Difference between revisions of "Talk:9-11"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Glad to see Patrick exploring 9/11.)
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
:[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick]], welcome to the talk page. A record of our discussions will help readers more than simple reversion and re-reversion of edits. Please do not assume that the [[9-11/Coincidences‎]] page is for 'mere' coincidences (perhaps it would be better entitled [[9-11/'Coincidences‎']]). On its own, the connection you suggest ''could'' be regarded as a 'mere' coincidence, so I placed it alongside other similar material in order to present a more compelling case - since multiple such 'coincidences' become that much more implausible. I'm glad you have decided to explore the connections between these [[deep event]]s - I do not believe the [[Lockerbie]] bombing was an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern. You may wish to work on that page, or perhaps make a ''[[Scottish Mirror]]'' article, and/or post that cover story as a [[Document]] and explore its implications. As a relative newcomer to 9/11, you may be interested to listen to [http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/568 a broadcast I made on its 10th anniversary]. For further study of [[9-11]] I can also recommend the material on [http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/911 this page]. Since you have until very recently "studiously avoided" the topic, remember that you may still have a lot to learn about it. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (IST)
 
:[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick]], welcome to the talk page. A record of our discussions will help readers more than simple reversion and re-reversion of edits. Please do not assume that the [[9-11/Coincidences‎]] page is for 'mere' coincidences (perhaps it would be better entitled [[9-11/'Coincidences‎']]). On its own, the connection you suggest ''could'' be regarded as a 'mere' coincidence, so I placed it alongside other similar material in order to present a more compelling case - since multiple such 'coincidences' become that much more implausible. I'm glad you have decided to explore the connections between these [[deep event]]s - I do not believe the [[Lockerbie]] bombing was an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern. You may wish to work on that page, or perhaps make a ''[[Scottish Mirror]]'' article, and/or post that cover story as a [[Document]] and explore its implications. As a relative newcomer to 9/11, you may be interested to listen to [http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/568 a broadcast I made on its 10th anniversary]. For further study of [[9-11]] I can also recommend the material on [http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/911 this page]. Since you have until very recently "studiously avoided" the topic, remember that you may still have a lot to learn about it. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (IST)
 +
 +
::Scrupulous curtesy and reason from Robin as usual. I understand Patrick's single-minded concentration on Lockerbie and have the greatest respect for his encyclopedaic knowledge of the affair. The fruits of his research remain very welcome on Wikispooks. All that said, his tendency to place Lockerbie-related information in the lede sections of pages where its relevance to the page subject is at best marginal, I consider confusing and counter-productive. I could easily cite similar linkages between a whole raft of other deep events, but the ledes of their respective pages is rarely - if ever -  the place to do so. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (IST)
  
 
== SMWDocs Issue? ==
 
== SMWDocs Issue? ==

Revision as of 07:08, 4 July 2015

Lockerbie link to 9-11

9/11 is a topic which until very recently I have studiously avoided. On 30 June 2015, I finally uncovered the Scottish Mirror article of 11 September 2001 that I remembered reading with incredulity fourteen long years ago. A friend had sent me the link but it was lost somehow over the years. Googling the press on that date only turned up secondary sources or links to 9/11 articles. Then Eureka! On 30 June 2015, I stumbled across the BBC News report of 11 September 2001 "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" and there was the long lost Scottish Mirror front page. Straightaway I wrote a second letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe referring to the Heathrow break-in and the Scottish Mirror revelations. I also mounted email, Facebook and Twitter campaigns that have all been well received.

On 2 July 2015, my first edit to the 9/11 page which introduced this missing Lockerbie link was deleted and relegated to one of the mere 9-11/Coincidences‎. My second edit on 3 July, again deleted, introduced the idea of George H W Bush and the CIA's complicity in both attacks:

Lockerbie led by South Africa's Civil Cooperation Bureau; and,
9/11 led by Mossad.

I would urge Robin to reconsider, unprotect the 9/11 page and link it as I have suggested to its terrorist predecessor Pan Am Flight 103.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2015 (IST)

Patrick, welcome to the talk page. A record of our discussions will help readers more than simple reversion and re-reversion of edits. Please do not assume that the 9-11/Coincidences‎ page is for 'mere' coincidences (perhaps it would be better entitled 9-11/'Coincidences‎'). On its own, the connection you suggest could be regarded as a 'mere' coincidence, so I placed it alongside other similar material in order to present a more compelling case - since multiple such 'coincidences' become that much more implausible. I'm glad you have decided to explore the connections between these deep events - I do not believe the Lockerbie bombing was an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern. You may wish to work on that page, or perhaps make a Scottish Mirror article, and/or post that cover story as a Document and explore its implications. As a relative newcomer to 9/11, you may be interested to listen to a broadcast I made on its 10th anniversary. For further study of 9-11 I can also recommend the material on this page. Since you have until very recently "studiously avoided" the topic, remember that you may still have a lot to learn about it. Robin (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (IST)
Scrupulous curtesy and reason from Robin as usual. I understand Patrick's single-minded concentration on Lockerbie and have the greatest respect for his encyclopedaic knowledge of the affair. The fruits of his research remain very welcome on Wikispooks. All that said, his tendency to place Lockerbie-related information in the lede sections of pages where its relevance to the page subject is at best marginal, I consider confusing and counter-productive. I could easily cite similar linkages between a whole raft of other deep events, but the ledes of their respective pages is rarely - if ever - the place to do so. --Peter P (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (IST)

SMWDocs Issue?

I wonder why the Related Documents section of this page doesn't reflect the Property:Display docType of the documents listed... Robin (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2014 (GMT)

I've noticed that before and often. If you refresh one of the listed pages, then return here and refresh it, it will display the correct type. I originally thought it was a job queue issue, but I don't think it is now since the incorrect displays have survived several hard cache clears and data rebuilds. I've just confirmed the behaviour again on the top item it the list --Peter P (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2014 (GMT)