Knowledge (XXG)

Template talk:9-11 hijackers

Source 📝

131:
includes deliberate attempts to nab and charge anyone. Or so I understand. If you want to pin it down legally, I know at least two lawyer admins who would render an better informed opinion. I'm merely a greying engineer with wide tastes in historical reading! Say the word, and I'll see what they say.
130:
Can't say I follow your 'accused' point, post edit-conflict. Officials acting in good faith can be coloquially 'wrong' but not acting wrongfully— such are 'honest errors' as we all make in day to day life. 'Wrongful accusation' would require some sort of malfeasance or incompetance which of course
81:
Sorry, I read too quickly entering the section edit. Alleged is fine if the facts are in question per the quote. Still, if there is no question on the others, you should be differentiating. OTOH, if these are the same names the press is calling the hi-jackers, and regardless of whether there is a
90:
be in the template at all... the articles should be the arbitor of the point regardless of which label is chosen. 'Alleged' is likely to draw fire from families of victims, whereas I haven't heard anything about
192:
Personally I like "Alleged 9/11 Hijackers" and "Wrongly Accused", but if you want to ask the lawyer-users for their opinions, that's fine too. btw, wrongly/wrongfully, is one of those better than the other?
21:
Please provide support for the notion that these are "alleged" hijackers -- all of the mainstream media reports describes these people as the hijackers. There's nothing "alleged" about it.
54:
Erroneously Accused would be less pov. 'Wrongly accused' in US speech generally connotes a deliberate slanderous or libelous attack actionable by lawsuit against the accuser.
31:
There is no trial, and the "mainstream" media has often reported that between 1-7 of the hijacker names are still alive, that identities could have easily been stolen, even
59:
On the above point, in US practice, all accused are alleged until they are convicted unless dead... which should apply in this case to quite a few.
113:
Hrm, I'd rather a word a little more straight-forward than "Erroneously", and "Wrongly Accused" to me brings forward memories of the likes of
35:
and others have said (pp) "There is no way we can be certain that these were not stolen identities", so it's "alleged" until somebody
117:, convicted through mismanagement or incompetence, but not malice. Is the problem lie perhaps with the "accused", not the "wrongly"? 207:
I removed "reported" from the title. Is there some reason why "reported" was there? Why not just "9/11 Hijackers"?--
22: 171: 137: 101: 67: 208: 194: 154: 118: 114: 40: 230: 226: 222: 167: 133: 97: 63: 233: 211: 197: 176: 142: 121: 106: 72: 43: 25: 225:
suspects", however this link does not appear when implemented (i.e. on the page
161:
falsehood... a wrongful act. My objection stands on it's merit, which is to say
32: 93:
families and persons having their identity stolen have made complaints
165:
has a specific meaning in Law, differentiated from coloquial speech.
95:. Balanced so, I'd go with whatever minimizes space the best. 8: 82:question as to their true identities, 7: 229:). I do not know how to fix this. 217:20th hijacker, link non-functional 14: 234:20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 1: 221:The group title is coded as " 249: 212:02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 198:03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 177:03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 143:03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 122:03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 107:03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 73:03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 44:23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 26:22:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 88:and need not necessarily 86:belongs in the article, 157:example involves 23:Morton devonshire 240: 174: 140: 104: 70: 61:Best regards // 248: 247: 243: 242: 241: 239: 238: 237: 219: 172: 138: 102: 68: 51: 49:Wrongly accused 19: 12: 11: 5: 246: 244: 218: 215: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 184: 182: 181: 180: 179: 155:David Milgaard 148: 147: 146: 145: 125: 124: 115:David Milgaard 110: 109: 79: 50: 47: 30: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 245: 236: 235: 232: 228: 227:20th hijacker 224: 223:20th hijacker 216: 214: 213: 210: 199: 196: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 178: 175: 170: 169: 164: 160: 156: 152: 151: 150: 149: 144: 141: 136: 135: 129: 128: 127: 126: 123: 120: 116: 112: 111: 108: 105: 100: 99: 94: 89: 85: 80: 77: 76: 75: 74: 71: 66: 65: 60: 56: 55: 48: 46: 45: 42: 38: 34: 28: 27: 24: 16: 220: 209:Jersey Devil 206: 183: 166: 162: 158: 132: 96: 92: 87: 83: 62: 58: 57: 53: 52: 36: 29: 20: 39:otherwise. 33:Porter Goss 159:deliberate 195:Sherurcij 119:Sherurcij 41:Sherurcij 231:LukeSurl 163:wrongful 78:revised 17:Alleged 37:proves 153:Your 84:THAT 173:nkB 168:Fra 139:nkB 134:Fra 103:nkB 98:Fra 69:nkB 64:Fra

Index

Morton devonshire
22:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Porter Goss
Sherurcij
23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Fra
nkB
03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Fra
nkB
03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
David Milgaard
Sherurcij
03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Fra
nkB
03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
David Milgaard
Fra
nkB
03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sherurcij
03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Jersey Devil
02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
20th hijacker
20th hijacker
LukeSurl
20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.