Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-13/U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks
Status	Closed
Request date	09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	User:The Wordsmith (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) PhilKnight (talk)
Comment	Candidates indicate their acceptance, opening case. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 13:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

What is the dispute?

I have identified numerous problems and policy violations in this article. I once removed quite a bit of material from this article that I believed to be in violation of policy, unsupported or refuted by the given citations, out of place, or extraneous. In several places in the article, responsibility is placed on living individuals for what Parserpractice believes to be a poor response by our military to the 9/11 attacks. These views are not consensus views, nor are they published in any prominent form or by any notable persons. They are Parserpractice's conclusions based on her/his interpretation of the evidence. (I.e., technology X existed on 9/11 [cited], therefore Mr. Y must have known Z. Since Mr. Y knew Z and didn't respond accordingly, Mr. Y failed in his duty on 9/11.)

There is extensive coverage of NORAD's radar technology history under the section on Flight 11 that I believe to be misplaced and unrelated to the article. At the end of this history is the conclusion "In short, with the above given radars there should have been no reason why NEADS/Rome could not track Flight 11."

After I removed the material from the article, it was reverted within a day. I'm ok with that because I did not discuss the deletions ahead of time. But when I gave my case for the deletion and extensive rewriting I believe is necessary to bring the article into WP compliance, I was met with personal attacks and deep resistance from one editor, Parserpractice.

I stopped responding to Parserpractice's posts on 10/9 because they had turned into personal attacks, and because it was clear that any edits I attempted to make would simply be undone. However, I made up a new section on the discussion page where I listed several citations (18 I think) that I thought were problematic. Five were dead links, many did not support the claims they were cited to support, some even refuted their respective claims, and one was a link to a discussion board. This effort was again met with dismissal because I hadn't done it thoroughly enough.

A quick look at the edit history of this article shows that the vast majority of edits were made by Parserpractice. There is only one other criticism of content posted by Parserpractice on the discussion page, and that was also met with fierce opposition and a personal attack. There has been virtually no other discussion on that page, so there has been no way to arrive at a consensus.

I think Parserpractice is guarding this article in its current form for reasons other than making it a quality encyclopedic article. It reflects her/his conclusions, which Parserpractice apparently regards as facts worthy of publication.

The whole article is a progressive series of evidence presented to support the conclusions that three people failed in their responsibilities to protect us on 9/11. It's not encyclopedic so much as it's an long and tedious argument aimed at placing blame on three living persons.

9/11 is a highly emotional subject, and it seems to bring out particularly strong beliefs in people, including fringe or conspiracy theories, and people tend to become quite obstinate. I know I'm that way too. That's why I believe it's so important to neutralize this article, and why I expect it to be so difficult. For these reasons I think the article should be closely watched and rigidly adhere to all WP policies, with a high standard of evidence for claims, mainstream or otherwise. I think that 9/11 articles should be held to a higher standard of excellence because of the particular volatility of the subject.

I asked for help on the 9/11 WikiProject page but have not heard from them yet.

Update: I just learned about the WP:SYN policy. That eloquently describes a major concern I have with this article. I also just learned about article templates for policy concerns. I added templates for WP:SYN and WP:NPOV to the article. Dcs002 (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about this?

Does the conversation need better structure? Not really sure what this means, but probably. Are folks having difficulty communicating? Yup. I can't raise concerns without being put down by Parserpractice. Are they talking past each other? Yup. Parserpractice apparently believes her/his conclusions to be fact, and therefore doesn't recognize other opinions as valid, understand the nature of the policy violations in the article, or want to allow anything in the article that doesn't support her/his understanding of what is factual.

I want to be able to edit this article to remove the accusations of blame, re-orient it's nutrality, focus it on the topic, balance it by removing much of the extraneous material, removing unsupported or refuted statements, and generally less representative of one person's argument and more like a source of well documented information. I want to be able to do this without the threat of more personal attacks and simple undoing of my work.

"What would you like to change about this?"

To have the possibility of a double standard 'claimed' by Dcs by virtue of his having initiated the mediation Cabal, removed. This will require a mediator to require adherence by Dcs, himself. I have yet to see that required of Dcs. I see Dcs repeatedly violate the very principles he claims I violate.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

Clarification of WP policies and how they apply to this article as it's written would be a place to start. Read the article and decide whether the problems I have with it are justified. Does it violate the BLP or NPOV policies? Read the discussion and decide whether I have fairly represented things. Provide advice as to what makes an article encyclopedic, and an assessment of how this article might or might not be consistent with that goal. Comment on the article's readability. Look over the citation problems I've listed on the discussion page and suggest improvements. (I have a particular concern that some sources cited don't support their respective claims or actually refute them, and the only remedy is to remove those claims because they don't reflect a consensus or opinions forwarded by prominent people or in prominent publications. I think deleting such material would be especially difficult for Parserpractice to accept.)

And if all else fails, and you agree that there are real problems with this article and that Parserpractice is unwilling to abide by WP policies, offer some enforcement options. Dcs002 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you think we can help?"

The only way to "help" the problems of Dcs is to insist that Dcs, himself, proffer neutral solutions, himself. Any other 'contribution', at this point is suspect. Is that "pompous", to request such a core element? I think not.

Parserpractice (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

Empty as of Nov.1st?

Parserpractice (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Has the other party been notified of this case? If not, please notify them and request that they consent to mediation (since this is a voluntary process). If they agree to mediation, we can begin. If they do not consent, you should try the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies/guidelines/principles relevant to this case:

Biographies of Living Persons:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden:

BLP policy "applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry."

Neutral Point of View:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Synthesis:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.Statement by Jimbo, December 6, 2004 "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Assume Good Faith:

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

The Wordsmith, all the policies and guidelines given above are well and good: now comes the moment of truth for the objecting editors. They must identify explicitly the sections they find troublesome, and re-write. I will state again that a refusal to do so by those editors will not be received well. What more could I possibly say in that regard?!

Parserpractice (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any re-write effort by objecting editor Dcs, by this date. I did not oppose edit attempts by Dcs, to this date. Deletion of material to effect a supposed 'neutrality', as if the POV of the article was 'neutral' beforehand, is not representative of a neutral POV.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This entry is in response to claims made be the Dcs editor in the "What is the dispute?" section above.

Dcs says in that section, above: "This effort was again met with dismissal because I hadn't done it thoroughly enough." I will reply here that the dismissal was warranted in that Dcs consistently lacks thoroughness in his/her replies. I detail these lacks on the article's discussion page. I asked repeatedly for explicit identification of supposed "problematic" reference links: you will find Dcs' response on the Discussion page. Claims of 5 dead links: 2 dead links were found and fixed. Due to frequency of edits, identifying links by number is a fool's game, as their number seems to be shuffled. Requests to identify links by their internet address were met with stony silence.

Dcs repeatedly exhibits knowledge of past research efforts directed at 9/11 issues, yet when pressed for citations to support his/her supposedly 'sanitized' Point of View, stony silence is again his/her response. He/she has only retreated into supposed compliance with policies.

I do not find these responses by Dcs to be credible editing efforts. I have openly questioned his/her reluctance to respond to requests for clarification, to provide supporting material, to demonstrate comprehension of source material: in short, to respond as one would in normal human discussion. His/her response?: silence.

I have, therefore characterized Dcs as 'reluctant', and have further concluded that the Dcs editor is performing a 'trolling' function. I have yet to be convinced that he/she is not performing said function.

It may have become time to trace the Dcs internet provider address, as in a potential "sock puppet" deliberation. Vandal definitions may have come into play, as well. Repeated allusions to other perspectives/informations, yet refusal to provide such perspectives/informations. These are not Good Faith offerings by the Dcs editor.

Parserpractice (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my silence as an unwillingness to participate in bickering that had degenerated into personal attacks on me. I said in advance that I was no longer responding to Parserpractice's comments.

