Talk:Lisa Beamer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was the subject of a previous vote for deletion. An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Loose Change? 2 Terrorist Word 3 "Hero" 4 Incorrect trademark filing date? 5 Minor Controversy? 6 Where's the Todd Beamer Page? 7 Clean up 8 Foundation closed

[edit] Loose Change?

I hope nobody minds, but I'm removing the link to "Loose Change", a "9/11 documentary." When I hit the link, I see the description "A one hour analysis of 9/11 and how it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks." I'm not trying to censor, but this is pretty extreme conspiracy theory here. In any case, it's got nothing to do with Todd Beamer, so I'm taking it out. Staecker 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you made a move to remove the above-mentioned link, but "pretty extreme conspiracy theory" is a misguided statement on your part......

Then consider me misguided, too. It's pretty extreme to accuse the president of the United States of having pre-event knowledge of the death of 3,000 U.S. citizens. It's an outright accusation of murder in the 1st degree. The presentations and a kind of "proof" of Loose Change, and other pretty extreme conspiracy theories, leave proponents in the unenviable position of claiming that the whole world must be in denial or asleep. These same proponents fanatically deface everything they can, such as this Wikipedia entry, in the belief that they are waking up the public to their still unproven version of events. For a "not pretty extreme" conspiracy theory, as you suggest, it sure attracts a lot of pretty extreme people who will go to pretty extreme lengths to gain fellow extremists. --71.243.71.244 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Word

Hi everybody. I'm in any way in favor of the 9-11 hijackers, but in strict compilance with Wikipedias NPOV, I removed the word terrorists from the depictment of the final act made by Todd Beamer. Since no neutral (non-U.S.) enquire has been made, and so, no neutral entity has found a conection between Al-Qaeda and the United 93 hijackers, it's incorrect to call them terrorists. Also no formal terror organization acknowledge the attack, and no formal terror group claimed responsability (which ocurrs after every known terrorist attack). So it's just the words of the Washington, which has since eroded its credibility since the WMD haox in Iraq. Hope you understand. --200.78.252.50 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is unsupported. The idea that the only credible source that could establish the United 93 hijackers to Al Quaeda would be a non-U.S. source is fallacious. The FBI determined the identity of all 19 hijackers, and they were working for Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden even admitted his involvement in the attacks on videotape. The idea that the investigations that have gleaned all this information is somehow suspect because of the Bush Administration's unproven WMD allegations in Iraq is a non-sequitur. You might want to check out Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks for more details. Nightscream 00:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hero"

Certainly don't want to demean the memory of this man, but does the phrase "he died a hero..." seem out of place to anyone else? Not to say I wouldn't agree with calling the man a hero, for what he seems to have done on 9/11, but it doesn't seem in keeping with NPOV, and the facts seem to speak for themselves. Louiebb 04:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree although I also consider his actions heroic. The term "hero" got bandied about to excess after 9/11 in order to comfort the grieving and to inspire those angered. In the public limelight, it's fine. But for a Wikipedia entry, I agree with Louie and would find it more appropriate to say something like, "His actions were considered heroic by many." After all, a heroic action doesn't necessarily a hero make. Fact is, Beamer could have just had a stronger survival instinct than most and just couldn't allow himself to get taken quietly. I say change it to something more like, "His heroic actions that day..." or something similar and let the rest of his life speak for itself for anyone who wishes to further pursue. --71.243.71.244 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect trademark filing date?

It appears to me from the Let's Roll trademark application reference that the trademark filing date was September, 26th 2001 and not, as stated in the article, December, 4th 2001 which is given as the date the application was first assigned to the examiner. 62.31.116.126 14:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Controversy?

I would like to see this presented with a little less POV. Having an organization's reputation be cast in doubt via Wikipedia simply because they did not make quota to be considered a charitable organization by the Better Business Bureau does not a "minor controversy" make. ESPECIALLY when the Better Business Bureau is NOT any way, shape or form related to the government or present itself as any kind of legal body.

The Better Business Bureau is simply an independent organization that creates standards which, if met, allow businesses/charities to associate themselves with it. In the eyes of some people, this adds to the credibility of the associated business but NOT meeting the BBB's standards does NOT detract from the business nor does it equate the business as being of "minor controversy." As a member of a prominent family business for 30+ years, it was a well known fact that the BBB can not, and does not, ever guarantee the validity or honesty of a business. They can only tell you whether or not the business has met their standards OR whether or not the BBB has received any complaints against the business.

This does not constitute "minor controversy" and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Todd Beamer Foundation so that Wikipedia does not become the sole instrument for casting negative light on it (or anything else, for that matter).

Also, trademarking a phrase and licensing it does not a controversy make. That's just how BUSINESS works. The criteria for "minor controversy" shouldn't be the fact that "maybe somewhere, some people" don't like something. Otherwise, anyone can say they don't like something and immediately it would qualify for the shadow-casting label, "minor controversy." --71.243.71.244 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the Todd Beamer Page?

Why does Todd Beamer redirect here [1]? A google search on his name yields a quarter million hits. The guy has a high school named after him [2]. It's silly that he doesn't get one lousy wikipedia page. Steve8675309 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• He can have a "lousy wikipedia page" if there are sources. The point is that this article, at present, talks primarily about his wife. If you know more about them than I do (which is quite easy) you are welcome to fix that. >Radiant< 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I have tried to copy edit this article andd have added some cite tags. Thanks, --Tom 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation closed

I added a note that the Beamer Foundation/Heroic Choices has apparently gone belly-up. I tried to attach citations, but screwed up. Apologies for my incompetence. Here's the link, if someone can do it properly: http://nptimes.com/07Feb/news-070212-1.html76.195.10.74 (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)