1419:. The NTSB started off saying it was a single bolt failure and was going to leave it at that, was busy replacing all the bolts on other DC10s, and had it's engineers backing that story up. That story was wrong. It wasn't just the bolt, it was a mistaken procedure for engine maintenance that stressed the bolt beyond capacity. But it took a metallurgist examining the fractures on the pylon on a microscopic level, and then through a process of deduction, concluding that it could not possibly have been the bolts alone, to determine that.
1427:"the investigation that followed was a firestorm of a different sort: everyone involved--the FAA, American Airlines, McDonnell Douglas and the pilot's union--pointed fingers in an attempt to avoid blame; a key witness mysteriously disappeared; important documents and physical evidence was misplaced. Now, a quarter century later, some of those close to the case speak for the first time, revealing why key players chose to live with the "acceptable risk" of such an accident rather than correct a known problem."
1167:(or anybody else for that matter) stop making personal attacks on me in order to discredit my contributions. I'm a good editor, I just don't like to see wikipedia become a tool of government agents. If, in your role as a government agent, you wish to persecute me, do so in the real world, where I can, at least presumably, defend myself in acourt of law, and not have you nimbly refactoring discussions I am engaged in.
1460:
1186:
there's no restraint on me to point out poor-faith actions like
Striver's vote stacking, or "refactoring" as you call it. Government agent? Please, save your drama for the theater. So it's a personal attack to point out that you're biased toward the conspiracy theorists but it's not a personal attack to accuse me of being a Government agent out to persecute you?--
1199:,. I am trying to point out that if I have shown bias it is towards the conspiracy theorists... it can be amply shown that there was a conspiracy, and any explanation of that conspiracy that includes conjecture and unproven 'facts' is also a theory, so in fact the 9/11 commision's findings are a conspiracy theory. I'm not disputing facts but theories. It is a
170:
looks like a blatant attempt to create a long list of personalities/activists/nutjobs who may have questioned, at one time or another, aspects of 9/11, or signed a petition, or supported someone who did. Anyway, the future participants here will decide. I don't have a particularly strong feeling and could move to neutral depending on the arguments. --
1148:
of
September 11, 2001. Some have speculated that because of the absence of photographic evidence, that something other than a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon, and some suggest that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations.
772:
would be notable enough for a wikipedia entry if they had kept silent on 9/11 or were supporters of the official story. Do I think
Striver will follow these suggestions? No. Do I have the time and energy to do it myself and keep it on permanent watch? No. In a perfect world I would suggest keeping but in the real world,
548:
of the government agents editing WP, selectively deletes portions of discussions on related subjects to discredit editors who don't hold to the account put out by the 9/11 commission. Within this very discussion, he has deleted portions of the discussion. And MONGO is just ONE of the people here trying to
989:
I don't like the title because there are more entities to disagree with than simply the 9/11 Commission Report's findings, i.e., Rice said they never imagined planes could be used as weapons but an FBI official said the opposite in the
Moussaoui trial, that they'd known for years planes could be used
547:
are being deleted, almost as if there are people who don't want anything related to the events of that date to exist anywhere. If we allow this article and others on the subject to be deleted by government agents, we are allowing
Knowledge as a whole to be owned by the government. "MONGO", just one
151:
So you are saying it should be deleted for not differentiation between " hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas "? That is a editorial issue, not grounds for deletion. Further, that is alomst impossible to do, where should the line be drawn? When are you not enough "hardcore" to
1147:
Since the attacks, a number of people proposed alternate theories about these events, such as suggesting: that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were intentionally demolished for some reason; or that some group within the U.S. government either had foreknowlege of or were actually complicit in the events
771:
The article will only be useful to future researchers if each person listed has a specific footnote or inline link to where and when they questioned the official line; or if they have made many statements, links to the best summarized or most prominant. Also, the list should only include people who
1185:
Quit being so self-centered. Striver has been going around to users who have been pushing the 9-11 conspiracy POV and asking them for their input on this page. That's what we were pointing out - you were just one among 4. You can defend yourself here as well. Nobody's censoring you, and conversely,
169:
Well, that was sort of my point. If we can't draw the line maybe we shouldn't have the list. As much as I try continually to seek a justification for having articles on various topics, this seems like something that needs a lot more editorial explanation to have any real value. Otherwise, to me, it