Knowledge of past 9/11 research is a good thing when editing this article. (For the record, my previous editing of a hijacking list was the addition of the D. B. Cooper hijacking, not exactly related, and not evidence of nefarious intent, as was implied on the article discussion page.) But most of my criticisms of this article concern claims that are not backed up by existing citations, and particularly the assignment of responsibility on living persons. I am not attempting to add new information so much as remove the problematic information from an overcrowded and disorganized article.

Parserpractice has not simply questioned my silence so much as drawing conclusions that I have nefarious motives, accusing me of trolling, vandalism, lacking comprehension, and other personal attacks, which further support my decision to end my responses to those posts. A troll and a vandal would not put so much effort into getting help with this problem. The Mediation Cabal would not likely be willing to help a troll or vandal. Parserpractice, I ask you to stop those accusations and other attacks on my person. Assume good faith. I have not attacked you. I have only attacked the article in its current form. Calling for me to be investigated for sock puppetry and vandalism is in the same vein. I've done neither, but by all means, look into it if you want.

I think this article needs to be about what happened and when. Leave it at that. No assignment of responsibility or failure of duty. No assumptions of who knew what. No assignment of the burden of proof. No assumptions that because certain NORAD technology existed at the time that it was actually being used effectively to track flight 11, which it wasn't (see http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=3). No more extensive history lessons about radar technology. No connecting the dots based on one person's conclusions of what must have happened.

Parserpractice, I think an important issue here is that you might not understand what the WP:SYN policy is. Your posted conclusions are all in direct violation of that policy. Your synthesis of the evidence is not fact. It's founded on your interpretation of the evidence, which you must understand might be flawed. That's the case with everybody's interpretation of evidence. (That's why US criminal trials have 12 jurors, not one.)

Another issue is that you want to make it my responsibility to clean up your own inappropriate citations, yet at the same time you would undo my edits. If you are the person adding those citations to the article, it is up to you when you add them to make sure they point to proper reliable sources, not a discussion board that mentions the proper source, and not a page that provides a link to a proper source. And if the citations do not support the claim they're cited to support, then that claim and everything else that rests upon that claim are no longer supported, and no longer encyclopedic; they're false statements of authoritative truth. You did not like it last time when I removed these statements. Will you remove them?

Parserpractice, you have put a great deal of work into this article. I appreciate that. But this article does not belong to you. It belongs to the open community of Wikipedia editors and readers. Everyone is free to edit this article, not just you. Wikipedia says that if you're not ok with your work being ruthlessly edited, you probably shouldn't post it. Dcs002 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I requested of Dcs to identify links that Dcs finds troublesome by their internet address, to avoid confusion by Wiki numbering assignments. This is a most reasonable request. Several have been identified on the Discussion page: I will be addressing them in the next day or so. Several others identified by Dcs I have responded to already.

I nowhere claimed Dcs' knowledge of past 9/11 research was nefarious. I merely wished to indicate that such knowledge implies that an editor expressing such knowledge must needs be have rehearsed to some extent its form of presentation. This has implications: the implications I addressed are the refusal of Dcs to provide balancing Points of View that Dcs had already indicated were lacking. The refusal may be nefarious.

Dcs says: "I am not attempting to add new information so much as remove the problematic information from an overcrowded and disorganized article." We have a difference of opinion on the importance of tracking technology and its history. Otherwise, I requested you identify the links, as I describe above, for detailed consideration. To-date, you have refused to identify them in an acceptable manner. These are reasonable, logical, requests to make of other editors. I would have supplied those links by now, if requested to do so. That is Good Faith.

Dcs says: "Another issue is that you want to make it my responsibility to clean up your own inappropriate citations, yet at the same time you would undo my edits." I asked you to demonstrate comprehension of source material. You ignored my request. You have claimed that technology and preparedness are unrelated to the page. That strikes me as impossibly absurd. That is not an attack: for myself, to pretend that technology and preparedness are unrelated to NORAD responsiblities is absurd.

I have never said this article belongs to myself. That was your attribution.

Ruthless is not the word for refusal to respond to requests for information by other editors. You may want to choose your terminology more carefully.

Parserpractice (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two examples of synthesis that you've used on this page:

Evidence: I refused to respond to your posts on several occasions. Synthesis: "I have, therefore characterized Dcs as 'reluctant', and have further concluded that the Dcs editor is performing a 'trolling' function." Fact: You do not understand my motive for silence. In this case your conclusion is incorrect.

Evidence: I posted comments on the discussion page demonstrating knowledge of previous 9/11 research. Synthesis: "...such knowledge implies that an editor expressing such knowledge must needs be have rehearsed to some extent its form of presentation." Facts: You don't know me or what I have rehearsed. Again your conclusion is incorrect.

The article is full of these types of syntheses based on evidence and your interpretation of the evidence. Again, your statement "In short, with the above given radars there should have been no reason why NEADS/Rome could not track Flight 11," which you justify with a detailed history of NORAD radar technology, is an example of synthesis. Another is "[Col. Marr's] choosing not to [contact the Fleet Area Control Surveillance Facility] was to regard the hijacking as a non-emergency." Another: "Combined with the fact that the Pine Barrens F-16s had only been in the air for half an hour, at most, leaves fuel levels for interception as non-issues for both the F-15s from Otis and F-16s from Atlantic City, contrary to what Col. Marr stated in the Vanity Fair article." I think there are two more in the last paragraph of the Flight 11 section, but I think these three are enough to illustrate my point. There are many more examples of your synthesis further down the article; these examples represent only those I found in the Flight 11 section.

A further response to your first post in this section, which said "Due to frequency of edits, identifying links by number is a fool's game, as their number seems to be shuffled." Look at the article's history page. There is no one besides you who has made any changes to the references in recent months. These references have not been shuffled unless it was done by you, after I listed them by number. If it's a fool's game, you've so far been the only one playing.

BTW, I'm male, so you can use male pronouns. Dcs002 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And THANK YOU, Wordsmith, for your attention to this contentious, emotional, and verbose mediation. I don't think we're making it easy for you. IMO, Parserpractice and I both tend to be pretty wordy, and our feelings and opinions on this matter run deep. Dcs002 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I hope I can help the two of you work out a solution that is within policy. Dcs002, would you mind telling us specifically which parts of the article you have an issue with, and what that issue is? I think a good chunk of this issue is a communication problem, so hopefully restating the issue will help. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for a complete list? (I've given a few specifics above, and many others on the article discussion page.) Dcs002 (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like a complete list of the references you believe are suspect and/or do not support the way they are used. Once we have a full list, we can discuss each of them one-by-one and decide what to do for each. After we sort out the references, we can then remove any lingering BLP violations. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to Dcs' entry above. Dcs says: "Fact: You do not understand my motive for silence.". Silence is not an option when called upon to substantiate claims of inappropriate references or irrelevant references. To choose silence as a response is an attempt to drag down consideration of intellectual matters into the emotional realm. It is not credible to adopt such a response. However, however, you have begun to provide specific examples so I look forward to hashing these out. And I will add here, even though it is commenting on your and The Wordsmith's exchanges, that to be asking The Wordsmith if he wants a "complete list" is to, once again, be straining credibility.

I am quoted as saying: "...such knowledge implies that an editor expressing such knowledge must needs be have rehearsed to some extent its form of presentation." Dcs replied with: "Facts: You don't know me or what I have rehearsed." This is the human comprehension issue I have mentioned previously. It is a description of the mechanics of human thought processes. I state that if you have considered these researches in the past, you have rehearsed their presentation. It is part of logical understanding and the weighing of concepts for their merit. To suggest it is possible to not have rehearsed is to suggest the facetious. To claim that another is "attacking" you subsequently is also not a credible stance. Forego such affectations.

Dcs' description of the "In short, ..." statement is a good example of specificity. You may remove that statement yourself, if it is especially troublesome for you. I plan on removing it.

