text:
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 4

Terrorism in title issue
Okay, so this has been sitting for a few weeks, and we need to come to a decision. People continue making changes without a consensus. The poll indicated a majority favors the new name, although I'm suspicious of many of these "users", but anyway I don't see a poll as being the answer. The goal should be consensus, and this has just turned into a straw poll on anti-US sentiment, which of course is going to go badly given the leftist predominance among Wikipedians. We might as well take a poll on whether Bush should be called "stupid" in his article. The facts, however, remain:

 * Wik's massive changes were made without prior discussion, and the arguments he presents betray a failure to understand the basics of this project; in particular, claiming there is no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden and 9/11 demonstrates his lack of grasp of the notion of POV.
 * No one has provided any argument that the attacks were not "terrorist attacks". Brevity is the only vaguely relevant argument (though not persuasive - attacks is too general).  Nevertheless, there has been an attempt to pull the word "terrorist" from all the articles.

So I think it should be changed back, and this page should not be used for people's individual rants about how much they hate America. -- VV 18:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I love America and I am a very patriotic American. Yet I voted to leave out the word 'terrorist' in the title because it is not needed for disambiguation nor is this event more commonly refereed to with it. The poll was needed because Step 1 of Conflict resolution broke down so we went to Step 2 (poll). --mav 21:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, I'm not saying all who voted that way are America-haters, but this debate has sure flushed them out. And, as I noted above, the brevity argument holds some water, but attacks is a bit too general, like calling it the September 11, 2001 incident or the September 11, 2001 event. -- VV 22:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik did not compare 9/11 to the US government bombing of Dresden (and Tokyo, and Hiroshima, and Hanoi), I did. As far as "lack of grasp of the notion of POV" for this comparison on a discussion page - clearly NPOV must be in place on article pages - are you saying this must be stated in every comment in a talk/discussion pages now as well?  As far as no one providing arguments that this was not a terrorist attack, I did, and I know you read it as you mentioned it.  First, the Pentagon was hit in the attacks, this is clearly a strike against a military target as far as most people are concerned.  And as I said, the US has targetted civilians in every war it's ever fought - Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, Hiroshima.  Osama Bin Laden was doing the same kind of attacks against communist Afghanistan when the US was aiding him, but Reagan called the mujahideen he was in "freedom fighters".  Apparently he only became a "terrorist" when he turned his guns on his old allies. -- HectorRodriguez 21:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Your first argument is valid. Calling the attack on the pentagon "terrorist" is POV at best, incorrect at worst.  However, the attack on the WTC is indisputably terrorist.  If you'd like to provide verifiable opinions otherwise, then feel free to add them, and we can have an entire section of this article devoted to whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist.  As for your second argument, it just isn't an argument.  Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, and Hiroshima are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist attacks. Anthony DiPierro 21:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * HR, you are wrong; Wik did compare them, look again (you did too). The Pentagon arm of the attack is more uncertain than the others (peacetime attack on a military office building, maybe), but was less than 10% of the death toll.  Anthony is correct about the irrelevance of the other cases; OBL's history (disputable) is also irrelevant. -- VV 22:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd just like to say that personally I feel even the attack on the pentagon was "terrorist." While ostensibly the Pentagon may seem like a military target, it seems clear to me that the goal of that attack was not military in nature.  However, it is POV.  And while I'm adding my personal feelings, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was "terrorist" as well, for the same reasons.  Anthony DiPierro 22:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Attacking the Pentagon per se is to me not so clear, but the attack on the Pentagon was terrorist, inasmuch as it used a civilian airline. The bombing of Hiroshima is an interesting debate, but one that doesn't belong here.  -- VV 22:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Why does using a civilian airline make the attack terrorist? I suspect someone arguing against the attack being terrorism would bring up the term "collateral damage." Anthony DiPierro 23:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Noxious Chemical Spray?
"Other weapons that may have been used on at least one flight include bombs and some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray."
 * Can someone please attribute and cite this claim? I had never heard of it before reading this article.  Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I asked the same question several months ago. See the page for American Airlines Flight 11 although it doesn't list a source either. Rmhermen 18:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