1356:
For Mmx1, if a researcher isn't an engineer, their view cannot be considered, and if they are an actual researcher, there is just a "fast and loose criteria" for them, even though a number of them have published in science journals and teach at universities. Then, continuing this pattern, if they
1221:
of unproven theories. I am biased AGAINST conspiracy theories, at least I do not think that theories are
Neutral in their point of view, or merit inclusion in an encyclopedic text, unless they are represented not as facts but as theories. I wish you could understand that. The mere fact that you
310:
And upon further consideration, those lists are useless. To shoehorn people into a category is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be doing, which is explain the nuances of their position. Particularly with respect to political ideas. All it will do is produce nonesense debate over "does X
1195:
I'll apologise again, as I mistook you, Mmx1 for MONGO, it's MONGO who is the government agent, and I'll happily take your word for it that you are not. I'm sorry, it was a mistake, I was confused, and maybe becoming senile. I sincerely apologise for the mistake... However, MONGO actually does
911:
This page seems like a simple listing of people's names. Looking through the policy on deletion, the only thing that comes close is 'soapboxing' but this page is not soapboxing. It boild down to a simple statement of (allegedly) fact - that these people here support this thing here. Furthermore I
718:
per Mmx1 et al, too vague. Also the article is strangely about some similarly vague polls and article's "owner"/creator as usual won't allow fixing it. Unencyclopedic unmaintainable mess with more potential to miselad reader than to inform him. 9/11 conspiracy stuff has a soapbox too big already.
446:
content, with its legions of interlinking minor character articles, could be seen as a walled garden. The 9/11 Truth
Movement articles, on the other hand, link to current events and to people notable for reasons having nothing to do with 9/11: the content is not isolated. I'll also add that, if
843:
After deliberating on this overnight, I'm going to go with keep, on the basis that such lists of people by belief (Christians, communists, etc.) are common on
Knowledge, so it seems more POV-neutral to keep this than to delete it. I definitely don't think it should be merged; lists like this do
1089:
I object to characterising me as a 'user who has expressed bias', I am an editor with thousands of stable contributions on hundreds of topics and have not expressed a bias. Look at my contributions if you think I'm a biased editor. Mmx on the other hand is a user who brags of having "over 800
1514:
wrote and performed "someone blew up
America" then refused to apologise, but wasn't active in the "research" movement as such. A brief description like that, though, would be excellent: informative, useful, and encyclopedic. At present, unlike what this AFD nomination claims, this article is
1374:
does have a fast and loose criteria as a housewife, a "media critic", and a few webmasters are apparently "researchers". I've never brought up the "MIT" criteria, you have (do I detect a scent of anti-intellectualism?). When you're pulling out theoretical physicists and water testers
800:
A keep is a keep, but let's refrain from personal attacks and insults like 'conspiracy nuts', it's the so-called conspiracy nuts that brought the Iran contra affair to light, and poked holes in the Warren commission report, now widely held even by the 'mainstream' as a work of
565:
I think that's a bit over the top. Articles are being deleted by government agents? Mongo and other government agents are selectively deleting parts of discussions to discredit you? I don't think so. I do think hyperbolic rhetoric like that undermines your argument.
1563:. A merge the other way around could work. Researchers fit in the broader list of "people". But, still this list needs to be really well cited and verified. It would be really unfortunate for Knowledge, if someone was mistakenly listed here and led to another
990:
as weapons. Many other documents also support that position, such as the war games official documents which played out those scenarios. But the content of this page is excellent - thanks, Striver. There should be some reorganizing, but the basics are there.
1090:
edits", proudly claims on his user page to be a "Knowledge exclusionist", a "hopeless cynic" who "wants to join the United States
Military", a "member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" who "strongly opposes the United Nations" and "lives in New York".
912:
would say that this statement is also factually accurate - I'm sure that most of the people listed here would be happy to be listed on this page(in fact I can't see any that are out of place). The intense emotions relating to this particular subject is
878:
Yes they are. Account would be the factual record of what happened. Findings being the judgement on whether right or wrong decisions where made. Some folks on this list question findings, others question account, most are not very qualified to do
1099:
I'm not questioning your bias, but the bias of vote advertising toward people with known viewpoints, which amounts to vote stacking. For the record, a majority of New Yorkers believe the USG was complicit, so that's hardly a qualification.