The quote "[Col. Marr's] choosing not to [contact the Fleet Area Control Surveillance Facility] was to regard the hijacking as a non-emergency." Interesting material to choose as objectionable. Firstly, for a Region/Sector commander to not be doing Everything in his power to get multiple hijackings under control to be treated as even possibly defensible suggests outrageousness, especially as NEADS' communications problems with Fleet Area continued with poor communications with the scrambled Langley fighters later. NEADS and Fleet Area have had communication problems in the past, see reference NYTimes article. The Oceana JSS site used to be joint Air Force/Navy operated in the past, by the way. Fleet Area uses Oceana JSS. NEADS was, in fact, dependent on Fleet Area for radio communications in the D.C. area, and probably relies heavily on Fleet Area's radar data, as well. Why the poor communications?

I note that Dcs makes objections to technical matters of fuel levels. Time spent airborn is a central issue when Col. Marr later states he had fueling concerns with these aircraft. Dcs again forgot to address the refueling tankers assigned to daily military exercise missions. So Dcs would prefer that I state the facts and leave the synthesis conclusion to the reader? A listing of the facts may prove to be even more discomfiting to persons in positions of responsiblity on 9/11. Lynn Spencer's book gives many details on refueling tankers.

Dcs says: "These references have not been shuffled unless it was done by you, ". That may or may not be true. If you do take the time to identify those references again, copy & paste address and content you find problematic to a Word file for later reference. I consider a refusal to do so to be a response in the same category as your choice of silence, as describe above.

The Wordsmith says: "I think a good chunk of this issue is a communication problem, ". I will agree with that evaluation. I myself would have explained myself fully if called into question after the making of such claims as Dcs has. That refusal to explain has made me wonder what is being communicated.

Parserpractice (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So Dcs would prefer that I state the facts and leave the synthesis conclusion to the reader?" YES! That's exactly what the whole WP:SYN policy is about. Unless this synthesis was already made and published elsewhere, it may not be published here. That's why I said this stuff would be more appropriate in a history journal. Dcs002 (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally brought up concerns of the first two lead paragraphs being a cut & paste found on conspiracy sites. My bad. The sites I was looking at all seem to have gotten their quotes from this Wikipedia article. One other site that I originally thought was a conspiracy site actually turned out to be a conspiracy debunking site. I just hadn't read far enough down the page to realize that. Anyway, that's where I originally got that idea, and now I realize I was mistaken, and it's not a problem for this page.

However, it does point to the reliance of others on this Wikipedia article, and it highlights the importance of getting this article right. Dcs002 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another item: ""In short, ..." statement is a good example of specificity. You may remove that statement yourself, if it is especially troublesome for you. I plan on removing it." While we're in mediation, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to make edits that are the subject of this mediation. Would you care to comment Wordsmith? I suppose we both agree that statement should be done away with. But if that statement is removed, then the whole history of NORAD radar technology becomes unnecessary. (I think you meant synthesis, not specificity?) Dcs002 (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dcs said, above: "I suppose we both agree that statement should be done away with. But if that statement is removed, then the whole history of NORAD radar technology becomes unnecessary."

Now that is a leap! Unacceptable? Yes. An unacceptable leap.

Parserpractice (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic references

Ok, here's the latest list of references I have a problem with. But please keep in mind that these references are only the beginning of the problems I have with this article. And also understand that this is not a comprehensive review of all references. I only checked the content of a few, so others might have content-related issues or problems supporting the statements they're meant to support.

Doing this was quite time-consuming. Because so many of the references were rearranged by Parserpractice after I originally posted this list, I had to repeat the work I already did on 10/10 (10/11 UTC on the time stamp). I've added a few more concerns as well.

2 (David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking:...) refers to a book, titled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Its stated purpose is not neutral. The title suggests its intent is to debunk the conclusions of those, like the editors of Popular Mechanics, who have publicly debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories.

~~3 (http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/6-06-03/discussion.cgi.83.html) leads to a discussion board. Should link to the actual article, regardless of whether it's cited in the discussion board.~~

~~17 (Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p.40) is an incomplete reference, giving only author, title, & page number - Date? publisher? Media type (book, magazine article, web media, etc.)?~~

22 (Bronner, Michael (August 2006). "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes". Vanity Fair) Link contains Bronner's transcripts of NORAD tapes, which confirm orders to go to New York (8:52:40). At 9:03 the fighters were south of Long Island (consistent with flight path "over the ocean" from Otis -- look at a map -- they were supersonic, required to be over water, stated in the article as being over the ocean). I found no reference to Otis fighters going "just north of New York." No cit given to support that fighters were sent elsewhere (contentious point), or when that decision was made. Fighters were ordered to hold sometime between the 9:03 impact and 9:07:20 (same Vanity Fair article).

23 (http://web.archive.org/web/20020811103340/www.norad.mil/rel0016.htm) refers to a 5 minute alert status vs 2-3 minute readiness from forces at battle stations. 2-3 minutes does not refer to NORAD's usual response time, only a response time when forces who are already at battle stations. Aircraft at battle stations do not have their engines funning. So the F15 response time from battle stations had to include the 5 minute engine startup procedure. Scramble order came at 8:46 (Marr gave the order, and he wasn't informed of the situation until 8:46:36[NORAD transcripts, Vanuty Fair]), and take off was at 8:52, a 6 minute response. 8:53 was the time the fighters were confirmed airborne on radar, not the actual takeoff time (9/11 Commission rept.)

~~24 (http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm) makes passing reference to 10 minute time to intercept a stray VFR aircraft wandering into the ADIZ. Nothing about 2-3 minute response time.~~

25 (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm) still a dead link

26 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/158fw.htm) refers to a 5 minute alert readiness, not a normal response time of 2-3 minutes

23-26 collectively refute the statement they are given to support. In fact, ref 47 below gives the scramble time from alert status as 10 minutes.

35 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5352.htm) article from informationclearinghouse.info, which boasts its status as representing minority journalistic opinion. A dubious source for encyclopedic information

42, 45 same as 17 above

47 (http://orbat.com/site/agtwopen/A%20Note%20on%20Air%20Defense%20of%20the%20Washington.html) This link makes no reference to what planes were scrambled from Langley or who gave the order. It only says Langley has 2 F16s available on alert status that can be airborne in 10 minutes. Also, I can't tell who's website this is.

48 (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608) is the same article as ref 22. Related to this is the following statement: "The Langley fighters were headed the wrong way – due east, straight out to sea into a military training airspace called Whiskey 386, rather than toward Washington because of confusion at Boston Center as to the whereabouts of Flight 11." It was not because of confusion at Boston Center, it was because the pilots were not briefed before taking off. They flew toward W-386 because that was their standing protocol for a scramble. They said they thought they might be going out to look for an inbound cruise missile or something. (Vanity Fair)

51 Not so much an issue with the reference as the related content in the article. (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/11/us/2-more-aerial-close-calls-are-reported.html?scp=1&sq=Nations%20Air%20727%20%20%20%20%20&st=cse) references material that seems unrelated to this article. The following quote is from the Phantom flight 11 section: "Four years previously, in 1997, NEADS controllers and Navy ATC's were also at odds in a close encounter offshore of New Jersey.[36][48][51] In the 1997 incident, "Civilian controllers say the Navy controllers told them that the F-16 pilots would be told about the civilian traffic and would be 'maneuvering at pilots' discretion'. Civilian controllers said that this is not a term in common use in air traffic control and they were not sure what it meant."[52] I just don't know what this material is doing in this article. 4 near misses in 1997 seem unrelated to phantom flight 11.

54 different source but same issues as 17 above. Only authors and title are given. I know this is a widely cited book by the two 9/11 Commission co-chairs, but it still needs proper referencing. Other readers might not know about the book, or that it is a book.

57 (www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1881) is unrelated to content -- nothing on that site relates to FAA telecommunications or recordings. However, a link from that page (http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf) does contain related information, and would likely be the more appropriate source to cite for such information.

