Talk:Q10806
Autodescription — September 11 attacks (Q10806)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “September 11 attacks” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Disputed statement[edit]
@Раммон: You added a contentious property regarding the supposed "organisers" of the attack as Saudi Arabia. This is mere speculation and not universally acknowledged. To add this in such a way is simply incongruous with Wikidata. Gotitbro (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is not a speculation. Раммон (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Al-Qaeda is widely acknowledged perpetrator of the attack which was not even listed on this item (I added that later). The Saudi role is alleged by some people in the US. I quote from the English Wikipedia:
- Although unconfirmed, there are allegations of Saudi Arabian involvement in the attacks. The primary evidence is the content of the 28 redacted pages of the 2002 Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. These 28 pages contain information regarding the material and financial assistance given to the hijackers and their affiliates leading up to the attacks by the Saudi Arabian government.
- And the Russian Wikipedia for that matter:
- Террористи́ческие акты 11 сентября́ 2001 го́да (или 9/11) — серия из четырёх координированных террористических актов-самоубийств, совершённых в Соединённых Штатах Америки членами террористической организации «Аль-Каида» предположительно при поддержке Саудовской Аравии.
- To add allegations/speculations as fact on Wikidata is simply egregious. Gotitbro (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Assertion about the fact that officials of Saudi Arabia organized the attacks is in official investigation report, that is described in the article and in official US foreign office's claim: "The Saudi government still says it had no connection to the hijackers. Newly released classified information proves otherwise." Раммон (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the difference between an allegation and a "widely accepted" statement of fact. You are trying to add to the item the latter, this is simply not done. We don't have a property for alleged perpetrators which is what you're trying to add. You should have probably submitted a proposal for such a property rather than disrupting this item as such. Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- And how do you determine whether a fact is "widely accepted" or not? Раммон (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the difference between an allegation and a "widely accepted" statement of fact. You are trying to add to the item the latter, this is simply not done. We don't have a property for alleged perpetrators which is what you're trying to add. You should have probably submitted a proposal for such a property rather than disrupting this item as such. Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Assertion about the fact that officials of Saudi Arabia organized the attacks is in official investigation report, that is described in the article and in official US foreign office's claim: "The Saudi government still says it had no connection to the hijackers. Newly released classified information proves otherwise." Раммон (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- To add allegations/speculations as fact on Wikidata is simply egregious. Gotitbro (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
When the articles say so and do not use language like "alleged", "accused" etc. In this case it is clear that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks hence that is a widely accepted fact and not merely an accusation/allegation as is the case with Saudi Arabia. Gotitbro (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Which articles? If you mean Wikipedia's articles, then you are wrong because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Раммон (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
If a statement has a reliable source but is disputed, use statement supported by (P3680) and statement disputed by (P1310) qualifiers to indicate the entity that supports or disputes the statement; that is the purpose of those qualifiers. Multiple contradictory statements can be present with different statement supported by (P3680) and statement disputed by (P1310) qualifiers if sources do not agree; just be sure that each statement is backed by a reliable source. –LiberatorG (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)