511:
maybe. I think this article is not too badly put together, it's relevant, it's interesting, but it might be a bit redundant. If it were to be merged, the Truth Movement article is the most appropriate place that I can think of.
1399:
Looking through the policy on deletion, there's no formal motivation justifing this action. I agree to change from "researchers" to "people", as long as the first ones are mentioned as such within the article.
114:
is a specific group and has nothing to do with this article. This is not the place to hold a "is category better than lists" arguement, consensus is that categories and lists can exist at the same time, see
929:
Putting a strikethrough my previous 'keep' because maybe I need to think about this a bit more. Perhaps it would be better as a category. Not sure yet. Can one propose a merge between a list and a category?
1272:. As some of these people may have more nuanced views, I'm concerned a list like this may misrepresent some people's viewpoints. Also, I don't think that *questioning* is the right word to use here. --
1531:
People who are not "researchers" but are instead "activists" or "politicians" or otherwise notable figures are included in the topic of the article. Therefore, it would be more suitable to merge the
661:
Do you even understand the meaning of the term "straw man"? Let's find out: what, pray tell, is the "great example" of a false argument I've created that I'm knocking down? As oppsoed to, of course,
1215:
hold that to be fact, therefore you are biased toward accepting that particular conspiracy theory as a fact. I do not accept as fact anything that is not provable, and I object to the inclusion
731:
as per Calton; additionally, the argument that use of strawman & appeal to authority is acceptable because others have done it is like saying rape is ok because it's been done lots before....
134:. Topic seems too diffuse to me. List seems to run the gamut from hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas of the 9/11 report. Salvageable material should be merged back to
212:: Per my comment above, I'd rather see this as a list, where the absurdities are patently obvious, than as a category, which has a veneer of respectability. Since a new user has now created
416:, your creation of articles on marginal/non-notable/trivial topics so you can link to them, your zealous attempts at preserving your POV throughout -- other that, I guess, not a thing. --
183:
Let me further state that this should never be a category. A category of this type is frankly worthless and dangerous. I'll switch to keep if that's the way this starts heading. --
1564:
787:: Because otherwise the conspiracy nuts will just put the information somewhere else, and that's not encyclopedic, but maybe it's the lesser of two evils. Then again, maybe it
762:, though the article needs to have many more sources and the people on it need to meet notability criteria. Otherwise, it's a useful list for anyone researching this topic. --
348:
Above vote is from an editor who claims to work for the Department of Homeland Security, FWIW. Is it appropriate to count votes from governmnet agents on matters such as this?
543:
is merely one small subset of the people who hold to alternate theories of the events of September 11, 2001. Amazing that so many articles about September 11, 2001, including
1176:
Sorry if I got the two of you confused, MONGO and Mmx1, no offense was intended, I guess you both look pretty much the same from my viewpoint, that is if I had a viewpoint.
1510:- I can't see why to distinguish between "researchers" and "other people". But it's useful to have a list rather than a category because e.g. a category can't tell me that
888:
I prefer the wording 'findings' as it more accurately describes what the 9/11 Commission was charged with doing - provide 'findings' as opposed to giving an 'account'.
1472:
1357:
aren't at MIT, their university work doesn't mean as much as those at MIT. Apparently only Mmx1 knows who should and should not be considered proper enough, or the
544:
1626:
1608:
1594:
1582:
1555:
1539:
1523:
1497:
1479:
1432:
1404:
1383:
1365:
1347:
1319:
1310:
1287:
1248:
1226:
1190:
1180:
1171:
1104:
1094:
1082:
1061:
1044:
1023:
1007:
994:
981:
977:, massive cleanup and rename, standardize the formatting (this means boldface). I guess we should have a place to list people like Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner.
967:
942:
933:
920:
892:
883:
873:
864:
848:
835:
818:
805:
795:
779:
766:
754:
735:
723:
710:
700:
686:
656:
631:
603:
594:
583:
570:
556:
516:
499:
487:
463:
437:
424:
407:
398:
385:
372:
352:
339:
315:
305:
301:
so this should not be any propblem. Futher, allmost all the people in the list carry no ambiguity, most are staunch rejectors of the 9/11 commisions account.--
264:
248:
220:
200:
187:
174:
156:
142:
123:
89:
52:
1547:. "Researchers" are generally considered to be academics. A list of academics may have no room for, say, politicians, movie stars, or other notable people
1493:
relevant to the topic of the page. Therefore the notability of individuals is not pertinent to the AfD. It is only germane to the content of the article.
