Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ǢżųÛŲẳ

Archive 50 ← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 → Archive 60


"Conspiracy theorists question the accepted version"

This does not sound right. Shouldn't it be: "Conspiracy theorists question the 'official' version" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) --96.59.49.25 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC) The result of the discussion was to use "accepted" IIRC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What does "IIRC" mean? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist question everything. That's why they're conspiracy theorists. 'Half'Shadow 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. Now that I think about it, what if we changed it to "Conspiracy theorists question what they call 'the official version'."? Not sure if we have a source for that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)[10.20] 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was changed to accepted b/c official is the CT term for what is accepted by the vast majority of academic and reliable sources to be correct. We decided to stop kow-towing to CTs and describe the situation accurately. Soxwon (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the media use the term accepted? The mainstream media certainly dont seem to use the term and they dont even appear to have a term for it at all and tend to use official when mentioning CTs. You need to state by who if you only use accepted but the most commonly used terms by the debunking websites that support the offical theory are generally accepted or widely accepted. Generally is too ambiguous for me although widely seems ok. Mainstream is ok as that gets a lot of use and I see nothing wrong with official as that is what it is. I dont see it as "kow-towing" as it is the most common term and is NPOV. Throwing in the vast majority red herring is not helpfull as there are no statistics in support. From what I have read the vast majority of academic sources have not commented publicly on any theory at all. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Academia provides less coverage of the "truthers" moronic fables than we do here...at least in print.--MONGO 14:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The mainstream media doesn't have a term for it because there is no dispute over the facts. It's like saying "According to the official version, the Earth is round". Who would say such a thing besides flat-Earthers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Not the same thing as there are large groups of people including scholars who do not believe in the official story about 9-11, while there aren't large groups of people and scholars who believe that the earth is flat.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:RS source that you want to base your edit on? Shrike (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"Scholars"...thats a laugh. The only thing they seem adept at is trying to make a buck writing wacko books they peddle at their wacko meetups.--MONGO 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
See for example this: "International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11" [1] look at the image there: [2]. Its clear that significant portions of people around the world do not believe in the official story, also see this list of scholars:[3], So "official" or "mainstream" would better present the situation then "accepted". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Who gives a crap what people believe...this article is based on what is proven...its not our fault that lots of people believe in UFO's or Bigfoot...even though neither, just like the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories, have any basis in fact! The "scholars"...I know all about them...and so what...none of their opinions make it into engineering journals or the scientific literature and if they are mentioned at all it usually so real scientists can get a laugh out of them.--MONGO 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness: If you haven't already, I think you should take the time to read up on our policies such as verifiability and neutral point of view. We're not supposed to write articles based on what the average person thinks. Instead, we rely on reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't decide now much weight to give different theories by examining popular opinion. There are plenty of polls out there which show large percentages of the general public believing in a wide variety of ridiculous, debunked or disproven propositions. If we based our article content on such polls we would quickly become a laughing stock. What we are interested in is what reliable sources say about the subject, and very few such sources give any credibility to the conspiracy theories. The few that even mention them generally do so from a "look what silly things people believe" angle. If a major media organisation does a report about 9/11 they are very unlikely to mention the conspiracy theories. If a historian or other academic writes about 9/11 they are also unlikely to mention them. In light of this "accepted" is the most accurate term to use. Choosing "official" (whatever that is supposed to mean) vastly overstates the credibility of the alternatives. Hut 8.5 21:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, we are not talking about a petition signed by the general public so that arguement fails. How can "accepted" be the most accurate term when reliable sources dont use it and apart from a few editors here no one else either. Doesn't that make it WP:OR? The reliable sources are clear, we have generally accepted, widely accepted, mainstream and official as the most widely used. Flat Earth, UFOs and Bigfoot are straw man arguements so they can be discounted. And for the record, I like hearing from MONGO. He doesn't even pretend to be NPOV indicating that at least one editor is being honest. Wayne (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Wayne, I like hearing from you too..I love everyone...but that doesn't mean I agree with you! From my knowledge base on the 9/11 issues, the conspiracy theories regarding the events are just as preposterous as UFO's...maybe even more so since UFO's COULD exist but the 9/11 CTs are can be proven to be bogus. There is no reason for me to be/act/pretend neutrality when faced with such utter nonsense as the 9/11 CTs. I reject non-science when I have real science to rely on.--MONGO 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well you didn't provided WP:RS either or did I missed something?--Shrike (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Firstly, we are not talking about a petition signed by the general public so that arguement fails. Er, no. Supreme Deliciousness cited [4], which is an opinion poll of the general public. He did also cite [5], which is a list of "scholars" questioning the accepted/mainstream/official version. Policy doesn't give any weight to such lists, and for good reason. I have seen similar dodgy creationist lists, which exhibited several flaws: most of the people on the list had no experience in relevant fields, people had been placed on the list without their knowledge or consent, the statement endorsed by the people on the list could be endorsed by someone who didn't accept creationism, and there was no comparable list of scientists supporting evolution.

Even leaving out such problems the list at [6] is laughable. "Degrees" listed include: "Master Theorethical Physics", "finance", "Law", "DDS Dr of Dental Surgery", "Student", "B.A. Film/Television Critical Studies", "Just Highschool", "4 GCSE", "Doctor of Chiropractic", "Licensed Clinical Social Worker", "love for humanity in my brain and my heart" etc. I can't see any reason why these people are any more qualified to comment on 9/11 than laypeople. Even the people with doctorates are often in such fields as religious studies, evolutionary biology, literature etc that have little or nothing to with 9/11.

"Widely accepted" and "generally accepted" are really just minor variations on "accepted", which doesn't mean "universally accepted". What external sources say isn't that important when it comes down to the exact wording used, because we are bound by editorial policies such as WP:WEIGHT whereas most media organisations aren't. I suppose "mainstream" would be an acceptable alternative, but "official" is just a device used by conspiracy theorists to make their arguments look more impressive (and yes, I have a source for that [7]). Hut 8.5 14:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A home handyman magazine is hardly an authority and it uses the term generally accepted anyway.Wayne (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That's an argument against mentioning the petition or the term "official". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Not sure what was going on in this section - but its not at all constrictive to be engaged in a conflict on the page its self and noone is here talking. I have been bold and taken this by the horn - i have simply added the lead from the main article (that has been somewhat stable and is sourced) for the section here. If people object pls lets talk this out --here on the tlak page - Again the current version is sourced if there is a problem..... Moxy (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a good version, for several reasons. First of all, many of the sources are conspiracy theory sites. Better sources can be found. Then the second sentence talks about some international poll - although it's good to mention this pool, there are also many US polls, see September 11 attacks opinion polls, is it not important what's the opinion of people within the U.S.? Maybe it would be best to link to the whole article. Then the source for the claim that the "controlled demolition conspiracy" is the most prominent one is a conspiracy theory site itself. And it is worth noting that a 2006 Scripps poll shows that less than half of the people who believe the U.S. government was involved in the attacks or did not stop them on purpose believe the towers were detonated. --V111P (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a proposed text for the section with sources? I see the poll was removed (with cause) any other suggestions? Moxy (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems fine the way it is. Is there a specific problem? I think there's a sizable minority that would like to see if removed all together. RxS (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also like it to be gone - however it is a well documented aspect (be it right or wrong) that has permeated in the culture surrounding the attacks. Most writers today have no choice but to mention this aspect of things as with Damico, Amy M (2010). September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. Greenwood. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-313-35505-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) PS we should use this as a ref for this section ....Moxy (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{Ec}I think we should delete this section entirely. Aside from the previously discussed issue with WP:ONEWAY, it essentially amounts to a "In popular culture" section with the exception that the only thing about popular culture it covers are conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Its just hard to dismiss because of the coverage it has had - that just wont go away - just as with John F. Kennedy assassination#Assassination conspiracy theories. And if some one is reading up on this topic the "conspiracy" may be of interest to them - lets guide them to the main article with a small intro and let them make there own conclusions. Our readers are not dumb they will see the "conspiracy article" thus the section here holds no merits (as indicated in the section here its self). Moxy (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that most of the non-WP:RS sources in the current version of that section rather provide examples for the content of that section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article should not even have sources. The lead itself only summarizes the content of the body text (which itself should be sourced). As Moxy stated, the lead section was rather stable at the sub-article, so the default assumption would be that it is a valid summary, unless there are specific objections.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a very rough first stab:

The impact of 9/11 extends beyond the geopolitical realm into American popular culture. Nearly every area of popular culture has been affected the attacks and reveals how these events influenced ordinary people. Immediate responses to 9/11 included nesting, higher church attendence, and increased patriotism such as the flying of flags . Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in books, television shows, films and songs. Already running shows such as The West Wing or 24 - as well as post 9/11 programs such as Rescue Me and Lost reflect post-9/11 cultural concerns. Oliver Stone released World Trade Center and Loose Change helped spawn the 9/11 Truth Movement. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play lists and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks. Alan Jackson's "Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning", for example, (need to add more detail here).

Most, if not all of this, can be sourced to the aforementioned book. Amazon lets you download the first chapter for free. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

One main problem i see and would wish to avoid - is a "popular culture" type section altogether - we have no need to mention things like so and so song was... or such and such a TV episode was about or the film by Thailand director was...... This is not a music article or a culture article. Lets stick to what is relevant and not open the door to a section that would contain trivial information at best . As seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture this type of sections lead to problems and grow in size beyond what is sometimes manageable Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. We need to keep this as scholarly as possible. Moxy (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It's already a popular culture section. 9/11 conspiracy theories is not a scholarly viewpoint. The easiest way to fix it is to delete the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that report that 9/11 has changed popular culture, while this is not true for many other events which sometimes have simply added some spurious gossip to popular culture.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That might make an interesting section, but we'd need to be careful to stick to quality sources discussing the effect the attacks had on culture. Rather than "so-and-so says their song was inspired by 9/11," we'd be looking at cites specifically describing/discussing changes in culture directly derived from the attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hiding (deleting section) does not solve the problem at hand. Agree - no need for grade 4 additions talking about Justin Bieber inspiration for his latest love song - would need to represent actual cultural impact (changed) that have occurred - like security changes, views on Muslims since the attacks.. etc . Moxy (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the section should be removed and I see no connection between the 9/11 conspiracy theories and the things that are in the Popular culture sections in other articles. The existence of the conspiracy theories have been discussed by many reliable sources "in a serious and prominent way" and a short section here definitely doesn't give the topic an undue weight. --V111P (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think, RxS, you are wrong to remove text with the argument "there is an article for that" - almost all of the sections here have a main article, should we then remove all the text from this article and just give the links to the others? --V111P (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source about 9/11 which also discusses conspiracy theories in a serious and prominent way. We tried looking for some not too long ago and came up emtpy. The best anyone could come up with was the book, 9/11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. Why would 9/11 in Popular Culture: A Guide be a better source than, for example, Popular Mechanics's Debunking 9/11 Myths? --V111P (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories which is a related, but nevertheless, a different topic than the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Most of the article is not about the attacks themselves, there is even a section on rebuilding the WTC site (#6) and one on the history of Al-Qaeda (#2.1). --V111P (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving on - so the majority are happy with the change in the section and overall think it should stay- any more suggestions beside blanking the section.Moxy (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now, we have 2 valid options: rewrite the section to include other aspects of 9/11's impact on popular culture or delete the section. I'm open to either solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I understated your trying to diminish the topic, however as seen above (by multiple comments) your "popular culture" idea is not getting to much enthusiasm nor is the blanking idea as seen by the recent poll type thing above before i got here. So lets move on and think of what refs we can use that are better (as this is a valid argument) - Y dont we include refs that mention the conspiracy theories - yet at the same time prove them wrong - there is no shortage of refs on this - I have accesses to 100 of books on this topic (happen to be making a course paper about it)Moxy (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The only part that should stay that can be referenced is the part about controlled demolition since that was discussed, albeit only briefly compared to the primary analysis perfomed by NIST...otherwise, the rest is simply conjecture since self published websites are useless and organizations like the AE for Truth (the truthers) isn't recognized by any reputable engineering or architectural organization.--MONGO 03:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Great job truly screwing up the section adding references from unreliable conspiracy theory self published websites...kudos! I am truly impressed...the purpose of adding the cite tags was to demonstrate that their are NO reliable references except those sources that repute the insanity of the 9/11 CTs...now you went and added links in this mainstream article to 9/11 conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 03:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I see this is a heated debate - would be best to assume good faith and not yell at the new comers to the page - So again lets see what can be done rather then defacing the article - as mentioned a few times now the majority would like to see the section -- So how can we make it better as better sources can be found (as seen above we can use refs that debunk the conspiracy theories well mentioning them at the same time.Moxy (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your disaster...we don't use self published websites by conspiracy theorists...Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a CT website..self publish, not peer reviewed....Physics 9/11...self published...not peer reviewed...linking to a pay subscription is frowned on...not readily available or usable...a website "The 911 Commissions Incredible Tales">>>no way..thats junk science! I already said how to streamline it...only NIST and engineering literature has even touched the CT topic..and all they do is refute it...the self published websites aren't reliable sources for anything...I can make a self published website!--MONGO 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well i see your not one that someone can deal with -- i will fix it up.Moxy (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Likewise...you made a mess...if you keep adding links to unreliable conspiracy theory websites you'll be seen for what it is, POV pushing conspiracy theories...and probably be topic banned....here....use the following link ....[8]...from a published source, respected and well known..those are the reliable sources.--MONGO 03:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Moxy try this: [9]...it fit reliability policy.--MONGO 04:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Very disappointing to see a long time editor threaten people with bans when they are clearly engaged in talks to try and held fix the problem at hand - Anyways -- so i take it you dont fine the refs below subtitle? AS i only use books for references - not web site if possible Moxy (talk)
What i expect is a good attitude and not to be mock and insulted - but rather talked to in a polite manner (i dont take kindly to bullies) - so again what do you think of the refs above. And i have a secondary question who do you believe will write about conspiracies - perhaps a conspiracy theorist?Moxy (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary you did after my edit was an insult...every word you have said since was an insult....conspiracy theorists can't write objectively about the cultural aspects...especially when they title their book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory". I already said what I thought about the refs above...the only part that can stay in the section is the part about controlled demolition since that is the only thing that has been "officially" refuted by engineers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by every reputable engineering manual...in the case of the latter, they refute the work of people like Griffin and Jones by simply not publishing it since it is obviously ridiculous. I added the cite needed tags to make a point..their are no reliable references...and then added the part about laser beams being used and other things since it is preposterous but it is still actually believed by the extreme fringe...the issue is a cultural phenomenon, but as far as real engineers and scientists, there is no debate, so laser beams are proportionally just as ludicrus to the engineers as controlled demolition is.--MONGO 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I even object to this book since it simply mocks the truth movements outrageously implausible argument.--MONGO 04:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well i am sorry for my actions --lets start fresh.