If there's no response within a couple weeks I'm going to remove it until it gets attributed and cited. Let me know here if you object. Anthony DiPierro 18:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I object. It was me who put that note in, though someone else changed it from "some kind of air spray" to "noxious chemical spray". Stewardess Betty Ong reported the use of an air spray by the hijackers that made her eyes water. One reference for this is this one A CBS news report also referred to this - I'll cite it later. In the meantime, might I suggest a google search? Arno 04:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I won't delete it.  I tried a google search initially but couldn't find anything.  Anyway, this shouldn't be too hard to find a cite for.  But not tonight, I'm going to sleep :).  Anthony DiPierro 05:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Here is a second reference and a third one that supports the air spray story. It was Ms Ong rather than Ms Sweeney who mentioned the stuff. The CBS one seems to have gone, but I do have hard copy of it around somewhere.

 * Actually, I am quite happy to change to "some kind of air spray" back from "noxious chemical spray" ... unless anyone has any real objections... Arno 07:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object -air spray is not used in American English in this context. Air spray is only used to refer to paint applicators and firefighting equipment. Rmhermen 14:59, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sometimes for air fresheners, too. But not for generally for pepper spray or mace. Rmhermen 15:02, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, "unpleasant air spray" or "air spray that caused watering to the eyes". Is it likely that in the context of the words around it, readers would seriously think that Atta and company would have used air freshener? Arno 06:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The sentence does still read as though the hijackers used some sort of mass tear gas deployment, whereas the articles seem to indicate just a small amount of pepper spray used on individuals. Not sure how to reword to make it more clear, though. Anthony DiPierro 17:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * We don't know what exactly what the spray was (whether it was pepper spray or something else), or exactly how widely it was used and never will. It was apparently only used around the dfront of the craft. Bear in mind that it would not have been anything too lethal or distracting - otherwise the hijackers would have been affected. Arno 06:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- Do you have a name beside Mohammed Atta - whose misidentification has already been described on Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks? Rmhermen 21:43, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Early revelations section
Okay, what is the problem with inserting this factual, multiply-cited early revelation from the early revelations section? - Plautus satire 21:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Rmherman, his sources look ok. The language needs to be toned down, but I don't see why the mention can't stay.  Isomorphic 21:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * To anybody who wants to change the wording, as long as the meaning is not lost I have no objections. Key points I want left in: Mueller admitting identity ambiguity and the multiple source documents listing still-alive-named-alleged-suicide hijackers. - Plautus satire 22:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that people have claimed to be the same as people identified as hijackers. But there are several problems. One is the use of the term "World Trade Center demolition" which sounds like the conspiracy theory that the towers were destroyed by the U.S. from the ground. Another is that it does not go in this section which is for information before 9/11/2001 -probably should be under Investigations.

 * 1. Has anyone pictured by the FBI ever been seen alive after 9/11?
 * 2. Has anyone pictured by the FBI been shown to have a different name?
 * 3. Has anyone who claimed to by misidentified ever done anything like sued for defamation of character?

Perhaps the hijackers really did use their own names - in fact in several instances we know that they did. Perhaps the others were correctly named and wrongly detailed because details of others with the same names were easily available. There is certainly no reason to declare that "The FBI has not removed the names of the alleged suicide hijackers and has ignored any implications this may have on their conspiracy theories which identify these living men as successful suicide hijackers." because we have no reason to believe that the names were wrong.

I propose the following: "Almost immediately after the attack, the FBI released the names of nineteen men they claimed had been on the planes. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that people claimed to be have the same name and some personal details as certain suicide hijackers and were possible victims of identity theft. However the FBI did not find a need to change any of the identifications of the hijackers." Rmhermen 22:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have big problems with this proposed edition. For one thing, it leaves out the very relevant information that FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted they don't know who the suicide hijackers were, or even if there were any for that matter. Second of all, these are not merely reports with the same name and same personal details, they are the people the FBI has identified. Are you suggesting these reports are hoaxes? I do agree that it should be noted, however, that the FBI refuses to change their fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters.