75 same as 17 above Dcs002 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I have made a few minor edits to the article (nothing that I think anyone would find troubling), but the citation numbers above have been somewhat rearranged.

Now I have 4 more to add to the list: 20 (http://www.observer.com/node/48805) and 21 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html). #20, the NY Observer article, seems to be an opinion piece, and the primary source for the relevant information seems to be #21 (CSM piece). I think using the NY Observer piece as a source for this material is unwise. The CSM article is the source for that information, and the fact that the CSM information is repeated in another article does not strengthen the reliability of the information. In the case of the CSM article, I think it has 2 serious weaknesses: It was printed on 9/13, 2 days after the attacks, and the only source for the relevant information is an anonymous "controller." Has there been any other mention of a pilot staying at the controls independent of the CSM? If not, I think these statements need to be qualified as coming from an unnamed source speaking to the CSM a day or two after the attacks, and not given much sway.

Additionally, ref. #22 is the same article as ref #20. And finally, ref 23 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&key=1) is out of date. Much NTSB data has been released to the public. (see http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm) Dcs002 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets start with the refs, since that's easiest to sort out. Ref 2 is fine. We have to be neutral, but our sources don't. If we never used any sources that had their own opinions, we wouldn't have very many articles. Ref 3 should not link to a message board, it should link to an article. Changing it is valid. Ref 17 is a book, can be found here from Google Books. The ref can be updated with a valid cite template. For 22, the information that is not supported should be excised. 24, since the information in the ref is not used and it does not support the information it is used for, can be cut out. 25 is a dead link, but relinking it to the Wayback machine can make it live again.

Alright, that's enough for the first batch. Let's discuss these, make the changes, and then go on to the next set of refs. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many changes to the article since yesterday, reference numbers are all very different. The Griffin book, ok, I'll accept that. The message board page, I'll leave that to Parserpractice. She/he knows the location of the real source. I filled out a book template for the Spencer book (didn't know these templates existed -- cool!). Removed material not supported by the Bronner reference (formerly #22). Deleted the xavius.com reference. For former ref #25 (dead link), I don't understand what the Wayback machine is or how it works. I clicked on the link and it took me to the xavius.com page.

Please keep in mind that the 4 references formerly # 23-26 were all used to buttress the same claim, and none of them does so. I think that claim needs to be removed. Parserpractice, the 2-3 minute response time given in that press release was the usually expected time from battle stations (pilots boarded, engines off), not from alert (pilots not suited, not in planes), and it refers to an event 5 years before 9/11 at Homestead, not Otis. On 9/11 the Otis F15's got the scramble order just before 8:47, and their engine start was a 5 minute procedure, so with those particular aircraft, normal time even from battle stations is not 2-3 minutes. (See http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/11/two_pilots_revisit_their_911/)

This issue is important to me because it gets directly at the neutrality of the article. It's a matter of saying the F15s from Otis were launched unusually slowly rather than simply stating the amount of time it took. Dcs002 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to Dcs and The Wordsmith, above.

The Wordsmith said: "Ref 3 should not link to a message board, it should link to an article. Changing it is valid." As I said before, I do not have a subscription to Aviation Week so cannot provide a link to the article itself. The message board link does specify the exact article's details of publication. Perhaps someone else can provide the link?

Dcs said: "I found no reference to Otis fighters going "just north of New York." Bronner's article has Maj. Nasypany saying he has a Z-coordinate for north of NYC.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811103340/www.norad.mil/rel0016.htm Quoting the link: "This command and control breakdown resulted in alert fighters on 5 minute airborne response time instead of 2-3 minute response time ..."

If Dcs feels the North Jersey Media Group is transferring fictitious news stories then Dcs is invited to locate the original source of publication of the piece referred to. Historycommons, I believe, does give the name of the publication of the Pine Barrens article. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5352.htm http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Pine+Barrens+&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go Mike Kelly, "9/11 panel's air defense probe grapples with many mysteries", Bergen Record, 5 December 2003.

http://orbat.com/site/agtwopen/A%20Note%20on%20Air%20Defense%20of%20the%20Washington.html This link details that the Alert detachment at Langley is actually a unit from North Dakota. Also to indicate that the Andrews 113FW responds when called upon in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency to protect the District of Columbia (being the National Guard Unit for D.C.). They did not respond on 9/11 to protect D.C. as tasked.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608 "It was not because of confusion at Boston Center, it was because the pilots were not briefed before taking off. They flew toward W-386 because that was their standing protocol for a scramble." I did not say Boston Center was confused: this is the 2nd false attribution to myself, the first stating that I had said Colin Scoggins was mistaken in believing the 177th at Atlantic City was still an Alert unit. I had said the Commission believed Scoggins still thought the 177th was an Alert unit. Scoggins was aware the 177th was no longer an Alert. This content is identical to the article Dcs objects to from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5352.htm. I must say I find Dcs' objections to lack firm foundation, at times, as he does not carry over subject content from objection to objection, even though it is essentially the same content. Bronner's article relates that orders transferred by NEADS to Langley scrambles were either not transferred or acted upon. NEADS was reliant upon Fleet Area for communication assistance.

This link: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/11/us/2-more-aerial-close-calls-are-reported.html?scp=1&sq=Nations%20Air%20727%20%20%20%20%20&st=cse is provided to give a sense of Warning Area procedures during military training exercises.

www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1881 does describe changes to communication procedures and recording of phone conversations. It also details that the inquiry found no evidence of intention to deceive. Appendix 3 gives an events timeline obtained by accessing NEADS logbooks. It is a relevant link.

On the topic of Alert response times: some Alert units seem to be more 'ready' than others. 5 minutes to start F-15 engines, yet 7 minutes to appear on radar tracks? Discrepancies such as these are important details. Dept. of Transportation Inspector General says scramble time was 8:41, not 8:46.

Refer to references by their internet address, not by link number. Dcs has noted, also, that the link numbers change. It is not myself changing the link numbers, it is Wiki software that does it.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues above, and now also below at the bottom of the last section. A 2-3 minute response time is not the usual, nor did the NORAD press release claim it was the time for fighters on alert status. A 5-minute engine start plus 1 minute for taxi seems reasonable to me. Another minute for radar detection (assuming 8:52 is liftoff, and not brake release/beginning of takeoff roll on the runway) seems a little long, but the seconds are not indicated on these times, so there might be some rounding error It was likely closer to 6 minutes (scramble order came just before 8:47 -- time of conversation with Marr & Arnold before scramble order given -- 8:53 - 8:47 = 6 minutes to appear on radar, including 5 minute engine start).

Nasypany gave Fox the Z-coordinate at 8:45, before Arnold's scramble order. All other evidence shows that after that time the jets were orderes to NYC. I think that given Z-coordinate was the last observed position of flight 11.

In this section, I propose we confine our discussion to responses to issues our mediator has brought up. Let's give The Wordsmith a break, agreed? Dcs002 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the message board link. A subscription is not necessary to access this article from the archive site. (This is the article cited by Parserpractice on the article's discussion page as the article referenced in the message board.

I still think these names and such should be removed from the lead section, as well as the assignment of "burden of proof." Assuming an active role is not the same as accepting a burden of proof. That's a synthesis of the editor's. I found no instance to the phrases "active role" or "burden of proof," either in the message board or in the AWST article itself. Dcs002 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there Wordsmith? Haven't heard from you in a while. I'd like to continue on to the probe with the next references. We made a lot of progress since your last suggestion. We've been stuck on the next ones. 98.240.216.193 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems

Here are some other problems I see with this article. I only got as far as the end of the flight 11 section. This is very time-consuming. Like I said, the article is a mess.

NPOV issues: Throughout the article, words such as only and finally should be removed, as they represent the point of view that more was needed, or that excessive time was taken. They are not neutral.

Words like would, could, and should usually represent a certain point of view. Would and could are often speculative. Should is judgemental. These words need to be used very carefully. In many cases in this article they reflect NPOV problems.