Is that not the point with the "conspiracy theorists" is that you will not find good reliable sources- all our readers have to do i see were this info comes from and they will see its a joke - as of now we say this but dont give a context or refs to say were it comes from. To simply add the cite needed tags to illustrate a point is not constructive (and against policy) - We know were this conspiracy ideas come from so y are we not citing them and thus letting our readers come to there own conclusions because they have all the info at hand to do so. As of now you have simply set up the article section so that others will come along and delete it as uncited. I will be honest this looks a bit fishy as in we have something to hide. If "Griffin" ideas are prevalent in this debate overall - we cant simply dismmis it because hes a wakco - Many wakos thorough history have made significant proposals that although crazy have gained a following. I personally have no belief in any conspiracy - but think we cant simply dismiss what has been widely published be them by scholars or not (in books, web, news - documentaries etc...) We should be tackling this head on in this article to prove the conspiracy has no merit - instead we have a section with nothing - that will lead our readers to the other article before any understanding of its context (by way of refs). I think us talking about it here in this article will allow us demonstrate its lack of merit, before more info is sought by way of the other article or out side publications.Moxy (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of a "conspiracy theory" section, why not replace it with a general "criticism" section? That is, criticism not targeting any specific person or group; but just criticism in general associated with the topic. Nothing that humans do is perfect; especially when the matter is as complex as this one. And when things are less than perfect, criticism, in the interest of improvement or correction, is legitimate and should be both expected and welcome. I can find plenty of mainstream-sourced references which could be used for a criticism section. Moxy wrote: We should be tackling this head on in this article to prove the conspiracy has no merit. This is where I think you are dead wrong, for this article and for any other article. It is not Wikipedia's job to "prove" anything. It is Wikipedia's job to document what is known, and let the reader decide for him or herself what is true. It should not try to engage in POV-pushing, advocacy, or debunking; and it should not try to pretend that criticism doesn't exist when it in fact does exist, in considerable volume. Wildbear (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead wrong...so off it is amazing...the "criticism" does NOT EXIST amongst reliable sources...it only exists amongst unreliable fringe advocacy groups...the scientific community has repeatedly labelled the "truthers" as fringe either by outright refuting them or simply ignoring them...and we should be following that lead.--MONGO 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That is my point in saying ""We should be tackling this head on in this article to prove the conspiracy has no merit"" - the facts are all out there - we simply have to show the info - instead we are not doing so, thus giving weight to the conspiracy were this is non - by way of omission.Moxy (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of what? By who? The CT section has been stable for quite sometime now...no need to change it. If there are no objections I'm going to revert back to some random time a couple months ago and we can go from there. RxS (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess a revert "just for the section" to before March 20, 2011 is fine with me. As long as we are not going to fill it with tags to prove a point. Moxy (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretending what doesn't exist? The sections only function is to note that CT's exist. A criticism section doesn't make any sense. RxS (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little late for the discussion, but I'll add my two cents. I agree with RxS. The purpose of the section is to acknowledge the existence of a group of people who believe that, one way or another, someone other than Al-Qaeda was responsible for the events of September 11th. This group's existence is well documented, and their numbers are quite substantial. And though it may be considered fringe and pseudo-science, it is still necessary to acknowledge the movement's existence in order to fully cover the topic at hand. In my opinion, the current treatement is adequate, giving the bear bones without giving out too much detail. Soxwon (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of what? By who? There are so many examples, it would take me hundreds of hours to read through and document them. However, here is a sampling:
The New York Times (2006): 9/11 Panel Members Weren’t Told of Meeting “None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”
Fox News (Oct. 2010): Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings "At least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11."
Washington Post (Mar. 2009): CIA Destroyed 92 Interrogation Tapes, Probe Says Human rights advocates and public interest groups pressed for more details and demanded that the CIA be sanctioned. "The sheer number of tapes at issue demonstrates that this destruction was not an accident," said Amrit Singh, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "There was a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence of what we believe to be illegal conduct."
Salon (Jun. 2003): Bush's 9/11 coverup? Another 9/11 family advocate -- a former Bush supporter who requested anonymity -- was more blunt: "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch this [9/11] commission and prevent it from happening."
UPI (Mar. 2007): Workers allege 9/11 debris not searched "Remains in potholes are a quintessential example of the city's acting with deliberate indifference toward 9/11 family members in recovering remains," Norman Siegel, who represents the group World Trade Center Families for Proper Burial, said in a lawsuit.
New York Times (April 2011): For 9/11 Museum, Dispute Over Victims’ Remains "Now, a dispute over what to do with those remains is simmering between some of the victims’ families and the officials planning the National September 11 Memorial and Museum underneath where the twin towers stood."
Herald Online (March 2011): Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that: "No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks." Also, that "it is not acceptable for a constitutional state...to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation," without first identifying suspects.
This is just a quick sampling. Much more available if needed. Wildbear (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So lets see what refs we can use and other that can be found - because having the article look like this to prove a point is not what we are here to do. Editor after editor has comment on they wish to see this info here - so lets do this properly and give our reader a chance to review the info for themselves. Not set up the section to be deleted by others. As of right now we have [Citation needed] tags that are obviously placed without any-for though or effort to find refs - None of the notions presented by these conspiracy theorists have been published in peer reviewed scientific or reputable engineering journals.[citation needed] this we are aware of and is y we are here and The vast majority of engineers and scientists have identified 9/11 conspiracy theories as fringe science.{Citation needed} again easily referenced - This simply looks like someone is trying to deface the section - clearly not an attempt to help the article but to make sure the section looks invalid.Moxy (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Moxy: You cannot simply ignore the major problem that we're violating WP:ONEWAY. Conspiracy theories are NOT a scholarly viewpoint. If you disagree, fine. Then discuss the problem instead of ignoring it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Then discuss the problem instead of ignoring it??? what do you think we are doing here when showing all this refs -- Again let try and do something about this and not have this all messed up - refs can be found that mention the conspiracy theories without directly using them ..

None of the notions presented by these conspiracy theorists have been published in peer reviewed scientific or reputable engineering journals.'Baildon, Mark (2010). Social Studies as New Literacies in a Global Society: Relational Cosmopolitanism in the Classroom. Routledge. pp. 94–97.
"The vast majority of engineers and scientists have identified 9/11 conspiracy theories as fringe science.'Arnold, Gordon B (2008). Conspiracy theory in film, television, and politics. Praeger. pp. 167–168.
Moxy (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the context of both those sources. Social Studies as New Literacies in a Global Society appears to be about social studies and Conspiracy theory in film, television, and politics appears to be about conspiracy theories. You've provided evidence that our articles on Social studies and Conspiracy theories can include coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Now show me some reliable sources about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that also discuss conspiracy theories in a serious and prominent way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec, partial incorporation, ec) I, for one, am not ignoring WP:ONEWAY. I just don't see how it applies. The current status is a brief summary of what is clearly a relevant subarticle; the phenomenon of these bizarre theories existing is notable, and noted in mainstream descriptions of the attack. WP:FRINGE (of which WP:ONEWAY is a section) is a guideline, which is subject to common sense exceptions, even if the present wording were to suggest it shouldn't be in this article. User:Moxy has supplied some specific references to support the fact that WP:ONEWAY does not apply.
And a "scholarly viewpoint" is irrelevant; in fact a scholarly, or scientific, POV is specifically forbidden by WP:NPOV. (I can't find the essay "Scientific POV" at the the moment, or I would have linked it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE relates to fringe theories in the context of articles about (scientific) theories. This article is about a historic event, its antecedents and its aftermath. The conspiracy theories are mentioned not because of their scientific status, but because of their historical relevance as part of the aftermath of the event itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur:
  • I didn't say "scientific". I said "scholar". Not all scholars are scientists.
  • No one's saying that 9/11 CT aren't notable on their own. But they are not relevant within the context of this article. If they are, then you can easily prove me wrong by providing some reliable sources about 9/11 which also discuss CT. The fact that no one can do so - despite repeated calls -indicates to me that no such sources exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So your saying conspiracy theories as a result of the attack are not relevant to the this article that is about the attack? As for refs - as above has proven - . This is widely written about including the social sciences as you pointed out.Moxy (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's as relevant to this article as Holocaust denial is to the Holocaust or Bigfoot is to Mammal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is that we have to rely on reliable witnesses if we are going to provide a factual account of what happened...the way the section was written before I started adjusting it was as a billboard with no references from reliable sources which stated what various groups think...the advocates for Architects and Engineers for Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth etc, have been using the section and all the subarticles which discuss in detail the conspiracy theories for advocacy of their POV which has no basis in fact, only opinion. So, IF the section has to stay, it needs to be written as a cultural phenomenon issue with a sentence or two discussing the controlled demolition as that WAS refuted by reputable engineer, engineering literature and the NIST. Since we must use reliable sourcing, the non peer reviewed self published advocacy websites fail the smell test. The reliable sources all refute the conspiracy theories as fringe science.--MONGO 15:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"Holocaust denial" does deserve a paragraph in the Holocaust, by the same reasoning. It may be that the conspiracy theory section should be reduced to a paragraph, and that the details of the absurd theories shouldn't be here, but the phenomenon is related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Wildbear and Cs32en have both been advocates for more inclusion of the conspiracy theories about this event. Wildbear thinks it is okay to use Wikipedia as a forum to promote fringe science but it is not okay to refute it for what it is! That is advocacy and POV pushing...there is no POV pushing when one is here defending the facts. Arthur Rubin claims "And a "scholarly viewpoint" is irrelevant; in fact a scholarly, or scientific, POV is specifically forbidden by WP:NPOV."...I didn't see that in the NPOV Policy...if that IS the case, then we need to go to every scientific article and rewrite those from the POV of the fringe???? See......the policy on Pseudoscience and related fringe theories--MONGO 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Arthur Rubin - I believe WP:GEVAL is the relevant section of NPOV that relates to "scholarly views" -"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Nothing there that forbids "scholarly viewpoints" is there? WP:SCICON also deals with this aspect.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Mongo wrote: "Wildbear and Cs32en have both been advocates for more inclusion of the conspiracy theories about this event." For the record, I have a strong dislike for "conspiracy theories", in the commonly used sense of the term. I would not object to the removal of the conspiracy theories section of this article; though I recognize that some would consider such removal as not in keeping with various principles held by Wikipedia. What I do support is having the article provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the 9/11 topic. I don't like conspiracy theories, but I acknowledge that they are a notable part of the topic, and thus appropriate for inclusion in the article. There are other issues, not really "theories", which may cast some individuals and organizations in an unfavorable light. These should not be excluded just because they might cause someone some displeasure. If it's notable and reliably sourced, document it. Hence my proposal for a "criticisms" section. MONGO, you often use the word "facts". In science, there are no facts. There are theories, and there are hypotheses. Theories are recognized as well-established principles, but in science it is recognized that any theory can be superseded at any time if better information becomes available. The word "fact" should be used cautiously when discussing topics within an encyclopedia; just as it should be used cautiously within science. Wildbear (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Wildbear...you have stated, "In science, there are no facts"...and now back to reality.--MONGO 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
For the record I object to any name other than "conspiracy theories". Any other name gives undue weight to their legitimacy, and the vast majority of mainstream sources don't. --Tarage (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, see the guidelines regarding how to deal with Pseudoscience....with examples here. The 9/11 CTs are fringe and should be clearly labelled as such...that is the bottom line.--MONGO 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So can you explain y a ref by a well respected reasercher like Mark Baildon, PhD is being simply dismmised because it talks about a conspiracy. common sence approch would be better - to simply say all that is writen about the topic is fringe - and to not show how it is fringe is not helping our reades understand the topic at hand. Looks like any thing that metions this even in a critical mammner is being dismmised.Moxy (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Moxy...both sources you provided seem to be looking at the cultural phenomenon issue of why conspiracy theories such as 9/11 have adherents...I may be mistaken but Baildon was also examining the impact a non peer reviewed advocacy video (in this case the cartoon called Loose Change) would have impact on its viewers.--MONGO 17:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Moxy: It's not that Mark Baildon's work is being dismissed, it's that it's not relevant to this particular article. Based on what I read, Baildon was researching how people evaluate credibility. That would be a good source in an article on Critical thinking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: Let's use Jimbo's e-mail of Sept 2003 as a guide:
  • What do mainstream history texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream history community on this point?
  • If the viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
  • If the viewpoint is held by a significant minority of historians, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
  • If the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal or references

Its clear i am not getting my point across here. I will try to explain better what it is i am trying to do in solving the problem. As of now there is an odd stalemate - in that text is there but is not allowed to be referenced - does this sound like what any of our policies intended? To sum this up we have a section in the article that i agree should be removed as per all that has been mentioned above! Jimbo's email is a great example of y it should be removed (that i support as i have stated a few times now). However there seems to be no consensus on removing the section despite the policies that have been linked to. Perhaps there should have been a wider talk with more people involed and a better explanation of the inherent problems with the section. But this was not the outcome of the most recent debates in the past year - So we are left with the section that we should try and reference as neutrally as possible (i see i did not do this originally). What should we do? Do we try and get a wider talk going on for the removal of the section entirely - or do we deal with the outcome of the last few talks and add sources. As i have said before [fact tags] are not to be used to prove a point that the concept is invalid. We should demonstrate that the majority of the scientific community does not agree with this by providing refs to this affect instead of just a [fact tag] that does not deal with the problem. If we cant get the section removed we must try a deal with the problem at hand and not just dismiss every attempt at referencing it. I hope what i am saying is more transparent now - in that i wish the section gone - however its there and we should try and deal with it - if not some of you will be back here again when the section is remove and thus proponents reverting this action and/or when references are added and then reverted by opponents of the section. We are currently in no-mans land (the middle ground) - we have text standing in an article that should be removed or referenced. Cant have text we cant references - it needs to be one way or the other not stuck in the middle. Moxy (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If these particular paragraphs would need to be referenced, they would also need to be referenced in the other article, i.e. 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are not referenced there, but have been stable nonetheless because (a) the lead section does not need to be referenced, but must be a neutral summary of the article's content, per WP:LEAD (b) because the people involved at that article (which include many of those who want to see other references here) are generally of the opinion that the lead section is a fair summary of that article. We don't need duplicate references, so if people are of the opinion that any statement in these paragraph is not a valid summary of what is in the other article, they should point out these specific statement, so that they can be discussed here.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
We're not working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article...we're working on the September 11 attacks article.--MONGO 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

MONGO has it right in that this article is not about the CTs. However, it's inevitable that we're going to have people coming to this page looking for the CT debate. I've got a proposal on how to deal with this current situation:

  1. Move this sub-section to the "Long-term Effects" section. It's not really relevant to the "Aftermath" so much as the continuing advocacy by conspiracy theorists.
  2. Rewrite the section to be short and concise. The entire point is to provide a simple summary of the article we're actually directing the reader to (eg. 9/11 conspiracy theories). To that end, I'll propose this wording:
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories exist surrounding the attacks. Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories believe that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was instead demolished with explosives in a controlled demolition. This controlled demolition conspiracy theory is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who, after their research, concluded that the impacts of the airliners at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Towers.[1][2]

I doubt this will satisfy everyone but, it provides the reader with a short, concise summary of the linked article, which is where they should go for more details. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe a CT section belongs in this article at all, but I see no harm in putting the link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the "see also" section. Considering the fact that 911 CTs have been overwhelmingly discredited by just about every mainstream RS I can think of, and the total lack of independent reliable sources connecting the topics in a serious and prominent way, that's about all the attention CTs deserve in this article. Anything more would tend toward undue weight. Shirtwaist (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't want to provide any more weight than necessary. But the fact is, folks are going to come here looking for the CT info. And other folks are going to keep trying to insert CT material here. At least this paragraph sums up why we aren't including it, and gives them links to the relevant articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's better than the current version, but I still think we should just delete the section. If anyone wants to know why CT aren't covered in the article, we can add a new entry to the FAQ and refer them to that. It's not going to stop it, but it won't be any worse than what we have to deal with now with people claiming that the article is biased. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh, no one ever reads the FAQs when they're new. Most wouldn't even know to look for them. I won't object to removing the whole section, but I think my compromise version will be better in the long run. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I know that. But when the topic comes up, we can copy and paste the answer from the FAQ as our response. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, with the stipulation that the section be replaced with a link to the 911 conspiracy theories article in "See also". One would assume that even if a reader looking for CTs doesn't bother to read the FAQ section on the talk page, they would actually take the time to read the entire "911 attacks" article itself. If they are too lazy to bother doing even that, that's their problem. At least we will be able to say there is a "mention" of CTs in the article. Failing that, removal of the section and annotating the FAQ, etc., seems reasonable too.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with the Shirtwaist compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't tell what the "Shirtwaist compromise" is. A reasonable compromise, it seems to me, would be to include the paragraph as proposed above somewhere in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
To remove the section and add a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the See Also section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made my change to the article earlier this week. And no one appears to have even noticed, much less objected. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Saw it...still needs some refs though...but we went through that issue...otherwise IF the section has to stay, this looks like a decent summary.--MONGO 01:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've waited a few weeks and no one has objected so I'm removing the section for all the reasons given above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent rewrite of the lead

I object to this recent rewrite of the lead which Mr. Prez is attempting to establish by edit-warring. For one thing, it breaks out the attacks into two categories: 1) fifteen terrorists and three planes, which did one thing; 2) Another plane, mentioned only in the passive voice (with no number of hijackers/terrorists whatever) that did something different. Another problem is its assertion that the fourth plane was "assumed mistakenly flown into the ground" as this contradicts the 9/11 Commission report; the previous lead simply stated that the "fourth plane crashed into a field", which makes no claim about whether the crash was intentional or not, that being unclear (though the 9/11 commission report suggested that the terrorists crashed it deliberately). I propose restoring the original lead as a superior overview of the article. Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it back to the original version, which makes more factual and grammatical sense. Mr. Prez should discuss further changes to the lead here first. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is seriously POV

This isnt going anywhere and is starting to cross into Ad-hominem personal attacks. We unfortunately can not please everyone and must focus on mainstream views for this article The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on folks, this article is very seriously POV. None of the critique of the 9/11 truth movement is given adequate space. I am not talking of theories but of facts, e.g.