1590:. This is an emotionally charged issue. So I agree that extra care should be taken to verify that the people on this list really do belong on it. --
1117:
has a bias", I am stating as fact that "I am an editor with thousands of stable contributions on hundreds of topics and have not expressed a bias."
860:? The missing apostrophe drives me crazy, the participle seems inappropriate, and the word "account" seems both clunky and possibly POV-slanted. --
442:
I'll second that. A walled garden is an isolated section of a Wiki where pages link only to each other and don't link outside. Really, Knowledge's
963:. Can I ask how you found this page? We have been having "new users" adding votes on these 9/11 truth afds with several sockpuppets already found.--
311:
fit into Y category" It's a bit more clear-cut with religion, but still, what's the use of a list of Christians? It'd be uselessly large. --
1329:
59:
1507:
1371:
1325:
1265:
99:
74:
679:
213:
67:
791:
encyclopedic and notable that there are philosophy professors (whose job is to question things) on the list but no civil engineers.
1244:
Striver inexplicably directed me to this page after I had already voted on it. My presence here is not the result of lobbying. --
1577:
1463:
1342:
1282:
1415:
Like I said before, in the crash of American Airlines Flight 191 the person who figured out what actually caused the crash was
447:
anything, Striver has been working to make the topic *less* of a walled garden, linking it to as many outside sources, such as
17:
1222:
assume that Striver contacted me because he thought I might weigh in 'on his side' of this issue does not make me biased.
277:
account, and still do so, then they are included, if not, then they are not. Being on a list implies notability, we have
1205:
that WTC 1,2, and 7 collapsed to dust at freefall speeds after being struck by aircraft. Do you dispute that? It is a
1604:"Researchers" include some academics, but "academics" do not include all researchers, according to normal English use.
196:
I understand worthless, but why dangerous? If you want, reply on the talk page so we don't side-track the discussion.
810:
Uh huh. Cite for the claim that the Warren Commission Report is considered by the mainstream as "fiction", please? --
1641:
36:
1379:) as your authorities based on their resumes, yes, I'm well within my right to question their qualifications. --
102:
only list researchers, there are plenty of non-researchers questioning the official version. This was a part of
1640:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1535:
article to this one, rather that disqualifying content which is otherwise of interest by restricting the topic.
298:
107:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1370:
Don't put words in my mouth. If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority. The page
869:
I have no problem with that, unless "account" and "findings" carry some different meaning that escapes me. --
484:
111:
82:
1269:
1057:. Please use due judgement in considering whether such lobbying causes unrepresentative slant in results.
1020:
645:
286:
1429:
278:
1136:. You don't know my viewpoint. What bias or 'known' viewpoint does this proposed paragraph express???:
527:: I would be ok with a backward merge, merging the content of the 'researchers article' with this one)
1573:
1568:
1448:
1338:
1333:
1278:
1273:
49:
1245:
861:
845:
460:
119:, lists offer things categories do not. Also, some people keep removing the polls in the article. --
1033:
649:
620:
540:
508:
237:
135:
103:
78:
1042:
294:
290:
1315:
Considering that there's a fast and loose criteria for "researchers", what is the difference. --
1489:
The notability criteria for persons do not apply to the mentions of persons on a page which are
1380:
1316:
1187:
1101:
1079:
1004:
600:
312:
261:
964:
939:
832:
580:
567:
369:
282:
242:
197:
86:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1353:
Considering that there's a fast and loose criteria for "researchers", what is the difference.
1052:: there seems to be some amount of invitations to hand-picked editors to comment on this AfD
1520:
1401:
815:
776:
628:
421:
395:
258:
Either make it a category or an article on public opinion, but as both it's too unspecific.
1443:
1058:
880:
792:
732:
720:
707:
552:
by using controlling discussion to slant things to fit whatever agenda he is working from.
549:
274:
1361:
sort - engineer or scientist - for all analyses of the many aspects of the 9/11 attacks.
273:
The scope is very, very, very simple: If they have questioned or rejected a part of the
1623:
1591:
1552:
1261:
763:
332:
1605:
1536:
1494:
1038:
743:
496:
452:
413:
365:
116:
230:. Too wide a scope, should it be listing every non-notable 9/11 questioner ever? --
1511:
1307:
978:
870:
697:
683:
653:
513:
434:
404:
382:
302:
232:
153:
120:
938:
I see above that someone has already made the category, so currently we have both.