Lead section

NPOV: The first sentence beginning with "The U.S. military response during the September 11, 2001 attacks was ineffective..." reflects one point of view. Ineffective connotes that the military was unable to perform its mission. IMO, the military did an admirable job with the little time, massive stress, and pervasive confusion on that day. It was acting outside its normal mission. It was called to act above and beyond. The military did not stop the planes from hitting the buildings, but is that a reasonable expectation under the circumstances? I think we should go with something like "the September 11 hijackers were able to fly three airliners into three buildings on that day without encountering military intervention." I don't think the article should start off by suggesting the military didn't do its job. I don't think that's a neutral point of view.

Assumption or Uncited Fact: "Standard emergency hijacking procedures dictate..." is uncited. How do we know what those procedures were on 9/11? If you know, cite it. If not, let's not assume we know.

Too much detail for lead section: I don't think this is a place to list the names of the the people involved, at least not these five people, or to bring up SPIRNET. The specifics about flight 11 and phantom flight 11 also seem misplaced. If they're in the lead section, the three other flights should also be. But I think it would be best just to leave the lead section for broad statements describing what happened.

Synthesis, NPOV: "Burden of proof falls on the 3 military liaisons as to whom they notified of developments as they became known to the FAA, as USAF Col. Brian P. Meenan, who was ATSC director at the time, has indicated the liaisons assumed an active role." The laisons assumed an active role, but what exactly does that mean? The conclusion from this statement made by one person (Col. Meenan) is not a sound foundation for this burden of proof assignment, nor am I aware that this opinion has been published elsewhere.

Flight 11

Unrelated clutter: Three paragraph beginning with "Negotiations between the Department of Defense and FAA during the 1970s..." are not germain to this article and I think they should be removed. They cover the history of NORAD's development of radar tracking technology, which was not a part of the flight 11 story (didn't locate flight 11 until just before it dropped below radar coverage over Manhattan), and is peripheral to this article.

Synthesis: "At 8:38, Boston Center contacted the NORAD Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York, bypassing the standard protocol of going through the chain of command." There is no evidence given that this action bypassed the chain of command. Is this statement based on the editor's understanding of of the chain of command, or has someone else published that explicitly? If so, this needs at least a citation of whatever source says this was bypassing the COC.

Reliability: The paragraph beginning "An American Airlines pilot stayed at the controls of hijacked Flight 11..." derives from a single unnamed source quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article 2 days after the attacks. See above section "Problematic references" for more.

Extraneous and incorrect information: In the paragraph beginning "The decision was made to launch the Otis fighters...", I think the following lines should be deleted: The entire first sentence (because it's incorrect), and "This response time is considerably greater than NORAD's usual response times of 2–3 minutes for 'alert' fighters.[24][25][26][27] Less than five minutes to be airborne was 'regained' after 9/11.[28][29][30][31] By 1961, the Air National Guard Alert mission had expanded into a permanent, round-the-clock program.[32]" (Also incorrect and extraneous. See above section for more info.)

Organization: The paragraph beginning "Flying supersonicly, the F-15’s were just south of Long Island..." and everything after should be removed from the flight 11 section, as flight 11 no longer exists. Perhaps the Flight 175 section should begin here?

Synthesis, NPOV, possible assumptions: The paragraph beginning "An emergency intercept would require NEADS commander Col. Marr..." speculates what is required of Col. Marr, and second-guesses Marr's decisions to hold off ordering unarmed aircraft into a situation in which arms appeared to be essential, a mission for which he already had fully armed and fueled fighters at the ready, about 12 minutes away. The sentence beginning "Choosing not to do that..." is a synthesis founded on the prior speculation. No information is given to say how this decision added to the confusion surrounding phantom flight 11 or how it had anything to do with the Langley fighters being misdirected. I think this whole paragraph needs to be deleted. It is completely uncited and poorly justified.

Not related, NPOV: The paragraph beginning "To fully understand the options available..." is also completely uncited, opinionated, and I don't see how it's relevant. To say what the reader has to do to understand something or that something is instructive or most instructive is persuasive writing, not factual. This is not a place to argue or try to prove a point, it's a place to provide information. (This is closely related to synthesis, but not the same. It's a form of argumentation.) I just don't see how anything in this paragraph relates to flight 11 or 9/11. I think the paragraph should be eliminated.

Reference: The paragraph that begins with "On the day of the flight, a National Guard supervisor of flying..." does not make clear whether it is in reference to the events in the preceding paragraph or the following paragraph. In any case, I don't see this as important information.

Synthesis, NPOV: The paragraph begining with "Later communication between Duffy and Nash..." uses the word "reveal," implying that something was previously unseen. This connotation is unnecessary, and "reveals" an NPOV problem. Concluding that fuel for an interception is a non-issue is a synthesis not published elsewhere as far as I know, and I think it's incorrect.

Misquote, Synthesis, NPOV: The paragraph beginning "Colin Scoggins of FAA Boston Center informed..." is full of novel synthesis and one misquote or misuse of a quote. Who said there were "thousands" of aircraft headed south at high altitude in the Hudson Valley corridor? Quotes must be attributed. But how high does the class B airspace go? How far north of NYC? Does the class B airspace cover the entire Hudson Valley, including high altitude traffic? (No, it doesn't.) "...technicians only detected..." NPOV problem. "This inability... is incongrous..." is new synthesis in a particularly presumptuous way. FAA management...evidently did not recognize..." is another synthesis. Dcs002 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to Dcs above, in reverse order of presentation by Dcs.

The "thousands" of aircraft quote is a reference to Bronner's Vanity Fair article, which gives the impression of Bronner conveying descriptons given to him by NEADS personnel during the course of interviews. As I have noted previously, and possibly not on this page (on Discussion page?), Bronner makes several incorrect statements that appear to be conveyances of NEADS personnel presentations. One of those conveyances was the image of the Hudson airspace corridor as being hopelessly cluttered. Another was the information requirements to be met before a scramble is authorized, see xavius reference, and surely there are other references that apply.

Use of the word "reveal" is used to consider the accuracy of mentioned claims by Marr that he had no refueling options.

Supervisor of Flight and training exercise procedures is The Most Absolute Central Topic to be considered when detailing options available to NEADS Commander.

Response times: quoting directly from citation links:

"This command and control breakdown resulted in alert fighters on 5 minute airborne response time instead of 2-3 minute response time and did not impact the outcome of the day’s events."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811103340/www.norad.mil/rel0016.htm

"procedures are procedures, and they will likely find two F-18's on their tail within 10 or so minutes." This could technically be changed as it indicates on-site within 10 minutes, only. http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm This is a dead link I thought I had already deleted. I will look into archiving it.

"the Vermont Air National Guard was an Air Defense Unit, having aircraft on 5-minute alert," http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/158fw.htm

The link above on the Vermont ANG was mistakenly given for regaining after 9/11.

This article does not explicitly mention response times, but does give this: "... largely uneventful until 11 p.m., when a blip on nine radar screens suddenly causes the specialists to straighten in their seats."