  • the war games during 9/11
  • the Mineta testimony that Cheney ordered the air defense standdown
  • the Pentagon plane made a flight maneuver hardly possible for a trained pilot, let alone someone who could not fly a Cessna
  • there is no evidence that those 19 hijackers boarded any of the flights
  • the fact that never before steel high buildings "collapsed" from fire, yet we should believe that WTC 1, 2 and 7 "just collapsed"

http://oilempire.us/media-strategy.pdf

http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html

Der Eberswalder (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it would violate WP:NPOV to include long-debunked conspiracy claims like these. This issue has been discussed on the talk page many times before and consensus is that discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is to be relegated to subsequent articles. Hut 8.5 10:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not disagree that the article is POV, but please get your information correct when making an argument, and please reference what Wikipedia deems "reliable sources". See WP:RS. Mineta did not testify that Cheney ordered an air defense standdown. Wildbear (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention that none of those are actual facts. The article is about right. RxS (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Der Eberswalder - I hardly think moving the NPOV pointer away from center over to the truther side of the scale, which is what your proposal amounts to, is going to do this article any good.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The claim that the collapse of Building 7 was the first time in world history that a skyscraper failed due to fire can be sourced to CBS News and NIST, so the original poster is correct on that part of their assertion.(ref) That it was a unique occurrence makes it a notable event in itself. The rest is without reliable source. Wildbear (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a mistaken claim, however. Or, at least, an incomplete one. The building didn't fail just because of the fire, it was also structurally compromised by debris from the collapse of the main towers.
But, I digress. Yes, the article is POV to the official story, because that's what fits the science. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes...absolutely...the events of 911 were somewhat unique so not surprising that this might lead to new "firsts" such as the collapse of WTC7.--MONGO 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Source? Quoting NIST NCSTAR 1A, page xxxvii: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours."(ref)
Wildbear (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The building was sturdy...imagine if a less sturdy structure had been there.--MONGO 03:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's true that 9/11 was the first time a high-rise steel building collapsed due to fire (though there are other examples of large steel structures collapsing due to fires). "X has never happened before, therefore it can't happen" is just a fundamentally flawed argument, especially as there were so many unusual occurrences on 9/11. Hut 8.5 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"X has never happened before, therefore it can't happen". I wouldn't propose putting that into the article, and it likely wouldn't be proper for anyone else to try to do so. That doesn't diminish the notability of the collapse of building 7 as a unique event. NIST's report on the collapse of building 7 seems to very clearly indicate that (in NIST's judgment) it was fire alone which resulted in the collapse. NIST claims that the area where the collapse initiated was far from the damaged areas, and that the building would have collapsed from fire alone, regardless of damage to other parts of the building. Wildbear (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The "first steel buildings to collapse" statement is a hobbyhorse of the Truthers; it betrays an ignorance of fire and material science, or an unjustified faith in the mechanical properties of steel at high temperatures. As I've noted here before, building codes recognize that steel loses much of its strength in ordinary fire conditions and require increasing levels of thermal insulation to be applied directly to the structure at increasing building heights, with so-called "three-hour protection" for skyscrapers. The rating is predicated on its performance in an undisturbed, ideal state, which was certainly not the case at buildings 1, 2 or 7. Other tall buildings that have sustained fires were concrete (which is more forgiving in fire due to its chemistry and mass) or had intact structural fire protection and intact structures. This was a unique event, with unique consequences. As to the other comments, they're all pure speculation and have no part in this article. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"The rating is predicated on its performance in an undisturbed, ideal state, which was certainly not the case at buildings 1, 2 or 7." No argument on buildings 1 or 2. I dispute the assertion on building 7, citing NIST NCSTAR 1A, page xxxvii again: "The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse."(ref)
Acroterion wrote: "...or an unjustified faith in the mechanical properties of steel at high temperatures." Numerous intense and prolonged fires have been observed in other high-rise steel frame buildings, yet (allegedly) none has ever completely collapsed due to fire, other than building 7. In what way then, is faith in the mechanical properties of these buildings at high temperatures unjustified? In the scientific realm, properties and principles are built upon observations and past experience; a unique event indicates need for thorough examination (by multiple qualified entities) before old principles ("faith", if you want to call it that) are thrown out. Wildbear (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of debating the NIST report with you, nor of carrying out a wiki-investigation to solve the collapse of Building 7, although I note that the fires burned in excess of six hours in a building with three-hour-rated structural fire protection.While NIST has modeled a 20-minute fire duration in a given point, fire isn't predictable, and NIST's conclusion remains that heat-related failure is the likeliest mode, which is what we report in the absence of extraordinary documentation to the contrary. I do point out that there exists a general misconception that steel buildings cannot fail in fire situations: steel performs poorly in fire, a fact long recognized by building codes, if not the general public. The Truther community has parroted the idea that steel buildings can't fail in fires, which is patently untrue. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Duh...Wildbear...structural damage and fire...did you read the NIST report? 8.5.4 "Other Structural Failures in Fire"...also see...THIS and THIS...oh and by the way THIS...you conspiracy theory mongers all operate the same.--MONGO 02:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
8.5.4 in which NIST report, MONGO? There is no 8.5.4 in NCSTAR 1 (the collapse of the towers), or in NCSTAR 1A (the collapse of building 7). The first of your three documents is a FEMA report on a gas explosion in an apartment building. The building was constructed of concrete and brick on a steel frame, and did not experience any significant collapse. The second document is a FEMA report concerning fatalities in a fire in a wood-frame home. The home did not collapse. The third item is a youtube video; not reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. I appreciate that you are the first (other than myself) to provide some "reliable source" references for the discussion; but what is the relevance of these references to the 9/11 topic, and particularly to the topic of steel-frame skyscraper collapse? The references that I provided come from CBS News and NIST, and are very clear and unambiguous in their assertions about the cause of the building 7 collapse. Wildbear (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
8.5.4 (starting at 8.5 on page 331) is in NIST NCSTAR 1-9...[10] also, see dozens of images in chapter 5 there and read chapter 8...I provide links to structures that had full and partial failure due solely to fire and all evidence makes it clear that WTC suffered from fire AND structural damage...get it?...yes, I know Youtube links aren't reliable. I love how you and your ilk keep trying to compare apples with oranges. This was a unique set of circumstances...your tired and inane argument is simply flawed.--MONGO 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Progressive collapse of WTC-7

The "Damage" section contains the line: "The fall of the Twin Towers represented the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history". Doesn't WTC-7's collapse also qualify as a "progressive collapse of a steel-framed structure"? These reports dealing with WTC-7 -[11], [12], [13] indicate a "disproportionate collapse of the entire structure". Since "Disproportionate collapse" is interchangeable with "Progressive collapse", it seems to me that WTC-7 should be included thusly - "The fall of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC represented the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history". Am I missing something here?Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire section is flawed...they aren't the only examples...see NIST NCSTAR 1-9...chapter 8. Your links are superceded by the 2008 report. We can't compare other buildings to these for so many reasons I can't begin to list them...not to mention that these other building fires weren't compromised beforehand by being hit by jets or falling debris.--MONGO 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The NIST report does label the collapse of WTC7 as a progressive collapse (NCSTAR 1A, p. xxxvi: This was a fire-induced progressive collapse, also known as disproportionate collapse) and the source cited for the statement in the article is from March 2007, before the publication of NIST's report. Their frequently asked questions also asserts that progressive collapse did not occur in the WTC towers [14]. Hut 8.5 23:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think NIST is making a narrow distinction: in WTC 7, they're saying an isolated critical column failed, transferring its loads into other parts of the building, which failed, inducing further failure. There were refinements introduced into building codes after the Oklahoma City bombing to address such a progressive overload in the event of the failure of a code-defined critical member, post dating the construction of WTC 7. They appear to distinguish WTC 1/2 from this kind of transfer/overload phenomenon, as 1 and 2 were effectively crushed by the dynamic load of the upper levels falling onto each intact floor - progressive in that sense, but a dynamic load as opposed to a more-or-less static load-transfer failure at WTC 7. Put another way, they're distinguishing between something now required by code to be examined as part of a design engineering analysis, as opposed to the catastrophic failure seen at 1/2. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I see what you're saying. NIST is distinguishing between different processes involved leading up to the collapses of 1 and 2, and 7. But their conclusions seem to be quite clear on how they classify the two types of collapses - those of 1 and 2, and that of 7.
This says about 7 -

"Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure below the east penthouse, the failure progressed horizontally across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thickier and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), resulting in a progressive collapse of the entire structure."

And this says about 7 -

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

and

"Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers..."

.
So, if we go by the wording in the NIST reports, it would be incorrect to say 1 and 2 are the only instances of "total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings in history", because NIST contradicts that. By the same token, the WTC-7 collapse should be noted as such, right? On the other hand, this sentence may so confusing, it might be better to leave it out altogether?Shirtwaist (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favor of leaving it out altogether, since it involves parsing too many shades of meaning rooted in unreferenced engineering terminology, and it doesn't materially add to the article - the the really extraordinary events are already there. Whether or not the various collapses, first, second or third, are examples of a given engineering phenomenon is beside the main point of the article. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. WTC-7 has its own page, where this kind of detail actually belongs.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The WTC 7 article is about the past and present building. Also several other WTC buildings also suffered partial collapses but they were all also impacted by structural damage which exacerbated the failures from fire.--MONGO 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, get rid of it. Keeping it would require a detailed explanation of how the term is being used, which is too detailed for this article. I doubt most readers will be interested in technical details of the collapses and if they are the collapse section does it better. Hut 8.5 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Concorde 9-11 coincidence

I added this statement and it was promptly deleted:

Ironically, the terror attacks were not the only notable aviation event to take place that day. The Concorde, having a standard route of London to New York City, had gotten grounded in 2000 after its first and only crash. The aircraft had gotten re-engineered and on the morning of September 11th, it flew its first passenger-carrying flight since the fatal mishap, filled with British Airways employees. Their excitement at completing this milestone after landing at Heathrow at 2pm GMT was soon darkened when they learned about the WTC impacts.

I'm moving it here in case others see this fact to be worthy of including in the article (or perhaps some other 9-11 article).--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


It's an event that occurred that day, but has no particular significance with respect to the 9/11 attacks. While an interesting coincidence, there's no reason to include it in the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Interesting factoid, but ultimately trivial and irrelevant to the article.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden's Death

I realize this is a breaking news event, and thus a lot is going to be happening because of it, but it's never too early to talk about how we want to handle this. Do you think we should have any mention in the article? We have mention of some of the other masterminds. Maybe a sentence? --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jeff Dunham and Achmed.JPG proper image me thinks The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Definetly mention this, this happened because of 9/11... How about a single sentence (atleast for now) at the end of the introduction. This is kind of a "conclusion" to 9/11 if you will... --Ericci8996 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant, so at the very least a short paragraph in the body of the article. I won't object to a single sentence in the lead. We'll have to watch to make sure it doesn't bloat, as breaking news tends to do. Antandrus (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone added two lines at the end of "Osama Bin Laden", to which I added a couple of refs. That seems sufficient for the article. Any more detail should go in the OBL article.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Previously omitted, should be included

Sorry I was a few days not available. I read the discussion about my previous entry in the history of this talk page. Good, at least now I know why those facts are not included. Apparently some people here believe that these points were somehow "debunked" which is quite a surprising claim. I checked it again, some were debunked, some not:

  • the war games during 9/11

See for instance the references to United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001

  • the Mineta testimony that Cheney ordered the air defense standdown

Plenty of copies of the original C-SPAN video with this testimony before the 9/11 Commission are uploaded everywhere. Mineta's testimony:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.

  • the Pentagon plane made a flight maneuver hardly possible for a trained pilot, let alone someone who could not fly a Cessna

Ok, this I consider debunked. It is possible[15], and he had at least a flying license. [16] [17]

  • there is no evidence that those 19 hijackers boarded any of the flights

Well, they were not on the passenger lists. Some of them were seen at the security checkpoint. How could they get on the planes when not on the list? If they used false names, which ones did they use?

  • the fact that never before steel high buildings "collapsed" from fire, yet we should believe that WTC 1, 2 and 7 "just collapsed"

Steel high rise building can not be brought down by fire. If it were possible this technique would be used by demolition companies.

It is a possibility that thermite was used to destroy the WTC. I don't know if it is proven or not as I can not adequately assess this issue which Dr. Jones raised.

Experiments show that thermite can indeed melt steel and even cut sideways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g (from 8:15)

Der Eberswalder (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

These are all common claims made by conspiracy theorists and consensus is that such claims should be relegated to sub-articles or excluded altogether.
  • Yes there were some military exercises on 9/11. However there is no evidence that they hindered the authorities' response to the attacks and they form a fairly minor aspect of the events on the day. Hence they aren't going to be included in the main article, but as you've seen they can be discussed in sub-articles.
  • Even if Mineta's testimony is accurate (I've seen plenty of claims it isn't) that testimony doesn't claim that the air force was ordered to stand down on 9/11. Conspiracy theorists inferred that the "orders" were stand-down orders.
  • Hani Hanjour had a private pilot's licence and a commercial pilot certificate and he had trained on 737 simulators. Plenty of pilots have said he would have been able to make the manoeuvres required to hit the Pentagon.
  • The claim that the hijackers weren't on the passenger lists stems from the fact that they weren't included on a partial list of victims from the crashes released by CNN. Note the word victims: the hijackers weren't victims. Plenty of actual passenger lists have been released and they have the hijackers on them.
  • Steel buildings can indeed collapse due to fire. Steel gets weaker at high temperatures, as any blacksmith will tell you, and there have been many previous instances of large steel structures collapsing due to fire. The reason demolition companies don't use it to bring down buildings is that it's unreliable and highly dangerous. Dr Jones' ideas are fringe theories and can't be included in this article. And surely by your reasoning thermite can't possibly bring down steel buildings, since it isn't used by demolition companies?
Hut 8.5 11:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
He's just trolling...as stated at the top of this discussion page, such trolling should be removed.--MONGO 15:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not trolling. You see, for instance the information about the distinction between passenger list and victim list I did not know.

  • Good, so the question that the hijackers really were on board is established. But still, shouldn't it be 11 or 14 hijackers instead of 19? Because some of those 19 were still alive and complained about being labeled as terrorists. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm
  • Mineta testimony: Conceded, the word standdown is misleading. What I meant was that Dick Cheney is involved in the attack because he did not order to shoot down the plane which approached Washington. The White House and the Pentagon have their own surface-to-air missiles, but Cheney ordered not to use it for defense, and the young man Mineta refers to asks if he had understood that correctly.
  • The readers of the article should decide themselves if the war games on that day are minor or not. It is an aspect of the attacks and should be at least mentioned.
  • It was never established that the temperatures in the WTC approached the weakening point of steel. Besides, even IF these temperatures were reached, it is impossible that buildings as strong as WTC 1 and WTC 2 crumble to dust and disintegrate completely because of a minor fire. This has never happened before, yet here it happens twice, no three times in a day.
  • WTC 7 was not hit by any plane and had only minor fires. Yet it collapses as if there is no resistance. You find that normal?
  • Questions about the events of 9/11 and the obvious incompleteness of the official explanations is not a [WP:FRINGE|fringe theory]. Firstly because no theory is being put forward, secondly because it is not fringe but mainstream. Do you consider 30-60% fringe?

Der Eberswalder (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Though this discussion could undoubtedly go on for a long time (that report about the hijacker being alive is wrong, the WTC fires were not "minor", there is no evidence the Pentagon was equipped with missile batteries, etc, etc) Wikipedia is not a debating forum and that would not be an appropriate use of this page. The idea that these are merely "questions" and that "no theory is being put forward" is wrong - these statements are clearly designed to advance the idea that al-Qaeda was not behind the attacks and that some other entity, probably the US government, was. That is a fringe theory, as has been established many times here. If your "30-60%" figure is an opinion poll of the general public you should bear in mind that when we assess whether something is fringe we look at the views of reliable sources. Hut 8.5 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Der Eberswalder...your "facts" are way off...this article relies on reliable sources and evidence, not unreliable sources and misinformation.--MONGO 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Investigations into suspected insider trading

After reading (and making one grammatical correction to) the article, I realized that nothing was even mentioned in The "Investigations" section about the extensive SEC and other investigations, widely reported by news agencies and the mainstream media (see eg the links below), into the 9/11 insider trading issue. I contend that the issue merits treatment also because of the scientific convergence based on the three peer-reviewed studies published since 2006, discussed below. (I copied the suggested addition here to facilitate discussion.) History teaches (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea. It might be summarized, but the details should only be in the Advance-knowledge debate subarticle. However, consensus is the 9/11 conspiracy theory article is not even summarized here, and this one is even less notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad idea? Nothing in the mainstream reports, which I only included in the description about the insider trading investigations, was about conspiracy theory; hence, this argument is clearly invalid. Second, the investigations were extensive and global; why should they not be described in the same way as the other investigations? The only thing approaching conspiracy theory would have been the FBI's statement that what the mainstream media had for months extensively described (Convar's expensive and extensive hard drive data restoration operation), never happened. History teaches (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
History, this might be relevant in another article (perhaps even a new one), but this article is about the attacks themselves. Insider trading would be peripheral to the actual attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Nevertheless, I hope that, as a fellow human being, you understand why I perceive it as important for people to know that an expensive, long-lasting and widely publicized insider trading related hard drive investigation (which also supported the early suspicions of criminal actions) never happened, as far as the FBI's later response, documented in the 9/11 Commission memo, and the 9/11 Commission report are concerned. History teaches (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Extended content, click to show. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soon after the attacks, reports of suspected insider trading conducted with foreknowledge about the 9/11 attacks began to appear, and investigations were launched in three continents.[3] The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation into unusual trading activity in securities affected by the attacks. [4] The SEC identified 38 companies, such as the parent firms of United and American Airlines, the airlines used in the terrorist operation, whose shares were traded at abnormally high levels in the weeks preceding the attacks, suggesting that buyers and sellers had advance knowledge of planned terrorist acts. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt told Congress that the inquiry was the agency's "No. 1 priority". [5]

In December 2001 and early 2002, there was extensive media coverage of the efforts by the German data retrieval company Convar to reconstruct, using laser scanning technology, data from damaged hard drives recovered from the WTC as part of the investigation into a surge in financial transactions just before two hijacked planes crashed into New York's World Trade Center.[6] The company's CEO, Peter Henschel, noting that the investigation was being conducted for a number of U.S. based clients cooperating with the FBI, said that there was suspicion that criminals had used inside knowledge about the attacks to make and authorize financial transactions during the chaos. According to Convar's data retrieval expert Richard Wagner, criminal transactions in excess of 100 million dollars could have been made in the hope that their trail would have disappeared as a result of the destruction of the WTC mainframe computers. [7] [8] As reported by the Heute Journal, a news programme by the German ZDF TV channel, by March 2002 Convar had been able to restore several hundred hard drives from the WTC. [9] However, the 9/11 Commission, in a memorandum entitled "FBI Briefing on Trading" dated October 18, 2003, said that when asked about the media coverage of the hard drive restoration operation, the "assembled [FBI] agents expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery effort", further noting that one New York agent argued that it was "extremely unlikely that any hard-drives survived to the extent that they data be [sic] recovered." [10]