Also you state "we know" that some of the hijackers did in fact use their own names. Based on what? None of their names appeared in any of the passenger manifests and none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras boarding the identified hijacked flights. - Plautus satire 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't give Plautus's wild conspiracy theories an inch. Evercat 23:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The FBI never denied or tried to hide the fact that they knew that some, many, or all of the hijackers could be possibly traveling with phony papers. Read the FBI press releases:

 * http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm
 * http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm
 * http://www.ccmostwanted.com/MW/mwhijack.htm

 * The FBI clearly lists that each of the terrorists with a questionable identity has the words "Suspected ID theft" right next to their picture. It stands to reason that if they don't know the true identity then they would continue to identify them by the last used alias.  The paragraph that Plautus wants to add is disingenuous that it subtly twists the reality (FBI acknowledged identity questions) of the situation and instead uses a phrase intended to promote doubt, "reports began to surface...".  Furthermore, the use of the word "many" to describe the number of mis-identified hijackers is also intended to create the illusion that the FBI didn't know as much as it said it did. It wasn't "many", it was only four.  The rest of his paragraph is smoke and mirrors, and the reference to the FBI's conspiracy theories is an amusing twist.  OK, not really amusing so much as ironic. (Plautus, if you know the identity of any of those men then call the FBI at 1-866-483-5137, they need your "help") --SheikYerBooty 04:50, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * SheikYerBooty, CyberCriminals Most Wanted is not the FBI. The FBI still has pictures of all nineteen men and mentions nowhere that any of them are proven victims of identity theft.American Airlines #11,American Airlines #77,United Airlines #93,United Airlines #175
 * Further, in the two documents on the FBI's web site that you do cite, the only mention tangentally related to identity theft is this: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV. The photographs can be viewed at WWW.FBI.GOV." This passage is in an FBI press release dated September 27, 2001, more than a week after reports that many of the "suicide hijackers" were still alive. Why is the FBI not bragging about their initial blunders? I just wonder... Note, the press release asks "Have you seen these faces/names? They are suicide hijackers, tell us about help us prove that!" - Plautus satire 06:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Plautus, I can't think of a more gentle way of saying this, but, you're wrong. The FBI press releases clearly state that the positive ID'ing of the people on the list isn't complete. Just read the darn thing, it lists "possible" birthdates, "possible" nationalities, and a list of aliases for many of the hijackers.  The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents, this is not a secret nor is so earthshaking that it requires your speculation.  You also apparently invented a quote from them, so it's not really appropraite for me to comment on that.  Please address the points I outlined in my previous question, you failed to do that in your reply. --SheikYerBooty 19:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * You can be as gentle as you like, it will not make you right. What follows is the only mention of possible mistaken identity on the FBI's web site regarding these men: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV." Nowhere does it state they were victims of identity theft, even though this is ten days after the initial report on still-living "suicide hijackers". Can the FBI be no more equivocal than saying "attempts to confirm" when dealing with what is clearly a very severe blunder in "investigation"? And so you don't remain confused, though I put it in quotes, what I was doing was summarzing the position of an FBI document that you yourself cited. The document claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can "confirm" it. Can you show me where the FBI has explicitly stated that many of the men they named as suicide hijackers are proven to be still alive? I would love to b e wrong. - Plautus satire 19:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Also point out the evidence that leads you to believe your following statement: "The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents..." Is this based solely on your personal belief or do you have some evidence to support this claim? - Plautus satire 19:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Platus, stop playing silly games with semantics, it's obvious that the FBI was still trying to determine the identities of the hijackers. You're refusing to look at the evidence that refutes your statements, your myopic view of the evidence is preventing you from reaching a rational conclusion.  And, here is a newspaper story that details some of the work that FBI was doing to determine identities.  You insist on misquoting the FBI press releases, it does not, as you say, "claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can 'confirm' it".  Your willingness to distort facts is clear but don't act all put out when people challenge you. --SheikYerBooty 22:55, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I can help clear up your confusion, SheikYerBooty. I quoted the FBI directly and linked to the document. What you quote above is what I said, not what I quoted. Can you show me where they say the men were victims of identity theft and in some cases still alive? The FBI is not the news source you cite above. And the FBI has still maintained that these nineteen men were the hijackers, and as of September 27, 2001, they were trying to enlist support from the public to "confirm" that. - Plautus satire 23:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Plautus, you misquoted the FBI press releases, repeatedly. It's really simple, read what you wrote, read the FBI press release and take note that they aren't the same.  You asked for a source for the information that the FBI recognizes that the hijackers used stolen and faked ID's, I provided it.  You don't like?  Sorry, your problem.  Here is what the FBI is trying to confirm, in the proper context: It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way.  See, you're trying to twist what they said and take it out of context, again. --SheikYerBooty 05:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the entire earlier revelations section could be chopped down. A fair bit of it reads more like a subjective essay than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Arno 06:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Supporting Evidence
BBC, Newsweek, New York Times, and TIME have all had articles about how the so-called hijackers were clearly not on the planes -- since they are alive and well, living in the Middle East, and suing the United States for libel and defamation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Equivocations

