Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Archive 1

Notability of the article's subject
The notability of the article's subject, the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is being established by:


 * multiple international reports in reliable sources on the activities and statements of the group;
 * multiple citations of the statements of Richard Gage, the leader of the organization, in reports of major U.S. newspapers on the investigations into the collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center;
 * multiple references to the group in reports on conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks in reliable sources;
 * a television broadcast of Telecinco, a leading Spanish private TV company, with an accompanying article that specifically reports on a presentation of the group's leader, Richard Gage, in November 2008.

Cs32en 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability guideline for organizations
The notability guideline for organizations and companies contains the following criteria:


 * 1) "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." — All the sources are secondary sources. "Significant coverage" is defined in more detail below.
 * 2) "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." — All sources that establish the notability are reliable and independent of the subject.
 * 3) "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." — Some of the sources given in the article are covering the article's subject in a substantial way, and there are multiple independent sources anyway.
 * 4) "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." — None of the sources that are given in the article treat the article's subject in a trivial or incidental way. The sources refer to the subject of the article because it is pertinent to the content of the article, or because it is the primary reason why the article was written.
 * 5) "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." — Reliable secondary sources from different countries (USA, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom) are given in the article.
 * 6) "The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works [...] except for the following: Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." — One secondary source actually quotes (not re-prints) a press release published by the article's subject. The information contained in that quote could be easily sourced from other reliable secondary sources.
 * 7) "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." — While some of the sources report on the time of a public presentation organized in their respective city or country, these are not "meetings", and these secondary sources contain much more information on the article's subject, so they do not fall under this category.
 * 8) "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." — The activities of the article's subject, as evidenced by reliable secondary sources, are on a national scale in the United States, and include international activities as well.

Unless there is some mistake in the overview above (and I don't think there is), the subject of the article meets all of the notability criteria of Notability (organizations and companies).

Further considerations, from the general notability guideline, are:

Cs32en 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." — Some of the secondary sources report on the article's subject exclusively, although this is not a necessary condition for establishing notability.
 * "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." — There is no particular reason not to have an article on this article's subject, and the general aim of Wikipedia is to have articles on all subjects for which notability can be determined by evidence from reliable sources.

Stand-alone article
I suggest to treat this article as a stand-alone article; as a consequence, it must follow all aspects of established Wikipedia policies, especially WP:UNDUE. Cs32en 11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