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "exhaustive investigations" by the SEC, the FBI and other agencies “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions”, clarifying in a footnote that "unusual trading", some of it "highly suspicious on its face", had in fact occurred but that each such trade turned out to have an innocuous explanation, including the trading on United and American Airlines stocks. [11]

In 2006, however, Allen Poteshman, a professor of Finance from the University of Illinois, published an analysis of the airline stock option trades preceding the attacks. This peer-reviewed study, published by the University of Chicago Press, came to the conclusion that an indicator of long put volume was "unusually high which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks". [12] In January 2010, a team of Swiss financial experts published evidence for at least thirteen informed trades in which the investors had apparent foreknowledge of the attacks. [13] Finally, in April 2010, an international team of experts showed that there was a significant abnormal increase in trading volume in the option market just before the 9/11 attacks in contrast to the absence of abnormal trading volume over periods long before the attacks, concluding that their findings were "consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks". [14]


  1. ^ "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2008. pp. 25–8. Retrieved August 31, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 133 (3). American Society of Civil Engineers: 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 2, 2008. Retrieved May 20, 2008. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ BBC Bin Laden 'share gains' probe "", September 18, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1548118.stm
  4. ^ CNN Canada asked to aid SEC probe: Trading before Sept. 11 checked "", The San Francisco Chronicle October 3, 2001 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2001/10/03/BU224108.DTL
  5. ^ Ted C. Fishman Do terrorists ply U.S. stock markets? "", USA Today October 11, 2001 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-10-11-ncguest1.htm
  6. ^ CNN Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues "", December 20, 2001 http://articles.cnn.com/2001-12-20/tech/wtc.harddrives.idg_1_data-recovery-terrorist-plot-encryption-keys?_s=PM:TECH
  7. ^ Der Spiegel Das Geheimnis der verkohlten Festplatten "", December 18, 2001 http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,173404,00.html
  8. ^ Fox News German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals "", December 17, 2001 http://www.foxnews.com//story/0,2933,41004,00.html
  9. ^ Heute Journal, ZDF News Geheimsache World Trade Center "", March 11, 2002
  10. ^ Fox News German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals "", December 17, 2001 http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf
  11. ^ National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States The 9/11 Commission Report "", 172 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
  12. ^ Allen M. Poteshman Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 "", The Journal of Business 2006 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645
  13. ^ Marc Chesney et al Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets "", Social Sciences Research Network January 2010 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1522157
  14. ^ Wing-Keung Wong et al Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks? "", Social Sciences Research Network April 2010 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523

Some condensed information from these media articles about insider trading might also be mentioned http://www.awitness.org/news/november_2001/insider_trading_september_11th_long_list.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Eberswalder (talk • contribs) 04:52, May 3, 2011

Shouldn't "September 11" redirect to this article?

It's pretty ridiculous to me that searching "September 11" on Wikipedia brings you to the article about the date with a standard link to this article at the top. The page hits are not even close (attacks, date) even before the death of bin Laden. I think "September 11" should redirect here and the article about the date should be linked at the top. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Dates themselves have multiple events. Regardless of the number of hits, one event does not override the rest of history on that day. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of conspiracy theories section

Should a (sub-)section on 9/11 conspiracy theories be included in the article? Input from uninvolved editors is needed to reach a stable consensus.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the conspiracy theory section was removed on 26 April. I had thought that the previous content RfC had been in favor of retaining it. From what I've seen in other articles, the regulars here should be prepared to be constantly defending this article from editors who want to readd mention of the conspiracy theories. All it would take is one or two short paragraphs, as previously existed, to keep that from happening. Up to you all I guess, but I personally feel it's easier on all involved to compromise and keep the short section. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the RFC was keep, it seems AGFK and Mongo just wouldn't accept the results. Soxwon (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What RFC?--MONGO 07:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Was there an RfC on this? I don't see it here.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The current wording of the section is a little odd: Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories believe that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks and deliberately chose not to prevent them - surely the hijackers met this description? Hut 8.5 08:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording for the section:

Different conspiracy theories about the attacks have been presented in the years after the event, and were addressed and challenged in mainstream media,[1] such as The View, which dedicated several segments to the September 11 attacks, including 9/11 conspiracy theories.[2]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). The allegations put forward in such theories include, in particular, that the World Trade Center towers would have been brought down by explosives, that United 93 was shot down, and that the Pentagon would have been hit by missiles, not by a plane.[3] Some of the believers in those theories have taken collective action, forming the 9/11 Truth movement, a loose network of individuals and groups.[4][3]

  1. ^ Damico, Amy M.; Quay, Sara E. September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. Greenwood. p. 57-59.
  2. ^ a b Melnick, Jeffrey (2009). 9/11 culture: America under construction. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 40.
  3. ^ Gablinger, Tamar. Spotlight essay/News and Information: The 9/11 Truth movement. pp. 68–69. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), in: Damico, Amy M.; Quay, Sara E. September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide.

  Cs32en Talk to me  22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cla68: As I said previously (but I think you missed it), let's use Jimbo's e-mail of Sept 2003 as a guide:

  • What do mainstream history texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream history community on this point?
  • If the viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
  • If the viewpoint is held by a significant minority of historians, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
  • If the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Conspiracy theory" articles shouldn't exist here in the first place; encyclopedias deal in facts, not in what some people think happened "but the govermint is covering it up". I've seen theories up to including "Aliens did it to weaken us". If I were to add something that suggests any non-official source (fans, for instance) felt a certain way about something to any article whatsoever, it would almost immediately be reverted as "original research". Conspiracy theories are just a wide-reaching version of this. The only "theories" that have any place here are scientific ones. HalfShadow 22:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it belongs as a social phenomena in response to the attacks. It is a group whose existence is easily proven, and whose beliefs were held by a significant minority according to polls. Therefore, it should be included. The last RFC was, at best, NO CONSENSUS, which would indicate that it should stay until those who wish removal can prove it should be removed. An analogous example would be the creationists who are mentioned in the article on evolution, despite the fact that what they claim is pseudo-science. Soxwon (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a bad analogy. Creationism is based on religious beliefs, CT's are not. A link to the main CT article under "See also" is more than sufficient mention of this kind of stuff in this article. I say revert it back, and let those who think it deserves more than that state their case for it with WP policy that supports it. Although, they had a chance to do so in previous discussions and seem to have failed miserably.Shirtwaist (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Creationism is a bad analogy because it has had far more social and cultural impact than 9/11 conspiracy theories. It has found far more support amongst the American public (about 50% versus 10% for 9/11 conspiracy theories) and the issue of whether to teach creationism in schools is an ongoing American political controversy - it has produced landmark court decisions and has been an issue in political campaigns. The social impact of 9/11 conspiracy theories pales by comparison. A better analogy would be to compare it to Holocaust denial or Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories, both of which only get "see also" links in the respective articles on mainstream subjects. Hut 8.5 11:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur that creationism has more impact than 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, both evolution itself, as well as theories about evolution, also have a vastly greater social and cultural impact than the September 11 attacks. (50% support for creationism seems to be an exaggeration for the U.S., and certainly for Europe.)  Cs32en Talk to me  14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, the real figure is slightly lower than 50%, but not much. Gallup opinion polls in 2006 and 2007 showed that 46% and 43% of the US public respectively believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago (Level_of_support_for_evolution#United_States). The figure for Europe is lower, yes. Hut 8.5 14:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably the propensity of many U.S. citizens to believe whatever nonsense there is out there corresponds to a reluctance to talk about any fringe theories on the part of those people who consider themselves rational. In (Western) Europe, there is much less reluctance to present and discuss various viewpoints, yet the general propensity to believe in weird theories seems to be lower.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a very anti-American bias on your part. Regardless, while here we are having a discussion, in the article space we aren't...we're writing an encyclopedia..so that is why we don't have a discussion there about what wackos think.--MONGO 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
There are quite a number of American commentators who talk about a "culture of fear" in the United States, and the surveys about belief in creationism also seem to support the observation that I have made. So I don't see any particular bias here.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You persist with your bias...amazing that you can't see it and sad. I don't have any idea what commentators you speak of nor what this culture of fear is you claim they speak of. If you're a bigot about America, then perhaps you should avoid POV pushing your anti-American fantasies about America.--MONGO 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I am talking about events such as the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Apparently, the theme of that rally struck a chord with a large part of the American public. Your intent to ascribe my statement to a particular state of mind on my part, rather than to the specific and verifiable facts that I've mentioned, is quite clear. I will therefore stop to discuss this particular point with you.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What? A large part of 310 million people is not 210,000! People went there for comedy...those two clowns that were there are on the cable channel Comedy Central.--MONGO 22:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • While I've said before that I could live with a couple sentences, I honestly don't think the section belongs at all. Fringe beliefs have no place in this article, and Jimbo said it well in 2003. A single wikilink to the article on the conspiracy theories should suffice, which is how we handled it on the Apollo 11 article. We have no obligation to report what crazy people believe. Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support retention of section on three grounds. One, per Cla and Cs32en, like it or not, the conspiracy theories form an encyclopedic subject which is related to this one. Two, per long-standing consensus which is all the stronger for having been so thoroughly examined, and three, in a wiki-political sense, its removal in the face of long-term consensus to keep it will merely start all the acrimony on this subject, which will stand in the way of improving the article. --John (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal...knew this garbage would come up again of course...the conspiracy theories have no basis in fact and as such deserve nary a passing mention. If it were up to me, there wouldn't even be a link to the CT article in the see also section.--MONGO 07:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of Cs32en proposed wording - Well worded and to the point - Dont see how we can simply ignore the "garbage" as its part of the culture surrounding the event ... like it or not. Better to have mention of it in the proper context and terms rather then just a link that leads to BS.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    No way...--MONGO 07:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    If the link "leads to BS", why should that BS be in this article too?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    It should be in this article, because the existence of conspiracy theories about the attacks is a commonly accepted fact. (Whereas the content of those theories is obviously not accepted by the sources that we generally rely on.) The existence of these theories is an important aspect of the aftermath of the attacks, as evidenced by the sources given in the proposed text.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    The fact that the content of those theories is not accepted by virtually all reliable sources normally used in WP should tell you something about their "importance". The existence of these theories is only important to conspiracy theorists, those who write about them and their CTs, and a very small portion of the population. All sources in your proposed text deal with CTs, not the attacks themselves, which is why they have no place here.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Precisely.--MONGO 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    The sources in the proposed text are not about conspiracy theories, they deal with the aftermath of 9/11, especially its effects on culture (including the emergence of conspiracy theories). The fact that reliable sources chose to describe conspiracy theories in the context of a presentation of the effects of 9/11 on culture etc. shows that these theories should also be dealt with in the appropriate context within this article, i.e. in the section about the aftermath of the attacks. Furthermore, opinion survey show that we are not talking about a "very small portion of the population".  Cs32en Talk to me  12:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    Look at the "Long-term effects" section. It includes the subjects "Economic aftermath" and "Health effects", both of which are supported by objectively sound sources detailing provable facts about the effects of 911. Including "Conspiracy theories" along with such subjects gives them a weight and credibility they don't deserve. Sure there are CTs, truthers, and assorted crackpots spouting nonsense. They exist. We get it. The only reason they persist is because the same conspiracy theorists keep writing blogs and books about it. Noting their existence and their thoroughly discredited theories, however, does not rise to the level of importance and significance that the first two subjects possess. The total lack of consideration of CTs by RS dealing with the attacks themselves is strong enough evidence to me that they are so far into the fringe, they can't even see reality from there. Just as RS on the attacks ignore CTs (which are relegated to sources dealing with fringe theories and their effect on culture) so should this article do the same in favor of relegating all mention of CTs to the article dedicated to them.
    And which opinion polls are you referring to that deal with what I mentioned - that is, "importance of CTs"?Shirtwaist (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm referring to September 11 attacks opinion polls.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    And which one of those polls shows the percentage of the population that considers CTs "important" or at least "significant", which would support their inclusion here?Shirtwaist (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Some of the polls ask whether people believe the CIA or the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the attacks, other ask whether people consider it likely that the World Trade Center buildings would have been brought down by explosions. So, depending of whether you would say that a general suspicion of some kind of cover-up counts as a conspiracy theory, or you'd say that such a theory would need to be based on more specific assumption, you could look at the respective polls in that article.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    After looking at those polls, I could only say that a small fraction of people believe all kinds of goofy things without any proof, which is what I already knew. In no way does that change my assertion that A)CTs are important only to a very minor portion of the population, and B)That's one good reason to exclude mention of them here. Shirtwaist (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Apparently you and I looked at different polls, because the 2008 poll displayed and several others show that the number of people who think that the attacks were carried by Al-Qaeda and those who think it was carried out by either the US gov't or Israel are disturbingly close (25% v. 22%). While the scientific concensus is most certainly in favor of the NIST version, I'm not sure how you can say that the CTs are a small minority as far as popular opinion is concerned without saying the official version is one as well. Soxwon (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Assuming the results were accurately reported in that article:
    World Public Opinion - 46 %: al Qaeda was responsible, 15 % U.S. government, 7 %: Israel, 7%: some other perpetrator, 25% don't know.
    Scripps Howard polls - "Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East": 59% "not likely", 16% "very likely"
    "The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings": 77% "unlikely", 6% "very likely"
    "The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists": 80% "not likely", 6% "very likely"
    Rasmussen Reports - "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance."
    So which polls do we believe? This is why opinion polls shouldn't be used to make a point in WP articles, especially in deciding whether or not popular opinion about CTs supports inclusion of them in this article.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I misread the poll, my mistake. However, your assertion is flawed. What you are talking about are individual strands of conspiracy theories. If, for example, Israel was involved, as is heavily believed in the Middle East, then things like the US Federal gov't's involvement may or may not have relevance. What I'm saying is that, on the whole, there is a significant minnority (roughly a quarter) who believe that the story as presented by the scientific community and the US gov't is not true in a significant way. Such a large group of doubters spread across the globe deserves a mention. Soxwon (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"...your assertion is flawed. What you are talking about are individual strands of conspiracy theories" - My assertion was based on the polls Cs32en pointed me to in an attempt to support his argument. If you have a problem with those polls, tell Cs32en, not me.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal for all the reasons stated above and all the reasons we've stated dozens of times over the last dozen attempts to get this added. SeanNovack (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Fringe subjects should not be discussed in mainstream articles. Defending the article against people who want to readd them will be no harder than defending it against people who want more coverage of them, and the argument that "the conspiracy theories form an encyclopedic subject which is related to this one" only justifies a link in the "see also" section. If we are going to have a section on them I would prefer the one that was recently removed[18] to Cs32en's. The wording gives significantly more weight to the proponents of conspiracy theories and if we're going to list specific examples then the LIHOP theory has got more coverage than the flight 93 shootdown theory. Hut 8.5 11:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal for reasons given here and also here and here too. Enough already.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The see also is a little anemic. It is an area of interest for readers. A single para Main Article: type summary seems in order, emphasising the importance of conspiracy theories to the main narrative. If possible rely on works of political science on 9/11 in general which afford any discussion of the cultural and social impact of conspiracy theories. If no HQRS on 9/11 in general discuss the cultural and social impact—don't include it. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal per the concerns by Shirtwaist and Mongo. I have never been involved in editing this article, but I support the inclusion of Cs32en and Cla68's suggestion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If we are going to include a section on conspiracy theories we must make it clear that they are fringe theories (WP:UNDUE). The current version of the article states that the controlled demolition idea was rejected by the major investigation into the collapses. Why then do you want to replace it with a version that only says that have been "challenged in mainstream media"? Hut 8.5 11:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the source, "Conspiracy theories surrounding September 11 spread quickly via the Internet and were addressed and challenged in mainstream media." I wouldn't object to a different wording, based on reliable sources. (At this point, the exact wording is not that relevant, as this RfC is about the general question of whether to include a (sub-)section on 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about any specific proposal.)  Cs32en Talk to me  12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a talkpage...not an RFC. Since you edit from an anti-American POV and have persisted in POV pushing fringe material here, I think you need to be topic banned from this arena. At this point, the only thing you're capable of here is disruption.--MONGO 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You've completely missed the point. Your source is not bound by Wikipedia policy and if they only want to say that the conspiracy theories are "challenged" that's fine. We on the other hand are bound by NPOV and if we want to discuss fringe theories we have to make it clear they are fringe. If people here are going to start supporting a specific version then we need to have a discussion about the merits of that version, and I'm starting with the fact that it violates a fundamental core policy. What objection do you have to the version of the section that is currently in the article? Hut 8.5 13:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course the source is not bound by Wikipedia policy. Neither are all the other sources that we regularly use to write articles here. The section that is currently in the article is only indirectly sourced (to the sub-article), and there have been complaints about this method of sourcing. Also, the current version is not directly based on reliable sources that present conspiracy theories as part of a wider description of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
NPOV is, as I said above, a fundamental core policy and takes precedence over almost everything else. We cannot overrule it simply because the source you want to use happens to phrase something in a certain way. If you have concerns that only the last sentence in the current paragraph cites any sources then this problem is trivial to fix - add some sources to it. We could even use the source you're trying to cite if you want. Hut 8.5 19:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that we should try to determine the exact wording of the section during this RfC. As I have said, I don't stick to the particular wording I have suggested.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion, outside of the United States opinions are far more divided on the subject and the belief that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks alone is not quite so obvious. As I stated above, the number of people who DON'T think Al-Qaeda did it (29%) is higher than those who do (25%) and so while scientific concensus may be on the side of the official theory, you cannot simply ignore the popular opinion on the subject if you want to cover the subject fully. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    No idea where you get you numbers from...this is the English Wikipedia, so opinion polls, as slanted as they are at times by the pollsters by asking loaded questions, have no relevence here, especially when they include what non-English speakers "think".--MONGO 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Soxwon - you should check those poll results again. 46% does not equal 25%. Poll results in general are all over the map anyway, which = unreliable for any use other than simply stating what the results are.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And those results are that a significant minority disbelieve the United States gov't and scientific community, something that should be mentioned. Soxwon (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Shall we debate the correct definition of "significant minority" now? No thanks. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a cogent argument that inclusion would somehow overcome Oneway in WP:FRINGE; cogent arguments which went unanswered did not appear in the two previous threads on this subject IMHO, btw.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The "oneway argument" has clearly been addressed in the previous discussion on this issue. You may therefore want to strike out your assertion that it "went unanswered in the two previous threads".  Cs32en Talk to me  05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Corrected. They were addressed, but I and others were utterly unconvinced by them. Shirtwaist chat 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And there are a number of editors (at least 3, anyway) who are utterly unconvinced by the argument that WP:ONEWAY applies to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
ONEWAY applies to every article in WP. Why wouldn't it apply to this one? If anything, ONEWAY seems to have been written with this very article in mind! Shirtwaist chat 10:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
IAR applies to every article in WP. ONEWAY applies, if the facts support it. They don't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
IAR only makes sense when the result improves WP. Inclusion certainly does not, and as far as the rules that have been brought up so far are concerned, I would, in this case, suggest we OAR (obey all rules). Shirtwaist chat 04:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • MONGO, please read Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The content and presentation on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and non-English speaking countries are just as important as English speaking countries. (However, we actually do prefer English language sources, if they are of the same quality as non-English language sources, as the English Wikipedia is primarily being read by English speaking people.)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    The systemic bias is yours. So, by having the CT garbage here, you support violating our BLP policies? What you're doing is in fact supporting inclusion of this fantasy that members of or those closely affiliated with the U.S. Government are somehow involved in some conspiracy to create 911. That is what you believe is it not? Why else would you be filibustering this talkpage with your incessant POV pushing of this topic?--MONGO 23:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
MONGO, I got that information from the World Poll at the top of the 9/11 opinion polls page. It came from a World Public Opinion, which passes WP:RS with flying colors. And no, the pollsters state that someone other than Al-Qaeda was involved, not the US gov't per se. Israel was another popular choice. However, the results of this poll show that, despite scientific evidence, the public at large was/is not wholly convinced and this should be noted with a small section on the matter IMO. And as for that crap about what non-English speakers think...That's at best Anglo-centrist, at worst racist. Soxwon (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Polls have nothing to do with this. It isn't surprising that these conspiracy theories would be more believable to those whom have issue with the U.S., most of which are found in countries that are not English first language dominant. There is nothing about that statement or my prior one that is "crap", "Anglo-centrist" or "racist" and I deeply resent your tactic and now can see your block for editing warring to defend your POV was richly deserved.--MONGO 02:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
So far, the consensus is against inclusion. This re-affirms the previous two discussions. Let's hold off a few more days, but if those favoring inclusion can't change the minds of those who are against inclusion, the consensus stands as is and the section needs to be removed (which was only added by violating WP:EDITWAR resulting in the editor's block). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The last, rather lengthy discussion, after the section had been removed unilaterally by one editor, has not been closed by anyone who would have had a look at the different arguments that have been presented, let alone by an uninvolved administrator or other editor. It was not even a RfC. You are therefore only stating your personal viewpoint here at this point.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
There are fewer contributors to this discussion regarding this issue than there were to recent but earlier ones. In your world, whereever that is, perhaps more people "believe" the fringe stuff than the facts, but here in reality-land, the fringe junk is just that, fringe, and not notable nor worthy of inclusion.--MONGO 11:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on those that want to change concensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Include. I wasn't going to comment again, but the proponents of removal are still generating walls of text, not entirely on point. WP:ONEWAY would apply to reporting the details of the conspiracy theories, but not comments about their existence and prevalence, which should still remain in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems very disingenuous of you. You know as well as I do that it would be impossible to "comment on the existence and prevalence of CTs" without describing them somehow. And if you describe them, you then have to make clear how each one has been thoroughly discredited, and on and on. So why mention them at all? That's what the main CT article is there for. As for ONEWAY, this excerpt certainly does not say what you claim it says(with my own slight modifications):
"Examples:
Astrology – There are plenty of reliable sources which describe how astronomy is not astrology, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter.
Autodynamics – There are no reliable sources about special relativity (911 attacks) which also mention autodynamics (Conspiracy theories), and so a decent article on special relativity(911 attacks) should not mention autodynamics(Conspiracy theories)." Shirtwaist chat 10:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: Your post is a classic example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If you can't even address the arguments of those who disagree with you, I'm not sure how you expect for anyone to change their minds. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Commment A Quest For Knowledge, you need to stop claiming consensus. The previous discussion would have, at best, been a no concensus, you simply argued longer than anyone else. As such, the de facto status quo is the edit previous to your assertion that it should be removed. It is YOU who has to prove why it needs to be removed. WP:ONEWAY does not apply IMO, as we are not describing the conspiracy theories in detail, simply pointing out that a significant minority (29% of those polled) believed that someone other than Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. Soxwon (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out poll results is not commentary on CTs and their prevalence, it's simply pointing out poll results. Poll results are comments only on the poll results, and do not belong here. Anything more would seem to me to violate WP:SYNTH.
As to your edits, your tactic is quite clear: keep reinstating the CT section(even right after an obvious warning against edit warring had been posted by an admin!) until you get blocked for edit warring, and hope nobody deletes it again, while claiming "RfC consensus is keep" and later "there was no consensus", and ignoring the fact that the deletion had stood for a while until you came and unilaterally changed it back. You got the result you wanted - "The section is back. So what if I ignored WP:BRD and WP:EDIT WARRING and got blocked." I guess we can ignore WP:AGF in your case from now on. Shirtwaist chat 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
...Or you could look at the discussion and see that several editors merely argued until everyone else got sick of arguing and then these editors took apathy to mean agreement. If you want to stop assuming WP:AGF go ahead, it won't be the first time that people who can't set aside their POVs have done so. Soxwon (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Soxwon: No, go back and re-read the discussions. Both times, no one favoring inclusion could address WP:ONEWAY or name any prominent historians who advocated that 9/11 was an inside job. Please address the arguments of those opposing inclusion instead of ignoring them. The only reason why the section is even there is because you edit-warred to include the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I support removal of the section per AQFK. Also I think WP:ONEWAY applies. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of a short section on the conspiracy theories. The section that was previously included in this article I thought was appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68: If this is a significant minority position, then is should be easy to name a few prominent historians who support this POV. Can you please name some historians who advocate that 9/11 was carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by the US government? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone who believes in an alternate theory believes it was necessarily the US Government, although many do:
Aymeric Chauprade. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Zaynab Abd Al-Aziz Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Asi (not a professional historian, but a notable commentator on modern Islamic issues) Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [19]. Not an historian but is he notable? Definitely. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Barrett. Not an historian, but a notable commentator on Islamic issues. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Correct, none are historians, they are "commentators" and the likes of Ahmadinejad. His Holocaust denial is not in The Holocaust. Do you think there should be a paragraph on Holocaust denial in that article? There isn't. It is just a link. The purpose of ONEWAY is to deal with precisely this kind of situation, ScottyBerg (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68: You can also add actor Charlie Sheen and former actor/governor Jesse Ventura to that list, but neither are professional historians. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Include per Arthur Rubin. Wayne (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Exclude Its definitely WP:UNDUE. The Truther movement is extremely trivial compared to "Economic aftermath" and "Health effects" in the long term effects. If people want to include the truther movement then we also have to include the Jews did it view as an absurd number of Arabs claim. Arabs claiming Jews did it > The government did it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Will not be tolerated. By all means continue discussing this for the umpteenth time, but I've just blocked one user for edit warring here and I'm ready, willing, and able to hand out some more if there is any more edit warring. {{September 11 arbcom}} Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There is more to that arbcom decision than simply enforcing 3RR...it also deals with POV pushing by conspiracy theorists...if you wish to actually enforce that arbcom decision, you need to be making sure this talkpage isn't being taken over by those that are determined to promote fringe nonsense over reality. The integrity of the project is at stake.--MONGO 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The second I take a side in this fracas I can't ever take any administrative action here again. Discussion is exactly how we are supposed to resolve things, edit warring is not. However, I agree that this has dragged on for a very long time and would advise all involved parties to let it go once this RFC is over, whether it goes your way or not. Bringing up the same thing again and again and insisting it be discussed a over and over is in fact a form of disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Using admin tools to apply the discreationary sanctions as mandated by the arbcom decision is not taking sides. I've been on this article 6 years so I can assure you no matter how it goes (and this is not a formal Rfc anyway), the issue will arise again and again and again...it is one reason why this article is not likely to ever be FA level.--MONGO 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox: You blocked the editor who edit-warred the section into the article against concensus but allowed the edit to stand. No offense, but so far, your actions to create a better encyclopedia have backfired. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking over the previous threads, I don't see a consensus for exclusion. I thought there was, at the time, or I would have restored the section, but there is only one guideline-based argument for exclusion, and a more than one guideline- or evidence- based argument for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the burden of evidence should be on the editor who adds or restores the material, not the one who takes it out. A sub-section devoted to conspiracy theories is over-weighting what is after all a fringe topic, and one tangential to the subject of the article - the attacks themselves. It might be better if the third sub-head under 'Long-term effects' was Political consequences. Within that, one sentence with a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories whould be about right. Barring that, I'd say the 'conspiracy theory' sub-section is better out of this article and in some other. Tom Harrison Talk 22:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this action and Tom's rationale. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. We're trying to build something here, which means adding material, not taking it away. Like I said before, if the rest of you who regularly edit this article would be willing and able to compromise and allow a short summary section of the conspiracy theories to remain, it would save you a lot of time and effort in the future. The reason is, whenever someone who is curious to know about the conspiracy theories, and don't find any mention of them until they happen to notice the link in the "see also" section, is going to raise the issue and perhaps try to add the section themselves. If they get reverted, many of them are going to be irritated about it and react accordingly. But, if you all don't mind being involved in that kind of situation, it's up to you. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd favor adding the section if the article was not on the attacks but on the reaction to the attacks. The 9-11 Commission report does not deal with conspiracy theories, and neither do serious examinations of the attacks per se. ONEWAY applies. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68 - That's one of the advantages of having a consensus in place - to shut down those who try to go against it in the future...until a new consensus is reached. If all a reader wants is to find out about 911 CTs, all they have to do is scroll down a bit farther to the "See also" list and click. If the reader is too lazy or too impatient or too stupid to do that, that's their problem not ours. It's more than likely that someone looking for 911 CTs will look at a section that says "CTs exist and are prevalent" and say - "Well...DUH!" - and continue looking (hopefully near the bottom of the article where "See also" is), thus making the section redundant and unnecessary. No doubt this article will need looking after from now till the mysteriously mutilated cows come home, just like every other article in WP. You know - "Same s***, different day". Shirtwaist chat 02:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the main article on the September 11 attacks. It thus includes all significant aspects of the attacks as a historical event. Therefore, the planning of the attacks as well as the aftermath, memorials etc. is being described in this article. We are following the same approach as in a number of other case in which there is a main article "X", an article "Reactions to X", and often a number of other sub-articles.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I know this is the main article. That's my point. WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." They've been debunked, but I don't see independent reliable sources connecting them, as the Warren Report did in dealing with conspiracy theories on the Kennedy Assassination. The fact that they have been debunked is what makes adding a discussion of conspiracy theories to the article superfluous. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing to describe 9/11 conspiracy theories not as alternative hypotheses for the event, but as a social phenomenon spawned by the event. Some sources connecting the topics can be found in the section above. NIST has referred to the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the presentation of their final report on WTC 7, and online bookstores are filing 9/11 conspiracy theory books in the same category as all other books on this topic, namely "September 11" or some similarly named category. As for the relevance of 9/11 conspiracy theories as a social phenomenon, it is irrelevant whether they have been debunked or not.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not an argument to validate the conspiracy theories or argue for them, just acknowledge that hey, this fairly large group of people existed. I don't understand how you can argue WP:ONEWAY. WP:ONEWAY applies to theories, not to social phenomena so arguing it works well against say, an exposition on why the jet fuel couldn't have melted steel, but it doesn't work when you are simply pointing out that that more than a quarter of the people disbelieve that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. Soxwon (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As Tom points out, the burden of proof is on those favor the inclusion of this section. So far, I don't think anyone's changed their minds. But I have no problem of waiting a couple weeks for those who favor inclusion to state their case.