 * Oh very well, perhaps this isn't as wild as his other stuff. Evercat 00:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think it's exactly as wild as all my stuff. BWA-HA!HA!HA!HA! - Plautus satire 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Further Issues

 * Still, I'm curious about the "fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters". If that's a fable, perhaps Plautus could tell us what really happened. Evercat 00:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- I edited it. A lot. I don't see why this should be removed any more. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda
I am getting increasingly worried about this article and its related pages. Currently, it seems to be used to argue two things, the combination of which is 'watering down' the details of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Firstly, it is being that those who carried out the crimes were not terrorists. This is pure nonsense by any reasonable definition of the word. I know that its been argued extensively above, so I'll go no further.

Secondly, it is being used to dispute the names of the terrorists themselves, based mainly on references that are badly out of date. Whilst the true identities of some of the terrorists are in doubt (eg Saeed al-Ghamdi),there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest. It is therefore ludricous to say, for instance that Mohammed Atta was not a terrorist.

Some errors of fact have also crept in. Saying that "none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras" is wrong. Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari were photographed when they were on their way to board Flight 11.

Ultimately, this article is meant to be a NPOV account of the hijackings. It is NOT an outlet for conspiracy theories, politically correct pedantry and other such actions. Arno 09:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Adding details is "watering down"? Interesting hypotheses. I don't think it holds any water, however.
 * Groan! Trying to dispute the names of the 19 hijackers is "adding details"?

Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * As for criminality, who are you labelling a criminal? Still-living men who obviously took no part in any suicide hijackings?
 * Just which of the 19 men listed as the hijackers are still alive? And can you give me their contact details?(An e-mail address would be great)Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the Bush regime and other have variously described this incident as "terrorism" and "an act of war".
 * Ok, what would you call "this incident"? An act of love? Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it is an act of war, it is not a crime. If it is a crime, it is not justification for a war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else). If it was a crime, why was there no forensic analysis of evidence? Virtually all of the steel from the WTC complex was sold as scrap to foreign nations and is now probably all paperclips. In a case of a crime, usually there is an investigation. Instead of an investigation, we got HGBI (Hansel and Gretel FBI) showing us the trail of breadcrumbs the conspirators left pointing to muslims with box cutters.

 * The above passage is perhaps the most astounding statement about Sep 11 I have ever read. You have just managed to deny that there was ever an investigation of the Sep 11 crimes using a truly astonishing mangling of logic and definitions. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You also claim above that "there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest". On what do you base this claim?

 * On a very large number of Sep 11 accounts. On what do you base your claim that Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Majed Moqed, Marwan al-Shehhi, and the rest did not partcipate in Sep 11? Indeed your version is rather vague - would you care to define it. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where are these names on the passenger manifests? Where are these faces in security videos? All we've been shown is a single, blurry, grainy security video that shows somebody with dark hair and a tan walking past a ticket counter. In short, where is any evidence that we were promised we would get regarding these arabs with box cutters? If you want to know more about box cutters, read about the five Israelis arrested with stacks of cash and box cutters, not to mention a van bomb-dogs went nutso on.

