Talk:Most Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11?

From TruthAboutIraq

NOTE: I've cleaned up the page a bit by adding indentations and sigs, just so we can understand the flow of the conversation better. Please use section titles sparingly, and remember to sign your comments. Talk will become easier once we all get used to this. - Chris 11:29, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents 1 Editorializing 2 and the Editorial Conscience 3 Moving articles

[edit] Editorializing

How much editorializing are we doing on this project? The last paragraph of the current edit is an opinion, but is that okay here?

I tried to get use the Wikipedia guide to [[1]] to put the citations by the name of the paper but I couldn't seem to get it to work. I've very clumsily moved the hyperlinks to a superscripted citation next to the name of the papers, but the Washington Post article's URL is tricky as it already includes a ?.

If anyone knows how to systematize the citations please do so! - Hokiepundit

Fixed yesterday - Chris 11:29, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for cleaning up what I wrote. I couldn't figure out how to get the links to work. As for your question, about my opinion, tha'ts up to debate and I'm perfectly comfortable with it being cut. But, I think it's accurate given the sources I provided. Every news piece I read seemed to echo my opinion. The Administration never directly linked Iraq to 9/11 but it also never sought to kill that connection in the minds of Americans as quickly or strongly as it could have. Could one argue that the Administration did so on purpose to get the American people on board with the Iraq war? Perhaps. But that's pure speculation. There exists no evidence that the Administration ever drew a directly line from 9/11 to Iraq.

In my opinion, and this is pure opinion, the evidence seems to indicate that the Administration knew that it was creating a false image in the minds of Americans when talking about Iraq and 9/11. It knew people were drawing a line between the two and the Administration wanted American rage over 9/11 directed at Iraq. That would get more Americans on board with the war than presenting a legal case alone. Administration officials were careful to never directly link the nation of Iraq to 9/11 but that nation was mentioned in close proximity to the event time and time again as to, again in my opinion, create the impression that one was linked to the other. - Kevin D.

Sorry, Kevin, I can't agree with your paragraph, for this reason:

"In my opinion, and this is pure opinion, the evidence seems to indicate that the Administration knew that it was creating a false image in the minds of Americans when talking about Iraq and 9/11."

It is factually correct that some people believe the Administration was deliberately creating a false impression, or allowing it to be created. But until you have evidence to prove it, all this is is a belief. It can be factually stated as a belief, but not as a "reasonable conclusion". That's editorializing, not providing evidence. - Martin L. Shoemaker

The quote you gave of mine never appeared in the article and only appeared here. Your objection to it is baseless. Your paragraph, however, is pure opinion and stands in stark contrast to the three newspaper articles I provided in SUPPORT of my position. Additionally, you provide no source for YOUR editorializing. I'm renewing my objection to your paragraph until you 1) Put it in line with the newspaper quotes in the article itself or 2) cite the sources for your editorial. - Kevin D.

The software keeps archived copies. Why don't we simply remove the concluding paragraph completely until we've sorted out what we're looking for? - HokiePundit 1057 May 26th, 2007

"The quote you gave of mine never appeared in the article and only appeared here. You objection to it is baseless."

The quote accurately describes your paragraph: pure opinion. This site is about evidence, not opinion. Therefore, my objection is the complete opposite of baseless. "Reasonable conclusion" is not evidence; "people believe" is accurate. - Martin L. Shoemaker

Sorry Martin, but though I disagree with Kevin's overall opinion, I agree you went too far. I've tried to tone down your language some and split the baby a little.

Hokie, let's work on it in the article itself. We're not so far along here that we need to worry about bad copy slipping into the article for a short time. - Chris 14:16, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'd made some changes, then left it for awhile. Coming back, I see the supplied quotes themselves show plenty of instances where the Administration makes its "flat denials", so I tweaked some more again. I like it as it is now (though we can always expand it even more). - Chris 16:53, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so I expanded it even more.... - Chris 17:52, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I've never really understood how to use these talk pages. They don't make sense to me. You just edit the article, type your comments at the bottom, and add four tildes? Is that it?

[edit] and the Editorial Conscience

Anyway, I'm fine with editorializing but the editorializing must be from the perspective of our editorial mission, if you see what I mean. And, remember it's not about you. We have an editorial point of view, and in a debunking article you're obviously stating an opinion. Overall I have faith that as a community we'll work to smooth things out to a reasonable level. I think you've all done a great job on this piece so far and I've added an intro I hope you'll like. Dean Esmay 12:05, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I thought we were about "facts,facts,facts". Make up your mind. ;-) Speaking of which, we could use some sourcing on your new intro. All those polls have got to be posted somewhere. What's the status of my citation FAQ question? - Chris 12:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I guess I need to clear that up. We do editorialize, but we do so from the position of our standing editorial position that you read when you signed up, and from Kristian's statement of conscience. The main deal is the facts, in support of the editorial proposition. If that makes sense. Anyway my feeling is this article is great. Dean Esmay 14:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry Dean, it doesn't make sense. And obviously, the article is not great enough.

I think you're going to need to walk this back. I really liked the "facts,facts,facts" line better than what you wrote here, because the word "editorialize" is in direct opposition to the point you should be trying to make. Unfortunately, we're gonna get stuck on that one word. And IMHO, saying we have an "Editorial Conscience" (especially the way Kristian said it) is the direct opposite of "editorializing", regardless of the similarity of the words. Either we're here to place into the hopper a more succinct statement of FACTS in the eventual hope that they actually defend our position, or we're just stating our opinion with lighter brushstrokes.

I really think the success of this project is dependent on pursuing the former course of action. - Chris 19:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Moving articles

By the way, anyone know how to edit the article name/title? There should be a question mark on the end of debunking articles, to make it clear what their stance is. The purpose of this article is to question the idea that most Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Dean Esmay 12:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Use the "Move" tab and move it to the new name. - Chris 12:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

That worked. Dean Esmay 20:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)