1223:
1177:
1168:
1109:
There you go again trying to refactor the discussion. I am not asserting that "
1091:
930:
917:
889:
811:
802:
624:
591:
553:
456:
417:
391:
349:
85:, and probably others. This should be a category (if that), not a list article.
1459:
1376:
545:
United States President George W. Bush speech to Congress on September 20 2001
448:
336:
641:
443:
217:
184:
171:
139:
1332:. But, these two articles are too similar and overlapping to have both. --
1413:"If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority."
1362:
991:
644:
arguement. Could you please explain to me why this is those things, but
953:
916:
to tread carefully before taking the extreme step of actual deletion.
706:
This is not the correct place for sending a message to another editor.
368:
by the user who created. Plus as previously mention it is redundant.--
260:
Upon further consideration of the examples your cited, just delete. --
1519:
redundant because there is nowhere for non-researchers to be listed.
1417:
not an engineer, he was a metallurgist, working in a research setting
106:, until it was broken out so it would not dominated the article, see
152:
be listed among them? Also, this list would dominate that article.--
1260:. While this is better than a category, in terms of being able to
1211:
that the collapse of all 3 buildings was caused by the aircraft.
430:
429:
None sense, the 9/11 articles are no more walled gardens than the
1634:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1467:
957:
619:. What we have here, ladies and germs, is, at best, a great big
328:
665:
great big phony comparison, which is a list of practitioners?
575:
The only parts of the discussion that have been deleted are
1019:
All of this is original research, nn, and violates WP:RS.
256:. This is a silly article with no standards for inclusion.
652:, or, at worst, essentially celebrity endorsement list"?--
623:, or, at worst, essentially celebrity endorsement list. --
381:
You dont own things in wikipedia, for your information. --
412:
You constant attempts to create a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
390:
Doesn't appear that you've figured that out yourself. --
1197:
1196:
appear to me to be censoring me by selective archival:
1076:
1073:
1055:
1053:
961:
828:
589:
576:
483:. This matter can be better covered on other articles.
588:
This is an example of the deletions I am speaking of:
1565:
John Seigenthaler Sr. Knowledge biography controversy
1330:
People questioning the official American 9/11 account
60:
People questioning the official American 9/11 account
1508:
Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
1372:
Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11
1326:
Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
1266:
Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
100:
Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
75:
Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
858:People who question the 9/11 Commission's findings
1442:far too wide of a scope to ensure any notability
844:nothing but add clutter to non-list articles. --
640:Wow, that was a great example of the use of term
1644:). No further edits should be made to this page.
680:People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account
403:Because? What do you base your accusation on?--
214:Category:People questioning official 9/11 story
68:People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account
1078:to users with expressed bias on the issue. --
8:
1294:Could you please elaborate on how a list of
1302:redundant? Maybe you imply that all peopla
364:the article is just going to eventually be
1549:"questioning the official account of 9/11"
1003:What constitutes the status quo, then? --
1130:"users with expressed bias on the issue"
216:, I'm switching to keep on the list. --
1324:I would be okay with moving/renaming
7:
1423:As the History Channel describes it:
331:...if anything remains, store it at
599:They were archived, not deleted. --
952:I see that your first edit was on
696:MONGO, stop deleting the polls! --
24:
1458:
1268:. Also, I think these are all
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1134:"people with known viewpoints"
1132:and as a member of a group of
1128:both as one of a group of (2)
856:But can we change the name to
1:
108:Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement#List
44:The result of the debate was
1159:All I am asking is that you
1264:, it still is redundant to
1661:
1627:09:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1609:18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1595:18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1583:17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1556:17:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1540:18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1524:15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1498:18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1480:23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1433:20:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1405:21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1397:Merge or, otherwise, Keep
1384:23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1366:22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1348:20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1320:20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1311:20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1288:17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1249:00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1227:23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1191:22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1181:22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1172:19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1105:18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1095:18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1083:16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1062:09:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1045:03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1024:23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
1008:22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
995:22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
982:21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
968:07:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
943:13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
934:07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
921:07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
893:07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
884:15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
874:09:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
865:07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
849:07:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
836:06:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
819:06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
806:18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
796:03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
780:01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
767:22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
755:19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
736:16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
724:15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
711:15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
701:14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
687:10:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
678:I renamed the article to
657:10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
632:10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
604:23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
595:23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
584:21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
571:19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
557:18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
517:03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
500:03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
488:22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
464:18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
438:14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
425:06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
408:11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
399:10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
386:22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
373:21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
353:18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
340:20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
316:20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
306:17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
265:17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
249:17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
221:00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
201:18:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
188:17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
175:17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
157:17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
143:17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
124:16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
90:15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
53:14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
1637:Please do not modify it.