 * You can probably use this kind of logic to prove that the earth is flat. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If it's not an outlet for conspiracy theory, then why is the FBI's baseless conspiracy theory for which they offer no evidence presented there? At least the amateur conspiracy hypothesists feel compelled to provide evidence. Clearly the FBI does not, as all they have provided are hollow fables. - Plautus satire 15:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, where are these images to which you refer of "suicide hijackers" boarding planes or their names being on the passenger manifests? - Plautus satire 19:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * These images do exist. Try this CCTV webpage as one example that I dug up thorugh google in just 15 seconds. By the wya, make up your mind, do these images exist or not? Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What Israelis are you referring to? Evercat 16:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * These Israelis:
 * "A story in Philadelphia's The Mercury may hold the answer."
 * "Two men whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained in the township by federal imigration authorities after being found with detailed footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Plymouth Police encountered the men after an officer responded to Pizzeria Uno on the 1000 block of West Ridge Pike at 2:40 p.m."
 * "Investigators first became interested in the business after witnesses reported Tuesday that three men seemed to celebrate the World Trade Center explosions in Liberty State Park, then drove away in a company van. 'To the best of my knowledge, my client Urban Moving Systems and Dominik Suter are not targets,' said attorney Jay Hamill of Jersey City. 'This is an informational situation. We're cooperating completely and have objected to nothing they've requested.'"

 * This site is a conspiracy theory website. It shoudl be looked at with caution. Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "The man, who later identified himself as Moshe Elmakias, 30, denied that he did anything and fled the scene, heading west on West Ridge Pike, according to police."
 * "The manager was able to provide township police with the Florida registration number of the tractor-trailer and said that a sign posted on the side of the vehicle read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and included a phone number, police said."
 * "Elmakias and Katar were eventually detained by INS and transported to a federal facility, said police. Reisler was released."

 * "The men were searched and questioned and the state officers discovered detailed plans and photographs of a nuclear power plant in Florida, along with box cutters ? the weapons used in the September 11th attacks ? and other equipment."

 * "We spoke earlier about the five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge. We also reviewed how the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his moving company and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly released and deported."

 * You mean you haven't heard about these Israelis, Evercat? I'm surprised, it's been all over the news. - Plautus satire 17:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 4


text:
Great Seal of the Irish Free State

The Great Seal of the Irish Free State (Séala Mór do Shaorstát Éireann) is either of two seals affixed to certain classes of official documents of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann): A new seal, for documents signed by the President of Ireland, replaced the internal seal in 1937, when the Constitution of Ireland came into force; it replaced the external seal in 1949 when the Republic of Ireland Act came into force.
 * the "internal" Great Seal, used from 1925 for "internal" documents (of domestic law) signed by the Governor-General
 * the "external" Great Seal, used from 1932 for diplomatic documents signed by the British king.

Internal Great Seal
The Great Seal of Ireland was used in the English king's Lordship of Ireland, which in 1534 became the Kingdom of Ireland. The seal was retained by the Acts of Union 1800 for use by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the business of the Dublin Castle administration. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 retained the Lord Lieutenant and Great Seal for use by both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty envisaged an Irish Free State to replace Southern Ireland, with a Provisional Government and Provisional Parliament until the Free State's constitution was enacted. The draft constitution replaced the Lord Lieutenant with a Governor General but made no explicit mention of the seal.

In August 1922 the Provisional Government's civil servants sought ministerial approval to adopt a seal. It was thought necessary for legal reasons: the treaty and draft constitution specified that the Irish Free State would have the same constitutional status as Canada, which had its own Great Seal since its Confederation in 1867. The letters patent issued on 6 December 1922 constituting the office of Governor-General said: "There shall be a Great Seal of and for the said State which We do hereby authorise and empower Our said Governor-General to keep and use for sealing all things whatsoever that shall pass the said Great Seal. Provided that, until a Great Seal shall be provided, the private seal of the Governor-General may be used as the Great Seal of the said State."

The wording matched the 1900 letters patent for the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 also created a separate Governor and Great Seal for Northern Ireland.

The physical seal was in theory in the custody of the Governor-General for his personal use; in practice the Executive Council kept and used it.