Soxwon & Cs32en: The cultural impact of 9/11 extends far beyond CT. A month and half ago, I proposed that we save this content by rewriting it as a cultural impact section and even took a rough first stab at it,[20] but no one liked the idea at the time. Do you want to revisit the idea of including CT as part of a cultural impact section? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you expect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. A number of films have been made about Sept. 11, mostly documentaries but at least two feature films, United 93 and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. These two films alone have had much more of an impact than the conspiracy theories, and they are not mentioned in the article. I think that this article is an excellent example of how fringe viewpoints are often overweighted in Wikipedia. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That is WP:OR. Neither of those films made it to the movies and both were released direct to TV which indicates little if any "impact". The section is NPOV, factual, doesn't support conspiracy theory and is part of 911. Many independent reliable sources that connected the topics were given in the last RFC (which AFAIK resulted in consensus for keep) and the Kennedy assassination article has a huge section on conspiracy theories so having a small one here is not unusual or even against any WP policies. I also dont understand why "the burden of proof is on those who favor the inclusion". No one is adding anything so isn't the burdon of proof on those who wish to make a new edit (ie:delete a long standing section)? Wayne (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Totally incorrect. Both films were released to the theaters and were well received, as were the documentaries. Oliver Stone doesn't make "direct to DVD" movies. United 93 made it to more Top Ten lists than just about any other film in 2006. It received numerous awards, six BAFTA and two Academy Award nominations. Oliver Stone's film was well received by critics and was notable for featuring actual participants in the events. We should be focusing on the cultural impact (see List of cultural references of the September 11 attacks) and not discredited conspiracy theories. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I cannot understand why it is a "significant social phenomenon" that conspiracy theories (which have been discredited and therefore rendered irrelevant to serious discussion of the attacks) have a small following of CT writers, bloggers, and others who believe them -- so much so that they deserve mention in this article. Fringe theories are usually considered valid only by fringe segments of the population, which is true in this case.
On the contrary, it seems so insignificant a "social phenomenon" that those in favor of inclusion better have a very good reason to do so. And continual tap-dancing around ONEWAY and FRINGE won't do it. Shirtwaist chat 22:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Consider the vast impact that 9/11 has had on airport security. But the changes to airport security don't even get a single mention in the entire article. Yet, conspiracy theories get an entire section? Can someone please explain why the changes to airport security (which affect everyone who flies) don't warrent inclusion in the article but a fringe viewpoint which few, if not zero reliable sources advocate should get an entire section? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It can't be explained of course. Most of those supporting inclusion have a strong bias that keeps them from understanding the undue weight clause of NPOV...they assume that since they have suspicions regarding what happened, and gravitate to literature that supports and or alludes to that POV, that this reaffirms their convictions, even though the evidence that opposes the truth on this matter is massively misleading, and in some cases, simply ignorant. But UNDUE is clear here as to what we can site, for in the architectural, engineering and reliable historical literature that we can use for sourcing, there is little or no mention EVER of these implausible conspiracy theories. The worst of the conspiracy theorists on this matter (not that any of them are involved in editing this article or ever have been) are stalkers who stop at nothing to promote their version, as insane as it is, of reality. [21] Indeed, while the belief of 9/11 conspiracy theories is certainly a personal progative and is oftentimes found in those who distrust the U.S. Government, are anti-American bigots or simply insane, it is even more worrisome when such characters are elected to and/or occupy positions of power [22].--MONGO 10:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no suspicions that any of these absurd theories have facts behind them. They are, however, as noted as the facts (at least in the mainstream press), so should be reported in this article. WP:FRINGE suggests that we go to some effort to note that the theories are fringe, but it seems absurd not to have a sentence or two in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Several of us, I think, have brought up some valid points. Several of us have brought up the fact that no one can find reliable sources about 9/11 that also includes coverage about CT in a serious and prominent way. This is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. Can you address that? I've also asked for someone to prove that this is a significant minority POV by providing some respected historians who prescribe to this point of view. Cla68, to his credit, tried to address that, but none were respected historians. Scottyberg has pointed out that 9/11 has had vast impacts on culture that are ommitted from the article, such the fact that there are at least two feature films, United 93 and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. These two films alone have had much more of an impact than the conspiracy theories, and they are not mentioned in the article. I've also brought up the fact that the vast changes to airport security aren't mentioned in the article. Can you, or someone who favors inclusion, please address these points? 02:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
AQFK, you are talking about "the fact that no one can find reliable sources about 9/11 that also includes coverage about CT", as if you would never have read the section above. Furthermore, CT need to be included not because their content would represent a minority POV among historians, but because they are a relevant social phenomenon spawned by the September 11 attacks. You are arguing against a straw man here. Do you have any reliable sources stating that United 93 and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center would have had more impact than Loose Change or Fahrenheit 9/11? Probably not. There are a lot of details in the Aftermath section, as well as in other sections, and I would argue that the long term consequences for flight and airport security should definitely be added to the article. That this relevant aspect has obviously been forgotton here does not mean that we should exclude other relevant aspects as well.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "AQFK, you are talking about "the fact that no one can find reliable sources about 9/11 that also includes coverage about CT", as if you would never have read the section above." I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means.
  • "Furthermore, CT need to be included not because their content would represent a minority POV among historians, but because they are a relevant social phenomenon spawned by the September 11 attacks." AFAIK, they represent a zero minority among respected historians, but if you are arguing that CT should be mentioned because of their cultural impact, then I would like to know why CT should take precedence over all the other ways 9/11 has impacted American culture. The book, September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide[23] lists many ways that 9/11 has impacted American culture, but are not mentioned in the article. This seems like it violates WP:UNDUE.
  • "Do you have any reliable sources stating that United 93 and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center would have had more impact than Loose Change or Fahrenheit 9/11?" Well, Fahrenheit 9/11 is the best grossing documentary film of all time and Loose Change isn't. Also, Flight 93 received two Academy Award nominations, including Best Director and 6 BAFTA nominations, including Best British Film, winning two for Best Director and Best Film Editing, and Loose Change didn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How do you explain that a highly controversial film such as Fahrenheit 9/11 has become the best grossing documentary of all time?  Cs32en Talk to me  07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that virtually zero mainstream historians treat CT content seriously, if at all, would indicate to me that this "social phenomenon" is in fact silly, misguided and irrelevant. How do you propose to prove otherwise?
I also think airport disruption and the films United 93 and World Trade Center deserve some kind of mention, btw. Shirtwaist chat 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Silly, misguided or else but still highly notable to have a brief sub-section with a link to the main. Nothing will change that in the long run and therefore it's encyclopedic material.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The inclusionists have offered zero evidence aside from a "we want it in there" argument. The conspiracy theories are bogus, they aren't even a cultural phenomenon, except to those that give these ludicrus speculations any credence. Polls are useless in these kinds of issues, for if you ask how many people believe in UFO's, you'll find its pretty high, [24]...even though there is zero proof.--MONGO 01:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The exclusionists have offered only WP:ONEWAY, which would only apply if we were asserting the accuracy of the theories. We aren't. We are only asserting the existence and notability of the theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but just because something is notable doesn't mean they belong in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Arthur...demonstrate notability to us. In what way are the CT's notable...and in agreement with comment below by User:The Hand That Feeds You, the conspiracy theories have died off a lot...they probably peaked around the 2007.--MONGO 16:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That is of course unless something is highly notable like it is the case here.TMCk (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How is this "highly notable?" The whole thing has virtually fizzled out. Aside from a few hard-core believers, it hasn't sustained itself. The relevant information is in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It was a big thing at the time, but it's fallen to a mere historical footnote. This diff is the most I'd think it deserves have in this article; a simple link to the CT article is better, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly (re the diff). Nothing more nor less should be in the article.TMCk (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
On second thought: It even could be shortened a bit, not too much so.TMCk (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A reasonable approach. I think a little more should be there, but a little less would be within reasonable bounds. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Would be nice to see some middle ground - We should mention this topic and in doing so make it clear that its simply a social phenomena rather then factual. I cant believe that no less then 37 refs have been provided over the past 3 months and still people are simply saying there shit - We all know its all BS - thus so are the refs - All we have to do is mention it and in its proper context and we can avoid this in the future. Do you think that its exclusion from the article helps your case that is all BS...i would say no.. looks like we are not confident in the outcomeMoxy (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A few more RS that link CT to 911 to refute ONEWAY. Wayne (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Mark Baildon, James S. Damico Social Studies as New Literacies in a Global Society Routledge Research in Education Taylor & Francis, 2010 Page 93-103 ISBN 0415873673 (a 9th grade Humanities textbook)
  • Thomas Meyer Reality, truth and evil: facts, questions and perspectives on September 11, 2001 Temple Lodge Publishing 2005 ISBN 190263666X
  • Amy M. Damico, Sara E. Quay September 11 in Popular Culture ABC-CLIO 2010 ISBN 0313355053
Wayne, I think you're missing the point made by ONEWAY, which is that RS should connect the topics in a serious and prominent way -- meaning they should be relevant to each other in a serious manner. All your sources do is acknowledge the existence of, and usually the outrageous implausibility of, CTs without relating them in any meaningful way to the attacks themselves. In no way does this "refute ONEWAY", or the FRINGE guideline in general. You also may have missed this part of ONEWAY: "If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether." The last being a matter of opinion, I'm afraid that process has stalled, and may require mediation at this point. Shirtwaist chat 00:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The topic of this RfC seems to have changed. After starting out as "Should a (sub-)section on 9/11 conspiracy theories be included in the article?", it seems to have changed tack, through new arguments by the proponents of inclusion, to now be about the "social phenomenon" of 911 CTs, and not about the CTs themselves. It seems improper to me, not to mention disingenuous of the inclusionists. Shirtwaist chat 10:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Links to reports from National Transportation Safety Board are broken

Resolved
 – These broken links have been fixed (although there are still a few left in the article that need to be looked at).

I'm going through the article and checking for dead links. I've fixed a number, but there are 3 that I don't know what to do with. In the first paragraph of the Attacks section, we are citing 3 reports from NTSB. The URLs for all three reports are broken. I tried searching for the first report but can't seem to find it. I didn't look for the other 2 reports; I assume the result will be the same. They are being used for the following content:

At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower, followed by United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.

Another group of hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. A fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m, after the passengers on board engaged in a fight with the hijackers. Its ultimate target was thought to be either the Capitol (the meeting place of the United States Congress) or the White House.

We either have to find these reports (perhaps there are print versions available in a library) or find new sources (which shouldn't be too hard). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I ran Checklinks and there's are a few more refs we will have to fix if this is ever going to reach GA let alone FA level. That done.said we have so many books now in 2011 that are digitized that we can use.Moxy (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Some of those are false positives.[25][26] Also, I realize that you used a tool, but wouldn't it make more sense to put the dead link tag outside the ref elements? The way it is now, the dead link notice only appears in the references section at the very bottom where most people won't see them. It makes more sense for them to appear in the body of the article where people can seem them and fix the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The reason the tool does that is because our readers have no need to know its a dead link unless they actually (use it) click on the ref. We have no need to have dead tags in the body of the article making it harder to read. Dead tags are now normally placed were the ref is linked not beside the ref number in the main the article. Moxy (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The list of links at the bottom of [27] includes copies of these reports. Hut 8.5 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot. It looks like there were 4 dead links (contrary to my OP which said only 3). So...I was able to fix 3 out of the 4 dead links. But we're still missing the NTSB on flight 93. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Since we're already citing two sources for that statement we could just remove the dead link. Hut 8.5 06:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I removed it. Thanks for your help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anwar Al-Awlaki

Currently, Anwar Al-Awlaki is not mentioned in the article at all. It may be worthwhile to look for additional sources on his potential role.

Fox News reports the following: [28] [29] [30]

  • An investigation by Fox News found "new and overwhelming evidence" that al-Awlaki was an "overlooked key player" in the attacks.
  • According to FBI investigators, al-Awlaki may have facilitated the hijackers and knew the details of the attacks.
  • Sen. Bob Graham says there was a purposeful relationship between al-Awlaki and the hijackers.
  • Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi citizen, claimed to have met two of the hijackers after a meeting at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles in 2000.
  • People belonging to the alleged 9/11 support network are still living in the United States.
  • Al-Awlaki was invited to the Pentagon for lunch on Feb. 5, 2002, after 9/11, as the featured guest speaker on "Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture".

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you one of his fans? We can put him in and take out the conspiracy theories section since you and the other supporters for inclusion of the CT section have utterly failed to explain why it merits inclusion.--MONGO 23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comments are as usual out of the line and should be ignored.TMCk (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ditto.--MONGO 23:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much reason to include this. He was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the attacks, and all the reports are speculative. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Too many assumptions, not enough meat. If there's anything to it, this should show up in, shall we say, more reliable sources. Shirtwaist chat 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin reverts good faith edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus for option one, or removing all mention of conspiracy theories from the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty dismayed by Arthur Rubin's revert of my adding the POV section template to the CT section...this was a good faith edit on my part as it is obvious this section is in dispoute and has been for a few months. I suggest this section needs to go to formal mediation at this point. In the meantime, I am going to treat any good faith edits I make here which are reverted by others as vandalism.MONGO 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any of your arguments support an {{NPOV}} tag; as I said, the tags you seem to want are {{relevance}} and {{undue}}. You have presented no arguments for the former tag, now one could argue that {{undue}} is a species of {{NPOV}} violation, but I don't see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Giving undue weight to a fringe theory is a classic example of an NPOV dispute. And Arthur, you're not supposed to remove tags until the dispute is resolved. Did you resolve the dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the tags, now. {{undue|section}} and {{irrelevant|9/11 conspiracy theories}} seem the tags relevant to MONGO's arguments, even though I now see there is a good faith misinterpretation of the policies and guidelines that{{NPOV-section}} is the appropriate tag. There is no argument presented that the section is written in an POV manner, only that the article as a whole is POV because of the section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Arthur has hit the nail on the head. The only arguments supporting undue are ONEWAY and lack of linking RS, both of which were refuted in the March/April 2011 RFC (Keep:nine Vs Delete:three). I'm at a loss how editors can bring them up again with a straight face considering the last discussion was so recent. Adding a POV tag is POV. The only valid, and most frequent, argument given seems to be relevance per Arthur. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Just surprising - here again - i see that the section is full of tags again - despite the pass talk's about this. There is a problem here that some seem to be more interested in making sure there side is dominating in this dispute regardless of the outcome on the article. So again we have tags that are useless - "WHY" because your asking for [Citation needed] yet at the same time are refuse to let anyone add refs. Formal mediation at this point is a good idea would love to here y there is a refusal to let any of the refs presented over the pass 3 months to be included in the section. Referances have been added - yet removed - so yes mediation at this point is a good ideaMoxy (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Wayne: Where was WP:ONEWAY refuted? Unless I missed something, no one could produce any sources about 9/11 which also included coverage about CT is a serious and prominent way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Several editors supplied sources. I supplied more than half a dozen myself. One RS I supplied was rejected by AQFK "because it only devoted 10 pages to linking CT to 911 in a serious and prominent way", others were rejected with similar spurious reasoning which is not a failure to produce a source unless WP demands a minimum word count. Wayne (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Wayne: I don't recall anyone providing such sources and your failure to mention them here or provide a diff seems to indicate none were provided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I provided three in this discussion here. I'm not going to go through the entire March/April RFC but if you read it you can find many more yourself. Wayne (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
IRC, none of those were about 9/11; instead they were on peripheral topics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
So to be clear - in your opinion there is simply no references that will ever be acceptable because they are all based on this topic of a conspiracy? The reason i ask is as mentioned before many many refs have been provided yet still hearing that no good ones have been put forth. Moxy (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, the sources are all about some peripheral topic, such as 9/11's impact on popular culture, rather than about 9/11 itself. I'm not opposed to creating an article about 9/11's impact on popular culture (assuming we don't already have one) and including CT in that article.
Further, I think we would need several sources to satisfy WP:ONEWAY. The way WP:NPOV is supposed to work is that we aggregate from all sources. So, even if you found one or two sources which did cover CT, but the vast majority don't, we should follow the vast majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that the alledged references aren't qualifying due to reliability issues. "Debunking 911 debunking is conspiracy theory garbage...get a clue...This most definitely is a NPOV dispute and a UNDUE issue!MONGO 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with this 2 refs that have been removed form the article. And would be nice to stop insulting people - this is not grade 5 Moxy (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
None of those fix the issues of UNDUE weight....if the scientific literature doesn't discuss the CT's in a prominent fashion, then they don't deserve mention...the only reputable place the CT's are debunked is in the Popular Science book 5ebunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and in the NIST reports...MONGO 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not an article about a scientific topic; thus we need to take all reliable sources into account, not scientific ones only.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition to WP:ONEWAY, the "Reliable sources" section of WP:FRINGE says this:
"References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. "
Presumably, proponents of CTs and their followers (which constitute the vaunted "social phenomenon") would be included in the example "such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself". That seems to relate directly to the supposed significance of the "social phenomenon" argument raised by Arthur Rubin and others in favor of inclusion. Does anyone have a persuasive answer to this? Shirtwaist chat 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Shirtwaist, there are plenty of news articles, books, TV documentaries etc. about 9/11 conspiracy theories, which have not been written by proponents of such theories. Note that sources do not need to refer to the theories approvingly to indicate their notability. There are also (see above) sources that specifically discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories in the context of general description of the September 11 attacks and their aftermath. This discussion has moved well beyond the point where strawman attacks such as "there are only sources written by conspiracy theorists themselves" could be regarded as persuasive.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You're making too narrow an interpretation of that admonition. The sentence I cited doesn't say "References written by conspiracy theorists themselves", does it? It refers to references about them and their followers. An admonition against using self-published sources relating to fringe theories appears elsewhere in FRINGE. Shirtwaist chat 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wish people would stop misinterpreting policies when they cant come up with answers. WP:FRINGE does not apply! The governing policies regarding fringe theories are Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability, none of which are violated by the section. The section merely states CTs exist which is a mainstream claim. Please supply a single RS that states that CTs do not exist and you can claim fringe. WP:ONEWAY does not apply. Mention of the CTs existence does not give any weight to CTs because the section merely states they exist and as CT is not discussed as required by the ONEWAY policy there is no violation. The only valid argument is relevance. Wayne (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A large number of reliable sources are reporting on both the "creator(s)", as well as the theories themselves.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V all apply to this article (just like every other article on Wikipedia). Please stop misinterpreting policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Cs32en: Your claim that WP:FRINGE does not apply to fringe theories flies in the face of every major NPOV policy we have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Is AQFK the authority on interpretation? While fringe theories themselves may be fringe, simply claiming that the fringe theories exist is indisputable so making that claim IS NOT WP:FRINGE. As that is the claim made in the section, WP:FRINGE does not apply. WP:NPOV may apply if a factual claim promotes a fringe theory but that is not the case here. Wayne (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
According to AR and Cs32en, the discussion has moved away from describing the CTs to mentioning the "social phenomenon" of 911 CTs. However, these two aspects are actually two sides of the same coin, and if CTs are fringe, so is the "social phenomenon" that advocates for and believes in them, thus making this supposed "significant social phenomenon" quite insignificant, and not notable enough for inclusion in an article about the 911 attacks(see the excerpt from "Reliable sources" above). Shirtwaist chat 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The article has never "described" conspiracy theories, only mentioned that they exist. The social phenomenon was brought up in the last RFC so is not something new. As a social phenomenon it is definitely not insignificant as a Zogby Poll last year found that more than 40% of all Americans believe some 911 conspiracy theory. 40% is not insignificant in my dictionary. Wayne (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The current version of the section now in the article describes three such CTs. As I've said before, you can't mention CTs without describing them somehow. Zogby? Are those the same Zogby polls that have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911 truth.org? Different polls have different results, which makes them unreliable and irrelevant as far as WP is concerned anyway. Shirtwaist chat 10:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has gotten surreal now that Cs32en Wayne is claiming that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How about reading what people say instead of making threats. No one has said WP:FRINGE does not apply to describing fringe theories. What was said was that stating they existed is not itself a fringe theory. Ask someone to explain the difference to you. If you want to claim disruption anywhere, what about the editor who deleted text three weeks after that text recieved a 9 V 3 consensus to keep, the deletion of which led to everyone uneccessarily wasting their time now. Shirt, Wikpipedia policy says "discussed" which means described in detail. The policy also says that if WP:UNDUE is applicable discussion may be limited. No one can argue that the current mention isn't limited and policy should be read in the whole rather than cherry picked to support a POV. Wayne (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We're supposed to be here to create a high quality encyclopedia, not promote fringe theories. And who's saying that CT don't exist? Sounds like a strawman argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: In an effort to deescalate tensions, I've refactored my above two comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Wayne - What does "Wikipedia policy says "discussed" which means described in detail" mean, and how is it relevant to what I said? And what are you basing your definition of "discussed" on? The original RfC, which reads:"Should a (sub-)section on 9/11 conspiracy theories be included in the article?", says nothing about the intended level or nature of discussion. Shirtwaist chat 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
AQFK, can you point out where I would have said that WP:FRINGE would not apply to fringe theories, or, alternatively, and in an extension of your efforts "to deescalate tensions", strike out the respective parts of your comments.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. There was no indentation between your post and Wayne's and I thought it was one post and not two. I've corrected my mistake above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh. I actually made the same mistake. Cs32en, your signature is pretty distinct, but Wayne's isn't, so I thought that entire comment was yours. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction as well as for the explanation. There was no indentation, as my comment was in response to Shirtwaist's post.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, we can keep the CT section if we add the other conspiracy theories such as the well known LIHOP and MIHOP as well as the proponents that have proclaimed that aliens used laser beams. Wayne...polls are not helpful...40 percent of people may also believe Bigfoot exists and while we do have an article on that nonexistant critter, it isn't discussed in Human Evolution books except at most as a joke.MONGO 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That is only because Bigfoot is a stand alone creature that cant be directly linked to Human Evolution. You can mention LIHOP and MIHOP if you want but I wouldn't expand it. I also wouldn't include theories that dont have significant support. Heres a poll that was not sponsored by the 9/11 Truth Movement. As the article is also a serious report that includes interviews with prominent people not involved in conspiracy theories and links the conspiracy theories to 911 a serious and prominent way, it is another nail in the ONEWAY coffin. Wayne (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How do you know he/she (Bigfoot) can't be linked to human evolution...? Maybe he/she can, and maybe he/she can't. Point is, polls on such things as 911 CT's, UFO's, Boogey-men or Boogey-women, whether GW Bush or Obama is Satan or if the moon is made of cheese are meaningless so I don't understand why you keep referring us to polls. The CT's aren't discussed in a formal (and even then in the way of rebuttal) manner by serious experts except in one or two small sections of the NIST reports. We have to have reliable references to show they are prominent and in the seious engineering/historical/scientific they are either laughed off or simply not discussed.--MONGO 02:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Wayne - We already know about that poll - scroll up, it and others have already been discussed. That very same (five year old) Scripps poll also reports that:
"Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East": 59% "not likely", 16% "very likely"
"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings": 77% "unlikely", 6% "very likely"
"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists": 80% "not likely", 6% "very likely"
I don't see how this poll or the article links the conspiracy theories to the 911 attacks in a serious and prominent way either. Maybe you can clarify that. Shirtwaist chat 09:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have petered out and it doesn't appear as if anyone's changed their minds since the last time we discussed it. The section is only in the article because it got edit-warred into it. My question is this: should we restore the concensus edit or wait for the RfC to expire? I'm leaning towards waiting for the RfC to expire. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the section was only removed from the article because of a false consensus (which I believed to be true at the time). The only "change of mind" in question is my change of mind as to whether the "consensus to remove" was a true consensus. It's now clear there is no consensus on whether the section should be included, so that the status quo ante should be restored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Referenced or removed - cant have it both ways - either we allow the references to be added or the section must be removed. We have a section right now that actually draws your attention to this section (thus its topic) because of the Tags. The section stand out like a sore thumb and i am sure is drawing our readers to it - As ialways read the controversial/tagged sections intently and with scrutiny .Moxy (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: I specifically asked you on your talk page[31] to rejoin the discussion and you didn't. It's not my fault that you failed to rejoin the discussion. The fact remains that the consensus of the editors who participated in the discussion at the time were in favor of removal and the addition of a see also link. It's now your job to convince us otherwise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You provided no new arguments — why should I need to provide new arguments when I had already refuted yours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
And the tags were MONGO's idea, even though he wanted to add tags without argument, before. I don't think the tags are appropriate, but they could have been added in good faith. (The tags that he added were not supported by argument, while the tags I replaced them with were supported by arguments which I consider inadequate. There is a difference.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: You're starting to venture into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I did bring up a completely new argument and I can prove it by providing the diff for you.[32] If it's an old argument that I've used previously, can you provide a diff of me saying this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that it's not covered by WP:JIMBO, it was refuted by other editors, in that mainstream texts do make mention of the conspiracy theories; not a large mention, but often a chapter, rather than merely a page or two. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was wrong. It had been refuted before it was made. WP:ICANTHEARYOU, indeed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: To your first point, dismissing an argument on the grounds of who made it is nothing more an Ad hominem argument. To your second, all the sources that have been provided were about some peripheral topic (such as popular culture or conspiracy theories), not about 9/11 itself. Further, even if you found a couple sources, but the vast majority don't, we should follow the vast majority. To do otherwise is giving undue weight to a theory which academia does not take seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You quoted Jimbo's E-mail, which would not be generally be considered as an argument except for who made it. And you haven't mentioned any specific "history texts" on 9/11 which do not give the conspiracy theories a few pages. If one were to use actual percentage coverage, one page per book would be sufficient to cover WP:UNDUE for the proposed text. Two or three pages would have been sufficient to cover the status quo ante. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Author: To your first point, it's more than just an e-mail by our founder (one of them, anyway); it's part of our policy on WP:NPOV. Check out the section on WP:UNDUE. This is official Wikipedia policy which was achieved through the consensus of hundreds (thousands?) of editors.