"By 11:06 p.m., the fighters have maneuvered above and in front of the suspicious plane,"

This gives 6 minutes on-site. Also note joint, simultaneous tracking by FAA and NORAD. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50734-2001Nov18?language=printer

"The fighters are airborne within five minutes of receiving the alert," "And each time, the pilots are expected to be in the air within five minutes of the alarm. Burnett said they can do it in three." http://www.staugustine.com/stories/060803/new_1580686.shtml

Dcs says: "(didn't locate flight 11 until just before it dropped below radar coverage over Manhattan)" This is an inaccurate statement: read all sources provided thoroughly. Flight 11 was tracked continuously.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 11 was tracked continuously by FAA controllers, not by NORAD. NORAD couldn't find it. Regardless of their capabilities, they couldn't find flight 11 with such short notice and without its transponder working. None of the disappearing aircraft transponder info from the 4 flights and none of their deviations from their flight plans (which are often deviated from in real life without NORAD involvement) caused any sort of alarm at NEADS. The recordings make clear what they knew and when they knew it. Dcs002 (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnett says they could do it in three. Well, that's very different from saying 2-3 minutes is the usual. That same article also said Burnett's F15's have newer engines (which also come with different start procedures). The whole point of these statements is to suggest the Otis pilots didn't launch in a reasonable amount of time, and that's not neutral. Dcs002 (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"corrected scramble order to 8:46 (8:41 given only in appendix 3 of source, an FAA (not military) rept 6 days after 9/11" Above is description by Dcs of edit performed on 16 October. The report is by the Inspector General of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, and openly states it derived its data from NEADS logbooks. As the Inspector General's has greater access to these sources than I, and ostensibly Dcs, if the IG's office says that "8:41 AM Military Command (VACAPES) issues scramble order on AA11." then I am inclined to accept 8:41 as scramble time.

Logically, if Dcs is unable to provide overriding documentation to prove scramble time other than 8:41, the edit must be reverted. I will allow some time for Dcs to locate the overriding documentation.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link Dcs refers to:

www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf

This is one of the two oig.dot.gov links that are essentially identical in content, as I noted previously.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm This is now a live link, although identified as dead by myself yesterday.

This is confirming my private suspicions that the failure on 9/11 was in the NORAD/ANG Command Structure. There was no problem with the Airmen: wasn't before 9/11, and hasn't been since. The Airmen take their responsiblities seriously.

Just to make my position clear. Thank you.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the NORAD tapes, Maj. Nasypany at NEADS tells Maj. Fox at the MCC just seconds after 8:45 to "head 'em in that direction" (meaning the Z-point just north of NYC). I'm not sure this constitutes an actual scramble order though. Other sources say the order was given by Col. Marr & Gen. Arnold as the result of a conversation with Nasypany that began at 8:46:36. The barn light at Otis changed from red to green, by all accounts, at 8:46. In any case, according to the NORAD tapes, there was no scramble order before that point, at Otis or anywhere else.

The FAA timeline given so shortly after the attacks might have confused the order to battle stations with an order to scramble., but I doubt it. (And I'm not so sure the DOT's OIG actually had access on 9/17/01 to the same info we have today, namely the NORAD tapes.) I can find no information anywhere else that VACAPES was even involved this early in the game. The order to scramble the ANG fighters had to come from NORAD, not the Navy (VACAPES).

The 9/11 Commission report states that the order to battle stations came from Col. Marr, who then contacted Gen. Arnold to obtain a scramble order. The scramble order was given by Gen. Arnold, who "later recalled instructing Marr to 'go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later'." (p. 20., 3 sources cited in the report)

I see the point where Nasypany directs the fighters to scramble to an area just north of NYC during the conversation with Fox. (That is not an assertion by Bronner, the author, but a recorded direction by Nasypany. But that assertion is no longer in the article.) However, that Z-point was given 6 minutes prior to the fighters' take-off. Everything after that 8:45 conversation indicates orders to get them to NYC.

On a personal note, Parserpractice, I do wish you'd stop using language such as "I will allow," and "you may." You also said in one revert of another person's Overdetailed tag that you "will require." Like I said before, this is not your personal page that you may or may not give permission to others to modify it, particularly while we're in mediation. So far our mediation has only yielded edits concerning the first few citations. I was not aware that changing the time for the scramble order would be something you'd have a problem with or I wouldn't have done it while in mediation. I thought it was just a fairly obvious error.

Would you please fix the citation that links to the message board? You have the proper information for that one. (Read The Wordsmith's comments above, in the citations section.) Dcs002 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dcs: "(meaning the Z-point just north of NYC). I'm not sure this constitutes an actual scramble order though." No, it's not a scramble order, it's a direction to send them in. Would have been better than south of Long Island. Very unusual decision to not send them to Nasypany's Z-point.

"I can find no information anywhere else that VACAPES was even involved this early in the game." That is the same result: I have not seen Military Command or VACAPES mentioned anywhere else, either. Since most scramble intercepts are off the coast, Maj. Gen. Arnold or Colonel Scott may have gone through them, though. It does not make sense that Col. Marr would go through VACAPES to communicate with Otis. This may imply Arnold's actions. VACAPES is doubtless very active in the capitol area in a coordination role.

"The scramble order was given by Gen. Arnold," There you have it. The VACAPES info is new, and possibly has implications if it's part of the stuff DoD classified afterwards and removed from scrutiny.

"Everything after that 8:45 conversation indicates orders to get them to NYC." That Z-point is actually much closer to NYC than south of Long Island. Very unusual order to send them further away, especially with Colin Scoggins' efforts to locate Flight 11 for the NEADS technicians while the plane was in the Hudson corridor. Those type of decisions are very troubling, and that day was full of them.

You should feel free to insert a phrase that says something like 'several timelines concerning scramble time are conflicting, to this day'. That is a balanced, neutral statement and completely accurate.

Mediation, to myself, means that editing is being watched closely. The Wordsmith has authorized changes to be made.

Parserpractice (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation report included info (Appendix 3, Military Command VACAPES issuing scramble order on Flight 11) on the scrambling of jet fighters not found in any other source, that I am aware of, and Bronner's Vanity Fair article states that the Pentagon Inspector General's report was classified, a preliminary search yielded this article detailing the state of morale in the Pentagon IG's office for the time period since 2001:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec08/0,4670,InsideWashingtonPentagonAwards,00.html

Dated: December 08, 2008

"Three top executives in the office of the Pentagon inspector general received cash awards of about $30,000 each for outstanding leadership even though their agency has a history of weak management and strained relations between employees and supervisors. The three were recognized in October with Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Awards, a prestigious honor for long-term achievement in government service. The recipients get the hefty bonus _ 20 percent of their annual basic pay _ and a framed certificate signed by George W. Bush."

"But a confidential survey of employees in the inspector general's office found a disillusioned work force in Horstman's department and others. Employees are not committed to their jobs, their teams or their supervisors, according to the survey conducted in June by the Corporate Leadership Council, a business research company in Arlington, Va."

"Brannin is deputy inspector general for intelligence. She has been with the inspector general's office since 1983. Beardall is deputy inspector general for investigations and has been with the office since 1996. Horstman joined the organization in 1994."

"Overall, the survey, which was requested by the inspector general's office and obtained by the AP, shows about a third of the work force is "disaffected," describing employees who are weak performers and who do as little work as possible. The bulk, nearly 66 percent, are classified as "agnostics." They don't shirk their work, but they don't go to great lengths, either. The rest, less than 5 percent, are "true believers" _ the high performers completely dedicated to their jobs, according to the survey."

"The office is rated as "high risk" when compared to dozens of other public and private organizations surveyed last year by the Corporate Leadership Council."

"The June survey of the inspector general's office indicates not much has changed since 2002, when an independent review team examined the organization and found serious problems in leadership and management."

""No member of the team has seen an organization, civil or military, manned by so many talented people, so ill served by its senior leadership," said the review done by Military Professional Resources, Inc., a defense contractor in Alexandria, Va. "This level of management displays all of the malignant attributes attributed to entrenched bureaucracy.""

"Citing privacy restrictions, the inspector general's office refused to provide exact salaries for Brannin, Beardall and Horstman. However, Comerford said they are in the Tier 3 level of senior executive service, which has a salary ceiling of $172,200 per year."

In a time of much controversy over bonuses associated with the ongoing financial sector crisis, the above info seems somehow relevant.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebooting

Hmmm, this case seems to have slipped off my Watchlist last time I cleaned it out. My apologies to all parties. Now, I see we have made some progress, particularly among the questionable references. Would you guys mind giving me a (concise) update on where we are, and what issues still need to be hammered out? The shorter, the better. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presently the issue we are addressing is the formerly titled "Aftermath" section, a change I provisionally allowed to be titled "Air Sovereignty Alert preparedness" section. I would expect Sinneed to have effected composition changes to topic material, but he does not appear to be inclined to those kind of changes. He likes to edit, he claims on his talk page, "does not source for others", shuffles passages, inserts ^{[citation needed]} when able ...