Design
The Great Seal features an image of a Celtic harp surrounded by Celtic knotwork and the words "SAORSTÁT ÉIREANN" in Gaelic script. The die comprises an inscribed copper matrix to be placed over the document to be sealed, and a counterpart relief steel patrix to be placed under it.

Regarding the design of the Great Seal, an approach was made by Hugh Kennedy, the Attorney General, to Thomas Sadleir, Registrar of the Office of Arms at Dublin Castle. In his reply Sadlier noted that he was "satisfied that the harp was very early in the 12th century an Irish badge...". The 1919–1922 seal of the revolutionary Dáil of the self-proclaimed Irish Republic showed a harp surrounded by the words "Sigullum Reipublicae Hibernicae — Seala Saorstáit Éireann". By contrast, the 1922 Provisional Government's seal was a quartering of the arms of the four provinces. The Provisional Government's private secretary suggested to Hugh Kennedy a similar seal for the Free State: "If considered desirable to symbolise in the design the present partition of Ulster, this could be done by leaving the Arms incomplete and broken at the corner.". George Sigerson, the President of the National Literary Society, recommended to Tim Healy, the new Governor-General, that the harp should be adopted as the symbol of the Free State. His view was that: "The harp was the common and sacred symbol of the Protestant Volunteer of 1782, of the Presbyterian and Catholic United Irishmen of 1798, of old and young Ireland and of men of after days – it is in no sense a party or sectional symbol but one which represents the entire Nation... It is now within the power of an Irish Independent Government to place this emblem of humanising harmony in its high place of honour, unique and not undistinguished amongst the lions, the leopards, and the single and double headed Eagles of the rest of the world."

On 28 December 1922 a meeting of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State decided that the Celtic harp should be adopted. The first design submitted to the Royal Mint in England placed the harp in a heraldic shield with crest, but the mint said this would be "a disaster". On 28 August 1923 the Executive Council determined that the "Brian Ború" harp in Trinity College Dublin, would be the basis of the new seal. Archibald McGoogan of the Art Department of the National Museum perfected the design, and the Royal Mint in January 1924 said it was "delighted" with the revised version.

Final authorisation was given by the Executive Council on 17 October 1924 for the provision of the various seals, including ministerial seals which had the Brian Ború harp circumscribed with "Saorstát Éireann" and the ministerial title in Irish and English. The knotwork was a direct copy of the base of the Ardagh Chalice. McGoogan's original drawing was sold at auction in 2007 for €17,000. Mabel McConnell, from a family of heraldic artists, was contracted by the Executive Council to make the sketches which the Royal Mint in England used to cast the die matrix for the seal. The Colonial Office objected that the design ought to have been pre-approved by the King-in-Council: that is, submitted to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, which would advise the King to issue an Order in Council for formal approval. In 1925 the Royal Mint fulfilled the commission despite the lack of such an order.

External Great Seal
In 1931, a separate External Great Seal or Royal Great Seal was created to be used on diplomatic documents which required the signature of the monarch in London rather than the Governor-General in Dublin. Up to 1931, such documents had been transmitted to the Dominions Office and the British Great Seal of the Realm was applied alongside the signature. At the 1930 Imperial Conference, the Free State proposed that a Dominion should be allowed to send documents via its High Commissioner in London, bypassing the British government, and to affix its own seal rather than the British one. The conference subcommittee on seals resolved, "The subject should be postponed on the understanding that the whole question should be left for further discussion between Governments should occasion arise". In January 1931 the Free State government tested its proposed procedure; it applied the 1925 Free State seal to the instrument of ratification for a 1929 treaty between the Free State and Portugal, and sent it to High Commissioner John W. Dulanty to transmit to King George V. Dulanty was refused an audience, the British objecting on the grounds that the change in procedure had not been agreed, and that the 1925 seal was not in fact a "great seal" within the terms of the 1922 letters patent, but merely a "private seal of the Governor-General", since it had never been formally approved by the monarch. A compromise was negotiated whereby the Free State would use a separate "external seal" in the custody of its Minister for External Affairs. Although Arthur Berriedale Keith claimed in 1934 that "this drastic change in Commonwealth relations was carried out without any discussion in the British Parliament or intimation by the British Government of the change", in fact Sir William Davison asked J. H. Thomas, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, about it in April 1931; Thomas referred to the Balfour Declaration of 1926.