To your second point: If I go to the bookstore of my local college and examine their history textbooks and they fail to mention CT in a serious and prominent way, can we consider the matter closed and done? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken on the first, although it is Jimbo's interpretation of WP:NPOV, which is not necessarily the current interpretation.
No, on the second. It has to be a book on 9/11. If it's a modern history which covers 9/11, a paragraph on conspiracy theories would be more than enough, and the absence of such a paragraph is not adequate to counter other books which do cover it. And "serious and prominent" is far too restrictive; we are not proposing to cover it in a "serious and prominent" way in this article. (Well, at least, I'm not. I can't speak for those who wanted to incorporate the entire 911CT article here.) WP:UNDUE suggests that we should cover it with the degree of coverage in the reliable sources, and no more. If we are not proposing "serious and prominent" coverage, then we should not need to find "serious and prominent" coverage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: It shouldn't have to be a full book. A book is likely to contain hundreds of pages whereas our articles are only supposed to be 10 pages long. Ideally, I'd like to see a university level textbook with a section on 9/11 that's approximately 10 pages long. I think that that would be the ideal comparison. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
For it to be WP:UNDUE, the fraction of coverage in our article would have to be significantly larger than the fraction of coverage in "the real world" (reliable sources). (It should also be pointed out that this is not how it's actually done; in an ideal world, it might be done that way.) Your ideal would be a good comparison, but I would be surprised if such section of a book didn't have a full paragraph on conspiracy theories, and the last proposal was for a sentence. And before you go out in search of such a book [let's see; that one has 8 pages on 9/11 (out); that one has 12 pages; ... LOL), absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Other sources already provided have do have significant coverage of conspiracy theories, and even the Commission report mentions a conspiracy theory, so you would at least need to do a survey of a number of history books for the net fraction to override the observations already made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: I hate to bring this up yet again, but the burden of proof is on those who favor inclusion. If you don't want to, well, that's fine, but I don't understand how you can expect to change consensus without addressing this. Yes, I know that you claim there was no real concensus at the previous discussion. But given the fact that you voluntarily dropped out of the discussion despite me specifically asking that your rejoin[33] pretty much invalidates this claim.
Yes, other sources about 9/11 conspiracy theories have been provided. No one is disputing that 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable in and of themselves. But none of these sources are actually about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, they are about some peripheral topic (such as 9/11's impact on popular culture or conspiracy theories themselves). In fact, Wikipedia has numerous articles about about 9/11 conspiracy theories: 9/11 Conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth movement, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Loose Change (film), September 11 attacks opinion polls, 911: In Plane Site, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Zeitgeist: The Movie, 9/11: The Big Lie, etc.
I believe that you are mistaken about the 9/11 Commission Report discussing conspiracy theories in a serious and prominent way but I could be wrong. Can you please point me to the page numbers where conspiracy theories are discussed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
AQFK keeps bringing up WP:ICANTHEARYOU and then goes on to state, quote: "The fact remains that the consensus of the editors who participated in the discussion at the time were in favour of removal and the addition of a see also link." Looking back at the March RFC the votes appear to be, Keep the section: nine Vs Delete the section: three, I also notice that this result has been pointed out to AQFK in this discussion several times since, and completely ignored. AQFK also brings up WP:ONEWAY frequently and, ignoring all arguments that ONEWAY is not applicable anyway, when refuted raises the bar in an attempt to keep it in play. For example when a source devotes 10 pages to CTs AQFK says this is not enough and when a high school textbook discussing CTs is provided AQFK now states that only "a university level textbook" is acceptable. One must ask the question, is any level of proof enough? Wayne (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:OR - "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks;" Shirtwaist chat 04:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur - you can't simply wish away WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE by saying " 'serious and prominent' is far too restrictive". Those terms are there for a good reason, and they do not apply to how anyone proposes to cover it in this article. It's surprising that you would try to suggest otherwise by "moving the goalpost" instead of presenting a solid argument against existing policy and guidelines.
The manner in which the Commission report mentions conspiracy theories may be "serious", but is in no way "prominent". It's not much more than a footnote in a report that endeavored to present all aspects of the attacks, however trivial and ridiculous they may be. (EDIT: Going through the report again, a word search of "conspiracy" only yields references to the al Qaeda conspiracy itself, and not to any CTs per se. I thought I saw a footnote about CTs previously, but couldn't fing anything now.) WP has no such mandate, as NPOV, UNDUE, and FRINGE make abundantly clear. As far as history texts are concerned, I'd like to see one that treats 911 CTs in something resembling a "serious and prominent" manner (and which institution includes it as part of their curriculum), and not as the Commission report's perfunctory footnote on junk theories is presented. Those who favor inclusion have still not provided any RS primarily concerned with the attacks that connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. All I've seen is a persistent leaning on RS about CTs and their effect on popular culture. This is missing the whole point of UNDUE and FRINGE entirely, and refutes nothing. Shirtwaist chat 03:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I take a 2 week wiki-break and this thing is still going on. I suggest more formal mediation as this is going nowhere fast. Soxwon (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RfCs run for 30 days AFAIK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is going to change anyone elses mind even if the Rfc lasted 30 years at this point. UNDUE is pretty clear...its been explained repeatedly. Yet those that don't understand why its policy or try and dance around the issue must not really care. IF the conspiracy theory section remains, it isn't the end of the world, but makes us look silly even mentioning it since reputable sources don't bother.--MONGO 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

Before we ask "again" for outside help - has anyone proposed a compromise or is this simply not a possibility because of the different opinions about policy? I do agree in principle (because of our policies as such) that this section should not be here. However I am seeing a little disconnect it what is being argued. I do oppose a section or going into details about any conspiracy per say or mentioning who, what, where details, (as per policy). But cant see why we simply cant mention that there are conspiracies. One simply sentence added to a section can solve this for all no? No section just one statement that is linked to the main "BS" article. This way it does not standout in its own section or standout in the see also section. This way you have to read the article and thus have a better context before this link is seen. Moxy (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As with other major events in history conspiracy theories surrounding 911 have arisen, but have been demanded deemed unfounded by main stream society. Amy M. Damico; Sara E. Quay (14 September 2010). September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. ABC-CLIO. p. 68. ISBN 9780313355059. Retrieved 3 June 2011. or As with other major events in history conspiracy theories surrounding 911 have arisen, but have been demanded deemed unfounded by the academic community.Amy M. Damico; Sara E. Quay (14 September 2010). September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. ABC-CLIO. p. 68. ISBN 9780313355059. Retrieved 3 June 2011.

Moxy...I can't see the contents of the book...can you quote the passage and then we can rephrase it? Is it mainstream society or is it the academic community? Here is a a book passage that calls the proponents of 911 conspiracy theories "Fringe Conspiracists"...as shown at this link--MONGO 00:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This one the author titled his book Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America...and calls the 9/11 Truthers, "al-Qaeda apologists"...as shown here.--MONGO 00:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In my reference is keeps calling them "Believers" and in the process keeps implying very directly that they are outside the norm - be it academic or what main stream society believes. It goes on to classify this "believers" or the "some" as having there own agendas, with some basing there ideas on mystical enemies like Jews, President Bush etc. Also i have always liked the following reference referring to the conspiracies as a "bitter reality" Uriel Rosenthal; Erwin R. Muller (2007). The evil of terrorism: diagnosis and countermeasures. Charles C Thomas Publisher. p. 9. ISBN 9780398077815. Retrieved 3 June 2011. Side note: You may find this tool of interest Google book tool Moxy (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I wouldn't be opposed to a sentence along the lines of the ones you've proposed. As somebody here said - even the Flat Earthers get one sentence in the Earth article. But where would it be placed? At the end of "International response", maybe? Certainly NOT in the "Long term effects" section. And is "have been 'demanded' unfounded" proper grammar? Sounds odd to me. Shirtwaist chat 04:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect "demanded" should be "deemed" or "determined", or possibly some other "de...ed" word. I can live with that; however, if it gets deleted, the current section will be restored as a compromise. This version seems to have less weight than appropriate, so it's a violation of WP:UNDUE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops major typo - sorry fixed. Any suggestions on location?Moxy (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there really is a good location for it. There's Health effects but I'm not sure those favoring inclusion will like that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
"Health effects" might be appropriate...if we're talking about mental health effects as far as the Truthers are concerned.  ;} Oh CRAP, there goes my NPOV. Please disregard! Shirtwaist chat 23:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If we have a reliable source that it's a mental health condition, that seems fine to me. Personally, I think it is at least a symptom of a mental health disorder, along with tax protestors and the sovereign citizen movement. But that's probably too much of a stretch for any potentially reliable source to include.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a compromise on this issue...the CT's are simply stupid and should be ignored as much as possible. This article shouldn't be dwelving into that issue so long as there is a link in the See Also section to the fables.--MONGO 02:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just think a sentence to put the issues in the proper context, is much better the just a link that stands out in the see also section. Moxy (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
@MONGO: if you're not interested in compromise, perhaps you should work in another forum than this collaborative medium.
@Moxy: I disagree, but if we're both satisfied with the sentence, we might as well go for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, people aren't interested in compromise with Randy in Boise. That many have taken your advice to work elsewhere accounts for the disproportionate coverage Wikipedia gives to fringe theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur...perhaps you need to stop thinking your word is the end word on this matter...it isn't...you have failed miserably to convince myself and many others that there is a need to mention the conspiracy theories at all...I suggest you stay so myself and those that understand the meaning of UNDUE/FRINGE and soapboxing can continue to try and educate you.--MONGO 20:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
@Tom harrison - Very interesting essays you have written - you seem to have a great grasp of things here on Wikipedia in general. I have a question - do you believe that mentioning the fringe theories in a discrediting manner is disproportionate coverage or proper context given the fact we allude to that it is out of the norm?Moxy (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel confident that a neutral observer would find consensus for inclusion of the two-sentence paragraph, in spite of your interpretation of WP:ONEWAY. WP:UNDUE makes it clear that we should give fringe statements as much coverage as they are given in the reliable sources, whether or not "serious and prominent": "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The phrase "serious and prominent way" in WP:ONEWAY is not consistent with WP:UNDUE. As a scientist, I find it unfortunate that Wikipedia cannot ignore fringe theories, but, as most of us are not experts, we need to depend on what is in reliable sources. Hence, I believe that Wikipedia is harmed by the exclusion of this information, and that such exclusion is in clear violation of WP:NPOV. The fact that WP:CONSENSUS appears also to be in favor of inclusion, makes it clear that the editors acting to arbitrarily exclude the material are not in keeping with Wikipedia policies, and should be countered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I am compromising...by saying that a link to the CT's in the see also section is tolerable...if it were up to me, we wouldn't even mention them at all in this article space, not even in the see also section. Physical Anthropology books dedicate nary a word to bigfoot, though I have seen evidence that is still mystifying to a degree regarding that issue, but recognize the minimal numbers needed for biological maintenance so dismiss them since the evidence, far more convincing and perplexing than 9/11 CT's could ever hope to be, aren't discussed in reliable sources. 2 sentence paragraphs (a rarity) soon become 3 then 5 and more and more sentences...we have other articles that discuss this issue ad nauseum...a link in the see also section will guide them down that path should they so choose to follow it. The ONLY place the CT's are discussed and refuted is in the NIST reports, and even there, they are mentioned in passing, surmised as fringe and quickly dismissed, albeit more cordially than I would have been.--MONGO 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the CTs are ridiculous too, but can you imagine how much effort it would take to keep Loch Ness Monster out of the Loch Ness article? How much energy is being applied to improving other aspects of the article compared to the energy applied to keeping two sentences out of this article? Having 2 brief sentences would not be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and should be enough to shut down the CT people here AND get all the "CT is ridiculous" people here on the same side. I am reluctant to even post this, as I do not wish to devote much time or energy to this issue - people will believe that CT stuff & complain it is not acknowledged here WITHOUT END... There will be no agreement EVER, but having only one position to oppose (rather than two) will conserve resources. That there are these CTs is a significant cultural phenomenom & freezing them out completely does not speak well of the NPOV & reliability of the article. --JimWae (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
We have articles that discuss 9/11 CT's...many of them...they outnumber those that discuss the facts already. Should we have a Loch Ness Monster Doesn't Exist article for balance? I don't get your analogy. The CT's don't seem to be, as you say, a "significant cultural phenomenom" to me or a lot of other people. As far as the engineering/forensic/architectural fields are concerned, they don't even deserved to be discussed....we should follow that lead.--MONGO 01:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a valid analogy. The reason why Loch Ness is so famous is because of the Loch Ness Monster. The 9/11 terrorist attacks are not famous because of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why that part is an analogy, not an argument - just as Sasquatch (above) was an analogy. The argument does not depend upon the analogy--JimWae (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy is to the point. The weight we give a topic should be the weight reliable sources give a topic. If books about, say, the ecology of the evergaldes typically include a chapter about Big Foot, then our page about the Everglades should include a section on Big Foot. If they don't mention Big Foot, then neither should we, not even if an article about Big Foot in the NYT reports someone saying he thought he saw Big Foot in the Everglades. (Hmm... Manatees; Aquatic Big Foot theory; hope I don't start something...) Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thanks for the kind words. The problem I see is giving the conspiracy theories their own sub-section doesn't reflect the weighting reliable sources about the attacks give them (unlike the weighting given the Loch Ness Monster in books about Loch Ness, which is substantial). This article, like much of Wikipedia, overweights conspiracy theories. If the sub-section were Social and cultural consequences, then the conspiracy theories would warrant a mention. I wouldn't even say a discrediting mention, but simply as one item in a comma-seperated list: Film, literature, conspiracy theories, popular culture. Tom Harrison Talk 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree a section is way to much - also dont like the see also section (both stand out to much). I did suggest above one sentence that simply acknowledges there existences. Do you believe the subject merits no inclusion here at all (as in not linked) or just see also etc? ?Moxy (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It depends on how long the article is. The conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the attacks as such. They're in the article at all because over time they've been shoe-horned in by promoters, and kept in the name of compromise, and put under Long-term effects because that's a less bad place. It's possible we could have a better article if we cut down on the sections that don't deal with the immediate attack, and then don't mention the conspiracy theories at all. I'm not sure this article needs a see-also section. I'd be inclined to remove it entirely. In any case, we shouldn't have the ct section and the see-also link as well, so I've removed the link. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your assessment and actions 100%Moxy (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree with the assessment, but agree with the action. The conspiracy theories should only appear once in this article. However, it's absurd to have an article, of this length, on the attacks, which doesn't mention the conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, there doesn't seem to be consensus to include a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but there does seem to be some support for a passing mention with a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories article as Tom Harrison suggested here.[34] Does anyone want to take a stab at it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
A Quest for Knowledge, I would suggest leaving attempts to define any consensus arising from this discussion to editors who are less involved or opinionated than you are.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As you know, the only reason why the article has the section now was because it was edit-warred into the article[35][36][37] resulting in block against one of the edit warriors[38] and the admin threated to block the next person to change it,[39] so if we can't reach some sort of compromise, then we just go back to the last concensus edit (no section, but a See Also link) when the RfC closes. Either way is fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the last consensus version was the one before that [40], with a (sub)section and five sentences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: It was the consensus of the editors participating in the discussion to replace the section with a See Also link. It's not my fault you dropped out of the discussion. I even went the extra mile and asked you on your talk page to rejoin the discussion[41] but you didn't. Silence equals conscent. The burden is now on you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with AQFK. The section was deleted April 26, Soxwon put it back May 12. 16 days without response seems sufficient to establish consensus for exclusion. Soxwon disregarded that defacto consensus when he put it back, which means Soxwon's revert should've been reverted, then discussed. As we know, that's not what happened, and as AQFK said, it was edit-warred back in. Shirtwaist chat 01:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Giving that the section had been in the article for years, and that the issue has been debated on the talk page repeatedly, including in a discussion that took place just prior to the unilateral action of removing the section, 16 days in no way does establish any consensus for that action.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This chart in WP:CON refutes that argument. AQFK made an edit, we waited, the article wasn't edited further in this regard, therefore a new consensus was formed. The argument could be made that since, as you pointed out, this article was so prone to debate, a silence of 16 days on this edit was way more than would normally be expected on such a contentious article, and is further proof that consensus was indeed reached! Shirtwaist chat 02:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought there had been a new consensus formed, but, after looking back over the previous months' discussion, a 3-1 current "consensus" cannot override a consensus previously established with over a dozen editors agreeing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there has been no true "consensus" on this issue for quite some time if your definition of "consensus" is agreement, and not vote counting. My point is simply that a "de facto" consensus had been achieved by the lack of response, both in editing and in talk, after AQFK's deletion. Soxwon may have been within his rights to BRD at that point. Problem was, Soxwon misinterpreted WP:BRD as meaning "BRRR", and was promptly blocked for it, preventing the restoration of things to the state before Soxwon stepped in (the de facto consensus) for fear of further blocks. THAT is why the section is still in place, NOT because of any presumed "consensus". Shirtwaist chat 04:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving on to a general consensus