Please note the request on editing pages is that: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This does not mean that every sentence must have an accompanying citation. To require such has a dissipative effect, and I do not think Wiki's purpose is to be dissipative and neutralizingly derivative.

Interestingly, I visited the Brazil page Sinneed edits and noted that I could dice up the article to the point of absurdity with ^{[citation needed]}, ^{[original research?]}, etc. Interestingly, Sinneed does not seem to note those same opportunities there. Good faith?

Parserpractice (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you must assume good faith. I don't know who Sinneed is, but he is not a party to this mediation. Also, verifiability requires that material that is contentious or challenged should be cited to a reliable source. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are not working on the Aftermath section. Parserpractice has been carrying on without us this whole time.

We, the parties to this mediation, addressed the changes you suggested to the citations. But since then there have been a lot of other changes made to this article, IMO making it even more detailed, and strengthening the NPOV problems. I honestly feel like I'm losing a war of attrition. This is way too much work to keep up with. Parserpractice is much too verbose for me to keep up with and still have a life, and the article has been greatly modified in ways that weren't discussed here first. Honestly Wordsmith, I don't know if the stress and effort to keep up with this pedantic verbosity and personal attitude of ownership is worth it to me anymore. Parserpractice seems to have a lot more time and a different agenda than I do, and than WP policy is supposed to permit. I made only the changes we discussed here in mediation, and then waited for our next step here. Parserpractice has gone on making major edits without waiting for this process.

I've been frustrated at every level trying to attract attention to these problems, and the few people who went to the article to make even minor modifications were bullied by Parserpractice, and their changes reversed if she/he didn't agree with them. Just look at Parserpractice's own words on this page, in this section! She/he just referred to "a change I provisionally allowed," as if this article is hers/his to allow or regulate anything! Parserpractice hasn't been playing by the rules since I first tried to engage her/him in this discussion.

Why does WP have these policies in the first place if there's no way or no one willing to enforce them?

Would you please just look at the article & read the discussion page and tell us what you think about the apparent violations of WP policy that I listed in my original request? I think that the policy violations are pretty blatant and need to be corrected.

I'm very frustrated with this process and with Wikipedia right now. Wikipedia is just a small part of my life, but every time I open my browser I have this thing hanging over my head. All I ever wanted to do was to report some policy violations to Wikipedia authorities/administrators/whomever who would look into the situation and try to fix it. Is that so much to ask? Dcs002 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's work this out. To combat the verbosity issue, I would like for all replies here to be 200 words or less. To take care of the editing issue, I would like to request that nobody make edits here without consent (except for uncontroversial things, such as reverting vandalism or correcting typographical errors). Once you both agree to that, we'll get into the BLP and NPOV issues. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith: You have requested that noone make edits: this implies that several people working in conjunction could neutralize an editor through mediation, while another editor could butcher an article's content with absurd deletions, claims of lack of neutrality while exhibiting lack of neutrality themselves, claims of excessive detail while the sum total of absurd deletions points itself toward an excess of detail detailing an anything-but neutral point of view. This is to say the deleting editor's agenda is must needs be revealed: these claims to adherence to Wiki policy are being used to hijack Wiki itself.

These policies, by their nature, require human judgement as to when it is appropriate for rigid application. Human judgement must not be hijacked by 'professional editors': is Dcs "provisionally allowing" Parserpractice to edit? Does The Wordsmith note whether Dcs has or has not "assumed Good Faith" in Parserpractice?

Parserpractice (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Assuming good faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

and

Gaming the System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system

Parserpractice (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should one or both of you fail to uphold the spirit of Wikipedia and continue to push your POV on the article, without consensus here, then I would like to remind you that this article falls under restrictions imposed by an Arbitration case on the issue. If someone tries to game the system, any uninvolved administrator may impose discretionary sanctions, up to and including a block of one year, or editing restrictions. I request that you both refrain from editing the article, and if someone else comes to push their POV, they can be dealt with. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include the following passage in the Background section of Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) preparedness:

Quoting the FAA:

"The Traffic Situation Display (TSD) is a computer system that receives radar track data from Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs), organizes this data into a mosaic display, and presents it on a computer screen to monitor any number of traffic situations or system-wide traffic flows. The display allows the traffic management coordinator (TMC) multiple methods of selection and highlighting of individual aircraft or groups of aircraft. The user has the option of superimposing these aircraft positions over any number of background displays."^[1]

TSD achieved full operation on Dec.30, 1997 and was used by reporters from USA Today to analyze flight tracks of the hijacked airliners after 9/11.^[2]

Parserpractice (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose would this passage serve for the reader? Does it highlight some significant aspect of the US military response? Does it give something undue weight? The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 200 words or less, no editing without consent. I'll agree to that. Dcs002 (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose for the reader? It casts light on the fact that technology existed since 1997, along with ASDI, that should have been part and parcel of the "right planning" mentioned by General Eberhardt^[3] as being of greater importance than greater funding. That's the "right planning" for the military, you'll recall. It reflects directly upon preparedness, you'll also recall.

I'll further assist you in your recall efforts: the passage mentioning Eberhardt and his "right planning" had been shuffled around by editor "Sinneed", one of Dcs' cohorts, and had somehow dropped the word "right", leaving it only as "planning". Yet somehow had retained the cited reference intact. Does that effort assist the reader?

Highlighting a lack of responsible response by the U.S. military.

Parserpractice (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... and if someone else comes to push their POV, they can be dealt with."

By whom, I say? Before I offered so many details on how the air traffic control system was formed and operates, and the military's responsiblities in relation to the NAS, I doubt few knew how air traffic control responsibilities were assigned. Now, The Wordsmith would like to pretend all the details were of no value, lacking relevance?!

Parserpractice (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose Parserpractice's proposed additions to the article, and I resent the use of the word "cohorts" by Parserpractice. I don't know Sinneed. Those who disagree with Parserpractice are individuals. Neither they nor I deserve to be diminished by regarding us as a team against Parserpractice. Justin Z, Sean.hoyland, Tom, Hordaland, and Sinneed have all posted comments critical of the article, and I don't know any of them.

I oppose the proposed additions because their function is to bolster the novel conclusion that because certain technologies existed the planes should have been tracked and intercepted, and that, because NORAD wasn't tracking them, someone wasn't doing their job (individuals named), allowing the three planes to reach their targets. That's the major novel synthesis I oppose here. It's based on a misunderstanding of NORAD's function and their alleged responsibility to track domestic flights. Besides, it's more detail in an article that's overflowing with clutter. This article is not supposed to be used to support one person's conclusions. Dcs002 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Tom has deleted his comments, perhaps for seeming belligerence. He may now be 180 degrees opposite in his thinking on this subject, by this point.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Parserpractice agree to the terms of 200 words or less and no editing of the article (except for non-controversial items) without consent? She/he listed some complaints above about this, but I don't see an agreement to abide by these terms while we're in mediation. Dcs002 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200 words or less, it is immaterial until the limit is exceeded, obviously? No editing, and a similar analysis is performed. And, Oh, to affect the Dcs, Parserpractice feels so offended by being called "pompous", elsewhere. Am I being personally attacked?

Parserpractice (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parserpractice, I don't understand your response. "No editing, and a similar analysis is performed?" What does that mean? Do you agree to the terms?

And I did not call you pompous. I told someone else who was offering to help that they would have to read through a lot of verbose, pompous writing. I write that way too sometimes, and I've made it clear that I also tend to be verbose. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. If you personalize things like this, and like the intentions of other editors being against you personally, we may never reach a common ground.