299:List of people by belief
32:Please do not modify it.
648:is not a " a great big
112:Scholars for 9/11 Truth
83:Scholars for 9/11 Truth
1270:Category:Living people
646:List of transhumanists
287:List of transhumanists
1050:Note to closing admin
579:. See the talk page.
1126:has characterised me
914:all the more reason
650:appeal to authority
621:appeal to authority
541:9/11 Truth Movement
509:9/11 Truth Movement
136:9/11 Truth Movement
104:9/11 Truth Movement
79:9/11 Truth Movement
485:Capitalistroadster
459:, as possible. --
295:List of communists
291:List of anarchists
279:list of christians
1580:
1477:
1470:
1465:
1345:
1285:
1021:Morton devonshire
283:List of humanists
1652:
1639:
1572:
1473:
1468:
1464:
1462:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1446:
1337:
1298:makes a list of
1277:
1041:
1036:
752:
749:
746:
275:9/11 Commissions
240:
34:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1642:deletion review
1635:
1476:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1306:researchers? --
1166:
1162:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1034:
1032:
1031:per Striver. --
750:
747:
744:
433:articles are.--
238:
73:Redundant with
71:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1658:
1656:
1647:
1646:
1630:
1629:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1542:
1491:
1490:
1483:
1482:
1474:
1436:
1435:
1430:198.207.168.65
1424:
1408:
1407:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1322:
1291:
1290:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1174:
1164:
1160:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1086:
1085:
1065:
1064:
1047:
1026:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
998:
997:
984:
972:
971:
970:
947:
946:
945:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
838:
823:
822:
821:
798:
782:
769:
757:
751:sch•
745:•Jim
738:
726:
713:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
635:
634:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
573:
560:
559:
519:
502:
490:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
440:
376:
375:
358:
357:
356:
355:
343:
342:
333:Yucca Mountain
321:
320:
319:
318:
308:
268:
267:
251:
224:
223:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
191:
190:
162:
161:
160:
159:
127:
126:
70:
65:
63:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1657:
1645:
1643:
1638:
1632:
1631:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1610:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1522:
1518:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1457:
1447:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1418:
1414:
1406:
1403:
1398:
1395:
1394:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1250:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1228:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1071:More lobbying
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1009:
1006:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
993:
988:
985:
983:
980:
976:
973:
969:
966:
962:
959:
955:
951:
948:
944:
941:
937:
936:
935:
932:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
919:
915:
910:
894:
891:
887:
886:
885:
882:
877:
876:
875:
872:
868:
867:
866:
863:
859:
855:
852:
851:
850:
847:
842:
839:
837:
834:
830:
827:
824:
820:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
804:
799:
797:
794:
790:
786:
783:
781:
778:
775:
770:
768:
765:
761:
758:
756:
753:
742:
739:
737:
734:
730:
727:
725:
722:
717:
714:
712:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
699:
688:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
664:
660:
659:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
636:
633:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
614:
605:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
587:
586:
585:
582:
578:
574:
572:
569:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
555:
551:
550:prove a point
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
520:
518:
515:
510:
506:
503:
501:
498:
495:per above. --
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
479:
478:
465:
462:
458:
454:
453:Charlie Sheen
450:
445:
441:
439:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
423:
419:
415:
414:walled garden
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
354:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
322:
317:
314:
309:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
263:
259:
255:
252:
250:
247:
246:
245:
241:
236:
235:
229:
226:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
208:
202:
199:
195:
194:
193:
192:
189:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
168:
158:
155:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
145:
144:
141:
137:
133:
125:
122:
118:
117:List of lists
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
94:
93:
92:
91:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
66:
62:
61:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1636:
1633:
1622:per Kmf164.
