoD or habbala-jabbala-mamba-jahambo? The only alternative I see to a complete re-write of this entry is the continued war of attrition for insertion of factual data that overturns the fables. - Plautus satire 05:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, but OBL is very widely considered to be the mastermind behind the attack. Of course we can't just state, as fact, that he did it since that is disputed. But describing what various people think is fine. --mav

Should I take this to mean you do not want to participate in a reworking of this entry? If that's the case, thank you for your time. I have no questions or comments for you. - Plautus satire 06:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that you do not wish to write an NPOV article? NPOV requires us to describe disputes where information is disputed (not to censor some relevant views over others). This article isn't perfect but it does seem to do that. --mav

You should take this to mean I desire a reworking of this entry as I feel it has too many errors for piecework correction to be effective in a human lifetime. Would you care to discuss ways the page can be torn down and rebuilt so it contains more factual data and less wild speculation? - Plautus satire 06:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where is the wild speculation? --mav

Why should I start discussing this with you when you have stated you do not want the entry reworked? - Plautus satire 15:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you present evidence to support your view then I might change my mind. --mav

---

News Flash. Plautus announced here that he has quit wikipedia. It's sad that it came to this. But hopefully a bit of sanity will return on this page as well as a few others he's been involved with. Arno 07:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Minor point, I have only (I think) announced that I intend to stop contributing to entries, because I feel there's no point, all my changed are striken or put into "crackpot" contexts. - Plautus satire 17:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)