We both want this to be a high quality article. That's a good thing! We disagree about what makes it a high quality article. Ok, we're here to work on that. But our work here must follow a process. Do you agree to this process, even though it means refraining from edits & limiting the length of your posts? If not, we have a major problem. Our mediation only works as long as we both agree to participate. Dcs002 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal mediators must make some decisions at this point, as I see that I am treated to the efforts of a poseur. Several administrators/mediators have volunteered to assist in this effort: now we will see the true colors of a Wiki neutrality effort.

Clarity.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=U.S.+military+response+during+the+September+11+attacks&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+all+administrators%27+noticeboards+and+archives&fulltext=Search

Parserpractice (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's get right back into the content. The topic of this article is "U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks." So, the article should focus on how the military responded, yes? More specifically, on how sources indicate they responded. Information about how they could have responded or should have responded should go in the September 11 conspiracy theories article. Are we both in agreement on this? The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. This article should be about the actual response, not about what might have been, or who's to blame for not doing it differently. (There are plenty of places to post those arguments online where it's appropriate.) And not giving the worst information as fact when the bulk and weight of the data suggests better when describing the response. (A specific example here is the scramble order to Otis being given at 8:46 or nearly 8:47 (when the NORAD tapes indicate General Arnold, who gave the order, was informed of the situation) and not at 8:41, with wheels up at 8:52 or radar contact at 8:53, or both. This is the difference between calling it a 12 minute response time vs. a 5 minute response time, which makes all the difference in the world to those involved, who Parserpractice suggests failed in their duty. The article currently says the scramble order was given at 8:41, which I think is appalling, blaming, and untrue based on the evidence we have.)

Maybe I'm jumping the gun by getting into that kind of content, but I think that's exactly what's at the heart of this dispute -- using this article as a place to blame people. Dcs002 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parserpractice, does your post about Cabal mediators having to make decisions mean you're waiting for someone else to decide something? I don't understand that post at all. Are you still with us here?

Wordsmith, I'm concerned. Parserpractice didn't explicitly agree to the 200 words and no editing thing (though she/he hasn't violated it), and so far there's no word of agreement (or disagreement) on the matter of actual response vs. what could or should have been the response. That post about Cabal mediators having to make decisions isn't clear or direct.

I'm becoming frustrated again. I asked for help with this several weeks ago. How much longer do we wait? There were a number of personal attacks involved in this and a user who's violated many WP policies, as well as an article that's in desperate need of help. I think I've been more than patient so far. Dcs002 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So, the article should focus on how the military responded, yes?", said The Wordsmith.

Yes, and that is exactly what should be focused on. The military has only two options when called upon to defend the U.S. against attack: they can choose to defend, or not to defend. That is their choice, only.

Their responsiblity is another matter. Their responsiblity is not something they can choose not to accept.

If they choose to defend, they receive respect and accolades. If they choose not to defend, they receive loss of respect and scorn. Denying they chose not to defend is not plausible. The article and the references demonstrate they chose not to defend.

The airmen chose to accept their responsiblities, but NORAD commanding officers chose not to accept their responsibilities.

The U.S. military's response during the September 11 attacks is understandable in these terms: options to choose to defend, and options in choosing to accept their responsiblity.

Diverting attention from the responsiblities of those in command on September 11 is indicative of an agenda. A non-neutral agenda.

"Information about how they could have responded or should have responded ..." Could have responded, should have responded, by definition, is addressing choices & responsiblities. By definition.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though. None of thaqt is about how they responded. That's about how they didn't respond, or should have responded. POV pushing and BLP violations like that have no place in the article. Its about time we just remove them wholesale, and see what we're left with. Unless someone objects, I think that tomorrow I will remove all the BLP violating material, Original Research and POV content. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wordsmith. No objections here. Dcs002 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I do object. You have not once required of Dcs to provide balancing material. Therefore your agenda is revealed, The Wordsmith. As an administrator/mediator, you are not requiring core requirements of Dcs. This is telling. It is also unmistakable.

So for you, The Wordsmith, is this mediationCabal record, this page, a description of what you did do, or what you should have done? Did you enforce the neutral POV, or push some other agenda? Surely you don't think readers are incapable of entertaining such possibilities? I have offered more than several times for Dcs to provide balancing POV, and not once has an administrator or mediator spoken up and stated that that is what is really desired. Therefore, it is not what is really desired? Original thinking may not be allowed on Wikipedia, but it is encouraged in the world at large. Unless The Wordsmith insists on the neutral POV, original thinking will tell us that Wiki has become rife with agenda, with unbalanced referring to inappropriate rules applied in inappropriate moments.

Agenda, unbalanced, inappropriate, & inappropriate: is this the image Wiki desires, as it prepares to ignore these perspectives?

Parserpractice (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not an article, as is evident by its place in the Wikiepdia: namespace, as opposed to article space. Yes, my agenda is revealed. My agenda, in this case, is to have an article that conforms to all of our policies and guidelines. Dcs does not need to provide a balancing POV, we need to remove POV material from any side. We need to remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative information about living people, and we need to remove original research. The article is about what happened, not what might have, should have, or didn't happen. Inclusion of such information has no place on Wikipedia. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, my agenda is revealed." Your form of admission.

"Dcs does not need to provide a balancing POV ...", nor read ref links and relate info. W/E.

Parserpractice (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above comment, I recommend closing of this case. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case can not be closed, X, the derelict have been promoted.

" ... the national Defense Dept./FAA Air Traffic Services Cell (ATSC), a small office manned by military reservists and FAA specialists. Co-located with the FAA's national nerve

center--the Air Traffic Control System Command Center ... "

USAF Col. Brian P. Meenan, who was ATSC director at the time. Air Force Reserve Col. Brian P. Meenan has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general while serving as mobilization assistant to the director, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters United States Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein Air Base, Germany. January 4, 2005 http://www.defensedaily.com/articles/pm/2005/pm010405.htm nominated For promotion to major general: Brig. Gen. Brian P. Meenan Jan 13, 2008 http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/01/airforce_reserve_generals_080110w/

Parserpractice (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, since one party is unwilling to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unless something significantly changes, I will close the case in 48 hours. After that, subsequent discussion can take place on the article talk page. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means. If this case is closed and discussion goes back to the discussion page, is that different from where I started? 'Cause I got nowhere that way. I know it takes two to mediate, and this process seems to be at an end, but will there be any changes made as a result of what we've done here so far? Would that mean I need to take this problem to Arbitration or something? Please let me know, and thanks for your help through this process, including your patience with our verbosity and my outbursts of frustration. Dcs002 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this means is that since one party is unwilling to comply with wikipedia policy, and not likely to change his position, mediation is essentially useless at this point. What i'm doing now is going through the article myself and cleaning it up, and then we'll see what we're left with. Several editors recognize the need to obey BLP and other policies, so this will work by consensus. I highly doubt the matter will need to go to ArbCom (again), but once we get the worst of the offending material removed then a content RFC might be useful, to get extra eyes on the page. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Is there anything I should be doing now? Should I participate in the article clean-up, or would that be a bad idea since I was the complaining party? Should I just watch the process now?

There's no real reason you can't participate, but for simplicity's sake I would recommend that you hold off another day or two until I clean up the worst of it, then you can enlist other editors in an RFC to help with the subtleties. The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wordsmith. I'll wait a couple days and check back. Dcs002 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next, the subtleties?

Gaming the System: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaming_the_System&action=edit&redlink=1

Will they be contentious, or tendentious?

Parserpractice (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had quite enough of your accusations, and will no longer be listening to them. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith, I have begun making changes to the article now. I have made many individual changes instead of lumping them all together into one huge change. That way you can review them individually if you choose. The reason for each change is explained in its edit summary. Dcs002 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://nas-architecture.faa.gov/nas/mechanism/mech_data.cfm?mid=796

[2] ttp://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-clearskies_x.htm

[3] ttp://www.afa.org/AEF/pub/eber1100.asp

[1]

[2]

[3]