1619:
1601:
1587:
1560:
1548:
1544:
1532:
1528:
1516:
1512:Amiri Baraka
1503:
1492:
1486:
1439:
1426:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1396:
1358:
1352:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1262:cite sources
1257:
1241:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1146:
1145:
1133:
1129:
1118:
1070:
1049:
1028:
1016:
986:
974:
965:Jersey Devil
949:
940:Tom Harrison
913:
908:
906:
905:
857:
853:
840:
833:Jersey Devil
825:
788:
784:
773:
759:
740:
728:
715:
695:
662:
616:
581:Tom Harrison
568:Tom Harrison
537:Do not merge
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
504:
492:
480:
370:Jersey Devil
361:
324:
257:
253:
243:
233:
231:
227:
209:
198:Tom Harrison
166:
164:
163:
131:
129:
128:
95:
87:Tom Harrison
72:
58:
50:Sam Blanning
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1533:Researchers
1521:TheGrappler
1402:Normal nick
1296:researchers
777:Thatcher131
457:A.J. Hammer
1377:Kevin Ryan
1355::::--: -->
1059:Weregerbil
881:Bridesmill
793:Peter Grey
733:Bridesmill
721:Weregerbil
708:Weregerbil
449:Erica Jong
1624:Sandstein
1592:noosphere
1553:noosphere
1246:Hyperbole
862:Hyperbole
846:Hyperbole
785:Weak keep
764:noosphere
642:straw man
461:Hyperbole
444:Star Trek
1606:Aminorex
1578:contribs
1537:Aminorex
1495:Aminorex
1343:contribs
1283:contribs
829:See here
801:fiction.
497:Khoikhoi
167:Comment:
1602:Comment
1588:Comment
1561:Comment
1545:Comment
1529:Comment
1308:Striver
1242:Comment
1218:as fact
1039:iva1979
979:Rhobite
954:April 4
950:Comment
879:either.
871:Striver
854:Comment
826:Comment
774:delete.
698:Striver
684:Striver
654:Striver
524:revised
514:SkeenaR
435:Striver
405:Striver
383:Striver
303:Striver
154:Striver
121:Striver
1620:Delete
1551:. --
1454:Jester
1440:Delete
1300:people
1258:Delete
1224:Pedant
1208:theory
1178:Pedant
1169:Pedant
1092:Pedant
1017:Delete
931:Utunga
918:Utunga
890:Utunga
812:Calton
803:Pedant
741:Delete
729:Delete
716:Delete
625:Calton
617:Delete
592:Pedant
554:Pedant
533:expand
493:Delete
481:Delete
418:Calton
392:Calton
362:Delete
350:Pedant
327:using
325:Delete
254:Delete
228:Delete
132:Delete
1567:. --
1506:with
1504:Merge
1475:Fire!
1411:: -->
1410:: -->
1359:right
1161:MONGO
1120:MONGO
1111:MONGO
577:these
507:with
505:Merge
431:Bahai
366:owned
337:MONGO
138:. --
16:<
1574:talk
1569:Aude
1487:Keep
1451:SWAT
1381:Mmx1
1339:talk
1334:Aude
1317:Mmx1
1279:talk
1274:Aude
1202:fact
1188:Mmx1
1165:Mmx1
1124:Mmx1
1115:Mmx1
1102:Mmx1
1080:Mmx1
1029:Keep
1005:Mmx1
987:Keep
975:Keep
958:2006
909:Keep
841:Keep
816:Talk
760:Keep
682:. --
663:your
629:Talk
601:Mmx1
535:and
531:and
529:Keep
455:and
451:and
422:Talk
396:Talk
329:MOAB
313:Mmx1
297:and
262:Mmx1
234:Rory
218:JJay
210:Keep
185:JJay
172:JJay
140:JJay
96:Keep
48:. --
1517:not
1469:Aim
1363:Bov
1328:to
1304:are
1213:You
992:Bov
960:.
831:.--
539:as
1581:)
1576:|
1346:)
1341:|
1286:)
1281:|
1163:,
1122:,
1113:,
1100:--
1075:,
956:,
814:|
789:is
748:62
627:|
420:|
394:|
335:--
293:,
289:,
285:,
281:,
244:96
130:*
110:.
98:.
81:,
77:,
1571:(
1445:⇒
1375:(
1336:(
1276:(
1035:S
907:*
521:(
239:0
165::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.