Lets see if we can organizes all our views in point form see where we all stand at this point. Thus allowing someone new to evaluate the views quickly
1) Removal of all mention of CT
2) Only mention of CT in one sentence
3) Only a link to CT in see also section
4) CT should have it's own section
5) CT in a subsection of the section "Aftermath"

2 Only mention of CT in one sentence Moxy (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
5 (or a subsection of some other section), per WP:UNDUE; material should be given as much coverage in our article as is given in reliable sources, whether or not "serious and prominent", as forked in WP:ONEWAY. 2 would be acceptable. 4 would probably be too much coverage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
5, as the emergence CTs is a significant aspect of the consequences of the historic event; [added after the comment below:] 4 would be a valid editorial decision, although not the one I would prefer.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider that significantly different from 4? Are you sure you want to split the !votes? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As we are not really voting, a closing administrator or editor would look at the substance of the discussion rather than the raw number of !votes for each alternative. That would be how consensus building works, or could potentially work. I would see a difference between a section and a subsection, both with regard to the importance and to the position within the article's structure.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1, because Wikipedia doesn't take care to distinguish criticism of the government handling of the issue from "conspiracy theory". Often two separate issues, they get lumped under the same term. Wildbear (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The foreknowledge debate, which has its own article that does not use the term "conspiracy theory", should be discussed separately, in my opinion.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking specifically of foreknowledge; since an assumption of foreknowledge that the specific attacks would occur is likely speculative and hence "theory". Rather, I was referring to criticism of the response to the attacks; e.g. hindrance of investigation, destruction of evidence, rush to war, etc. Simply mentioning these issues usually gets lumped under "conspiracy theory"; such criticism is currently not documented to any significant extent in the article. If an editorial decision is made to allow a serious criticism section within the article, free from pejorative use of "conspiracy theory", I will be happy to change my vote to a 2, 3, or 4. Wildbear (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I we would start with the assumption that any presentation of CT on the project is necessarily so misleading that it would be better to leave it out altogether, then we would indeed not only have to remove the content from this article, but go on to delete a large number of other Wikipedia articles as well.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1 Per WP:ONEWAY and Jimbo's e-mail of September, 2003(If this was a significant minority viewpoint, then it should be easy to name some prominent historians). However, I am also willing to compromise. A passing reference as part of a sentence about 9/11's impact would also be OK. I'll also accept #3 as a compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
1 As CTs are sufficiently insignificant consequences because they are considered so by scientists, historians, and mainstream society. But in the name of reaching a compromise - either 2 or 3(if absolutely necessary). Shirtwaist chat 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1 per A Quest For Knowledge Ethelred Cyning (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
In no case should the conspiracy theories have their own sub-section. To give the subject the weight reliable sources about the attacks give it, choice 1. The burden rests not on everyone else to justify leaving out the material, but on those who wish to include material to justify that, and demonstrate consensus for it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, evidence must be provided to show that the content is verifiable. Once such evidence is provided, the burden to establish consensus relates to all involved editors. There is no burden to establish consensus for the addition of sourced material, although such material can be removed by consensus, of course, and closing administrator may make appropriate determinations with regard to the content of an article when closing a discussion as "no consensus". In many cases, such a decision restores the status quo ante, which in itself seems to be disputed in this case.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It's about relevance. It's perfectly true and well attested in reliable sources that the Rothschilds were a prominent German Jewish banking family. The burden to include that fact on our page about the 911 attacks rests entirely on the editor who wants to include it, no matter how many citations he provides. Ultimately, reliable sources about the 911 attacks don't devote nearly the fraction of coverage to the conspiracy theories that this page does. It's unjustified, and it needs to go. Tom Harrison Talk 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1 preferred, 2 or 3 acceptable compromises. If there is a mention in the text, it should be done in the broader context of hugely traumatic events, something like "As with other deeply traumatic national events -- the JFK assassination, the attack on Pearl Harbor, [maybe another] -- the attacks have produced a number of conspiracy theories [linked to that article]." Antandrus (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1...no link, no mention, not worthy of consideration in an article that should be trimed substantially anyway to streamline the scope.MONGO 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1 my version was reverted. So I go with option 1. --DHeyward (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1 There might have been a time when there was some relevance, but there isn't anymore. 3 would be a poor 2nd choice. There's no mainstream thought that there's any valid basis for CT's. They don't belong in a serious article on the subject. RxS (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1 or 3 would be acceptable. Creating a see also section may be a good idea simply because many people are going to come here looking for information on conspiracy theories, and many comparable articles have see also sections (Holocaust and Holocaust denial, for instance). If we have to include coverage of conspiracy theories in this article then I'd go for 2 provided the sentence makes it abundantly clear the conspiracy theories are fringe. Hut 8.5 08:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1 per MONGO please. V7-sport (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
2 or 5 and strong oppose 1. There should be a small (2-4 sentences) mention somewhere in the article to acknowledge their existence, while also not giving them equal validity. Whether we like it or not, the conspiracies are a notable cultural part of the reaction and aftermath of the attacks. Mildly MadTC 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1 per WP:ONEWAY. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
1, 2, or 3 Anything more is undue. --Tarage (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Prefer 2 or 3, oppose the others. The theories are a minor but notable aspect of the topic, and (in view of WP:ONEWAY) their existence and association with the topic has been covered by reliable media sources. As others have said, readers may come to this article looking for information about them. By providing a link, we are not giving these theories any credence; rather, we provide a comprehensive overview of the topic, which includes its reception by the fringes of society. A reader unfamiliar with the US and US history will find it interesting and relevant to know that preposterous beliefs about the event do appear to be held by a non-negligible number of people.  Sandstein  06:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I decline to chose one of these options as they do not include the option of keeping the current section that was the result of previous consensus. I believe the current section covers the topic adequately, has had no cogent argument given for deletion, and that excluding it from this "vote" and by also splitting the vote with a multiple choice is little more than gaming. The question should simply be keeping the current section or not. If kept then it's content can be further discussed. If rejected, then items 1, 3 and 5 can be discussed. Wayne (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
So your saying you would like option 4 in it's own section (as it is now)?Moxy (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, at the moment it's a subsection of "Long-term effects". The closest option to Wayne's opinion is 5, but that would require moving it to "Aftermath" instead. Hut 8.5 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"Long-term effects" is not a good place for it as it was most prominent in the short term and CTs existing have no real effect on anything anyway. A subsection in "Aftermath" is appropriate and I dont think it should have it's own section. However, the current multi choice option gives too much weight to minimising mention and effectively "steers" editors to a result acceptable to the POV editors as it is seems that many editors are playing "follow the leader" because they dont understand the arguments. Wayne (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case, there are a pretty wide spread of options available for editors. And I think we can trust editors to think for themselves and not follow the leader. Wikipedia operates and depends on that principle. RxS (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1 or 3, leaning 1 - Came here from the AN thread. Arguments for 1 are far more impressive than for any other option. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • As per this talk I have removed the section. Moxy (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that the tag {{Content}}} was added by a minority view holder - could we get someone else to look at this TAG as I believe its used in the wrong manner. Why? do we have such a problem with people putting tags on this article to prove a point. Wikipedia:Disruptive editingMoxy (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We have no mechanism to determine whether there is a consensus; I see a current consensus, but I don't think it's adequate to override the long-term consensus that it should be included. Still, I'll take off the tag, but feel that the main 9/11 template should be expanded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
AS per WP:CCC looks like things have changed. I do wish for some sort of inclusion, but can clearly see that this extensive talk has seen things the other way. You must admit that this talk this time around was by far the longest we have had on the topic. We have included a few RcF's and a few AN threads over the past few months. Do you realy think this {{Content}}} tag is warranted after all the outside help that has been asked for already? Moxy (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Concensus does change, but nearing the 10th anniversary of this event, I bet the CT's die off after that and even in articles written 50 years from now about what happened, CT's won't even get a post script then.--MONGO 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to point it out, three of the conspiracy-theory pages remain linked from this page, via Template:September 11 attacks, under Effects. Tom Harrison Talk 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. RxS (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Reverted. That's a separate issue, which needs to be dealt with at that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 2 or 3 though I'd prefer something like 2-3 brief sentences with a link and a see also. Certainly a section is too much, but a lack of a mention is just burying our collective heads in the sand. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No charges ever brought against bin Laden for 9/11

RxS asks, "If they didn't involve 9/11 then why is it on this page?" Good question. I would like to bring your attention to the article's Osama bin Laden section as it presently stands. If you read the section carefully, you will see that the case it presents for involvement by bin Laden in 9/11 consists almost entirely of what are alleged to be his own words (mostly from tape). I am not suggesting that this material should be changed or removed from the article; but it does constitute an extremely limited scope of sourcing, basically coming from one man; the accused himself. I suggest that the scope of this section should be broadened. The US Federal government's position on bin Laden's involvement is naturally one of the first things to document in this criminal matter. And what the major sources are telling us, reliably and unambiguously: no charges were brought by the US Federal government against Osama bin Laden for involvement in 9/11. Wildbear (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for bin Laden's admissions. The authenticity of all the tapes where he admits liability is questioned by RS. Additionally, the Federal Government has declined to release evidence implicating him. Wayne (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It is true that bin Laden was not indicted in a US court for involvement in the 9/11 attacks (though he has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictments of other terrorist suspects, he has been charged in connection with 9/11 in Spain and he has been indicted for the 1998 United States embassy bombings). This absolutely does not mean that the US government does not consider bin Laden to be responsible for 9/11. Rather the reason they haven't charged him is because they didn't need to.[42] Putting this information in the article would give the (false) impression that bin Laden was not considered responsible for 9/11, a position that has almost no support apart from conspiracy theorists. Hut 8.5 10:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should not try to convey that bin Laden was not considered responsible for 9/11, as this would be a misrepresentation of the views commonly held by the authorities. However, it is also misleading to convey the impression that the government has presented to the public a solid case for involvement by bin Laden in 9/11, as little or no evidence has been released, and no indictment was ever made. What is needed in the bin Laden section is a neutral description of why bin Laden is considered a suspect in the 9/11 matter, based on information from the authorities, and not just words from the suspect himself. I read the article that you (Hut 8.5) referenced, multiple times over, hoping to glean something which could be used in presenting a neutral point of view. However, the article appears to provide only a non-explanation explanation. Some relevant quotes: "Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course". That's good; may we see some descriptive information about how these conclusions were reached? "FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices." That's logical and agreeable, but it doesn't answer any questions. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it." And that logic is...? Attorney David N. Kelley states: "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was." Agreed; but again, it doesn't say anything useful. In conclusion, I agree that we should not mislead the readers by implying uncertainty by the authorities of bin Laden's guilt in 9/11; but at the same time, given the seriousness of the accusations being implied, the section should present more information about the government's case against bin Laden, and perhaps a little less focus on bin Laden's own words. Wildbear (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Laden admitted to it...in U.S. courts, if you admit to murder it is an admission of a guilty plea. BUT, for the sake of if he was caught by non-U.S. forces and issues arose as to them not wishing to hand Laden over to U.S. authorities due to differences in the application of a death sentence, the charges the FBI did bring against Laden (international terrorism) were designed to ensure he would at a minimum be brought before the International Court of Justice...sorry for the lack of refs in this verbage, but this always seemed to be the rationale for the charges brought as I understood them.--MONGO 04:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
it is also misleading to convey the impression that the government has presented to the public a solid case for involvement by bin Laden in 9/11 - that is your personal opinion. In order for us to put it into the article we need something more substantial, like evidence that a large number of people (other than conspiracy theorists) agree with you. Hut 8.5 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not personal opinion but reported fact. The FBI has stated publicly that the evidence linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks is classified and the Government has admitted that the evidence is probably not sufficient for a prosecutable case anyway. It can hardly be said that "the government presented to the public a solid case for involvement." Wayne (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
In any case, this is excessive detail for the top-level article. Put it in bin Laden's article or in another suitable. Tom Harrison Talk 13:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Quoting U.S. President Barack Obama, December 1, 2009: "Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan.(emphasis mine)(ref) In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. wanted Osama bin Laden with such intensity that it saw fit to launch a war when the Taliban refused to turn the man over to U.S. custody. In light of this history, having one sentence describing why the U.S. government wanted bin Laden, in its own words and not those of bin Laden himself, seems reasonable (and not excessive detail) to have in the section. What the wording of that sentence should be is a fair topic for discussion. We could, for example, use the following sentence from the Osama bin Laden article: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that classified(1) evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the September 11 attacks is clear and irrefutable.(2)" Simple and straight-forward enough? Although there is a problem with the sentence as written, in that the FBI did not say (in the second referenced document) that the evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the September 11 attacks is classified as the sentence implies; rather, the White House stated (in a news conference held the previous year) that classified evidence exists, and it did not specify who was in possession of that evidence. This potentially misleading wording can be corrected. Wildbear (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading many documents from the White House, Federal Government, and major media sources about the Federal Government's claims and actions with respect to Osama bin Laden, particularly in the days immediately following 9/11. It's been an eye-opener, and from what I have learned I can now see that a single sentence addition can not do justice for the topic; so I'm retracting my previous suggestion. To achieve balanced coverage, the section needs to be mostly or completely re-written. Wildbear (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that a major rewrite is needed, and your suggested sentence seems to make things less WP:NPOV. Could you explain your reasoning? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Since this is an article about 9/11, the Osama bin Laden section should present a reasonably comprehensive summary of bin Laden's alleged involvement in 9/11. As it stands, everything in the section which implicates bin Laden in planning and execution of 9/11 allegedly comes from bin Laden himself, and is actually quite minimal in extent. The accusations and response from the U.S. Federal Government with respect to bin Laden are of such disproportionately large magnitude, that it seems a strange vacuum to have nothing written about it in this section. The section appears overly narrow in its focus. It is not essential that the section be longer, but it should at least be broader in its coverage of the topic. Some aspects of this history may be unappealing to readers; but recording unappealing history together with appealing history is an essential part of maintaining a neutral point of view. Wildbear (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_55&oldid=1197944155"