The external seal, designed by Percy Metcalfe, had on its reverse the same harp image as the 1925 "internal" seal. It was similar in size to the British Great Seal of the Realm, and had on its obverse the same image of the monarch enthroned as that seal, except for the quartered royal arms above the throne, where the English arms in first and fourth quarters were switched with the Irish arms in third quarter. George V formally presented the external seal to John W. Dulanty on 18 January 1932 at Sandringham House. Keith commented that this marked "the final establishment of the complete international sovereignty of the Free State and the elimination of any British control".

The External Great Seal was used only on ratifications and Full Powers, and not always on the latter. Lesser seals were used on lesser documents: Whereas the UK's Crown Office Act 1877 permits a small wafer Great Seal to replace the cumbersome wax Great Seal, the Free State's wax seal had no wafer equivalent.
 * The "Signet Seal" on exequaturs (receiving foreign diplomats) and commissions (appointing Irish diplomats).
 * The "Fob Seal" on the back of the envelope enclosing letters of credence or recall

The first use of the External Great Seal was not until 1937, when George VI sealed Full Powers allowing Francis T. Cremins to sign the Montreux Convention Regarding the Abolition of the Capitulations in Egypt on behalf of the Free State. Successive governments minimised the use of monarch and the External Great Seal. The state typically conducted bilateral agreements at inter-government level rather than the nominally more prestigious head-of-state level, so that the Minister for External Affairs would apply his departmental seal to any documents. After signing some multilateral treaties that would have required the External Great Seal for ratification, the state chose instead to wait until the treaty had come into force and then become a party to it by accession rather than ratification, as the internal Great Seal would suffice for accession.

After the Statute of Westminster 1931, following the Free State's lead, the Union of South Africa in 1934 and Canada in 1939 passed laws permitting themselves to use their own Great Seals for diplomatic functions. South Africa, like the Free State, created a new seal for these purposes, whereas Canada simply extended the use of its existing domestic seal.

Supersession
The fact that the Free State was a monarchy rather than a republic was politically controversial, and caused the 1922–23 Irish Civil War. Although the republicans lost the war, Free State leaders sensitive to the controversy gradually abolished the Governor-General's formal powers, or transferred them elsewhere. The Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 created a separate Executive Council seal, similar to the Great Seal but with added to the inscription. When republican Civil War leader Éamon de Valera became President of the Executive Council after the 1932 Irish election, sidelining the Governor-General accelerated, until the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 abolished the office altogether and transferred its remaining functions to the Executive Council. Rather than using the internal Great Seal in connection with these functions, the Executive Council seal was used. In 1937 de Valera said "I have no idea of what sort of seal that [the internal Great Seal] was. As well as I remember, I never saw a document sealed with it." The die of the internal Free State seal is now on public display at National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History in Dublin.

Ancilllary to the abolition of the Governor-Generalship, the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 continued the use of the External Great Seal by the King. The distinction between the two Great Seals was not always clearly understood. In 1932, Hugh Kennedy, by then Chief Justice, was under the impression that the internal and external seals were in the custody respectively of the Executive Council and Governor-General. The 1937 Constitution of Ireland created the office of President of Ireland, and the Seal of the President was created for the President's formal signature of official documents in the same manner as the internal Free State seal had been used, and having the same design except substituting "Éire" for "Saorstát Éireann", since the constitution had changed the name of the state. The text on the reverse of External Great Seal was changed likewise, and the British monarch, George VI, continued to sign diplomatic documents using it. This dichotomy reflected ambiguity over who was head of state. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 transferred diplomatic functions to the President, rendering the External Great Seal obsolete.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Great Seal of the Irish Free State


text:
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 5

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" 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" 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 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 vomiting regurgitating it back up and expecting others to gobble it up just as greedily believe 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 arbitration mediation. - Plautus satire 01:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No. See 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,. 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 .
 * 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 :
 * "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 : "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, here and here, 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, and . 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, 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 . 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 . 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)

title: Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 5