911ct template
Problem with that: In a CBS interview, which is archived online, Gage emphasizes that he is NOT a "conspiracy theorist," and refuses to speculate at all about who was behind the controlled demolition he documents. So, the CT template is inappropriate. Wowest (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As there is no other template that could be used and that would fulfill the same function, I strongly think that this template needs to be included here. While I do think that the name of the template is inappropriate, I also think that the name and content of the template should be discussed at the talk page there. I also think that it is necessary to report on the characterization and self-characterization of the organization in the appropriate place in the article. However, I am probably working on other aspects of the article in the next few days. Anyway, please add relevant content to the article! Cs32en  13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate notability
Almost all of your sources for notability are other truther organizations, even those who think this one is totally wrong. I still don't see adequate independent sourcing. Nor do I see too much information that wouldn't fit in the section of the 9/11 Truth movement article. But I'm willing to give you more time.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Arthur — Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "other truther organizations". None of the sources in the article (as of this moment) is a "truther" source. We do not need a reliable source that explicitly says that a topic is notable. We need reliable sources that have more than a casual reference to the subject. The argument that the content might be also treated as a sub-article of another article is not relevant; this argument would only become relevant if it would be found that the subject would not be notable enough for having a separate article. The determination of whether it is notable enough must be made without reference to possible alternative ways to present the content on Wikipedia. Cs32en  17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm really confused by your comment. None of the sources that are in the article says explicitly that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is notable. Please tell me which sources you are referring to. Cs32en  17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder about the notability of this article's subject as well. The first 2 cites aren't even to English sources.  The third cite which is in English is an opinion piece and doesn't even mention this organization at all.  The fourth cite doesn't mention this organization either.  The fifth cite contains only one sentence about this organization.  The sixth cite has only two sentences about this organization.  The seventh cite (which is fairly short) is only one that actually is about this organization and for some strange reason is apparently in the Sports section of the site.  I thought that in order to be notable, it has to receive significant coverage that address the subject directly in detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Richard Gage (leader of the organization) is a redirect to this page, so that the reports about him of course contribute to the notability of the article's topic. WP:BLP1E has some more info on why an article on the event (or in this case, the organization) is preferable. If it really bothers you that the one source is in the sports section, I'll replace that source. The fact that is supported by this source is not essential for the notability of the article's subject and can be easily sourced to other reliable sources. Your complaint that the first cites are not from English sources is not really to the point, because international coverage actually indicates more, not less notability of the subject. Cs32en  18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, this organization has received very little coverage from mainstream media in the English world. If English reliable sources are so plentiful, why are we resorting to foreign language sources, sports sections and articles that do not address the subject directly in detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is a newspaper that belongs to Canwest Publishing Inc., one of Canada's largest international media companies. There is a malfunction in the website, so you can get the article as a "cars" article, a "homes" article, a "culture" article etc. Right now, it's in the "technology" section. Cs32en  02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have one small article on this organization. How is that significant coverage?  (BTW, I've checked every national newspaper of record of every English-speaking country in the world, and did not find any articles on this organization.)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article barely discusses Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It is all about Richard Gage and the theories. The group is mentioned only in passing in connection with Richard Gage in sources. There is no significant coverage, and if better coverage and discussion doesn't appear sharpish, this is going to AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you suggest that we should rather have an article on Richard Gage then? Cs32en  00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I make no such suggestion. Judging this article entirely on its own, it does not focus on its subject, and it does not demonstrate notability or use reliable sources that give indepth coverage of the organisation. Whether Richard Gage should be covered by an article is an entirely different matter. Fences and windows (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, of the sources refer to Richard Gage as the leader of the organization and are stating that he leads, or represents, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth somewhere in their reports; they regard his statements as representative of the group. While media often attribute statements from individuals more freely to their respective organizations ("The Democrats said X, the Republicans said Y."), we need to present the evidence from reliable sources as accurately as possible. Cs32en  14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you find any more sources about this organization or is it still the one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is there any substantial discussion of the organisation? What I've seen either doesn't mention it at all, or simply says Gate is such and such of the organisation, but doesn't actually discuss the organisation. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
I'm setting up this chapter so that we can discuss on possible improvements with regard to the neutral presentation of the article's subject. Cs32en 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is some material in the article that is good. We just need to balance it.  The article should present all substantial points of view by relative predominance.  For instance, the overwhelming view in reliable sources is that this is a fringe group promoting a conspiracy theory.  That needs to be included right at the start of the article so readers are not misled to thinking something else.  The group claims X members.  We need that membership to be verified by a reliable source, not the group's own website. Groups tend to inflate their own importance.  We have to avoid doing that. Jehochman Talk 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Dear J.E. Hochman:
 * Thanks for sharing that with us! Please provide a URL for a "reliable source" which states that AE922truth is a "fringe group promoting a conspiracy theory." Please note that websites associated with the Hearst Corporation or the executive branch of the U.S. government cannot POSSIBLY be considered reliable sources for this particular topic. Neither, of course, are sites associated with the conspiracy denial movement. Thanking you in advance for your editorial cooperation, I remain,
 * Very truly yours, 
 * Wowest (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We may use "conspiracy theory" as an attribute for the claims that the group makes, with an appropriate source. In order to say directly that the group would advocate conspiracy theories, we would need a secondary source that explicitly says this, and would use this as their primary way of identifying the group.
 * One of the two major German TV channels, ZDF, ran a report on the collapse of 7 WTC on Sep. 11, 2008, at 8.15 pm. Its title is "The secret of the third tower. Demolition or collapse as a result of fire?" There is a lengthy text on the page where you can find the video, and the word "conspiracy" is only used once in this text, as a reference to the alleged conspirators that would have blown up the buildings. The text also does not say "Richard Gage, the conspiracy theorist", but "Richard Gage, the prominent architect".
 * We may not always manage to avoid systemic bias, but we can strive not to promote it. It would be a different matter, if U.S. sources would contradict what the Spanish TV channel Telecinco reports, but they are not contradicting it; although they do not report everything that Telecinco reports. Cs32en  00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you find US sources, or at least English sources. A lot gets lost in translation and across different cultures. I'd think the most reliable sources on doings in the United States would be located in the United States, or at least in the English speaking world. Something happens in the US.  The reporter translates into Spanish.  We then read the report and translate back into English.  All this translating leads to an inevitable loss of fidelity. Jehochman Talk 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm currently not translating stuff that would be difficult to translate. For example if the German words say "der prominente Architekt Richard Gage", it's not difficult to translate this into "Richard Gage, the prominent architect". Some parts of the Telecinco report are more difficult, and I have not translated them; this should better be left to a native Spanish speaker (I assume there are more Spanish speaking people in the U.S. than in Germany.)
 * The language barrier between English and most European languages is quite low, and many Spanish, French, German, Dutch etc. people can speak English rather fluently. So I doubt that there would be any possible source of misunderstanding due to the language that would significantly contribute to the risk that any journalist, whether inside or outside the U.S., can screw things up, sometimes. If a press agency gets a press release, and shortens the content, and a newspaper then selectively quotes from the press agency report, there are far more sources of possible errors than when something is translated from Spanish to English or the other way round.
 * Also, Telecinco has actually spoken with Richard Gage, because he was in Madrid at the time (see the video on the page).  Cs32en  00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fringe views
We must not cherry pick a couple of dissenters in the engineering community and give their WP:FRINGE views excessive prominence in this article. Wikipedia is not covering every experts' opinion on every topic. We represent the main and minority views, and we disregard the fringe views. In case of a notable fringe view, we cover the view by reporting what people think about it. What the fringe members thinks about the fringe view is not part of our coverage. The article on Bigfoot does not include the POV of Bigfoot believers. Jehochman Talk 09:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The viewpoint that you are expressing here is not consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Cs32en  20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about?
From the title, this article should be about the organisation, its leaders, its activities etc. Instead it is about Richard Gage and his arguments about 911 (which are already covered elsewhere I believe). Even the membership section of the article only lists supporters. The article should say something about the A&E's organisation, leadership, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I question the notability of this organization independent of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general. In any case, it shouldn't continue to be a soapbox/linkfarm for the group. We don't need yet another pov fork. Tom Harrison Talk 13:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we nominate it for deletion? I'm a relatively new editor and am unfamaliar with the process so I would be uncomfortable doing it myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there's a consensus to redirect. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At the present time, Richard Gage redirects to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Perhaps that should be reversed?  If so, WP:RM is the appropriate venue for discussion.  If the relevant information were to be moved back into 9/11 Truth movement, that would be a different discussion.  I don't think it fits that well in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We might want to avoid a biography - I can't see that being anything but a coatrack. Merging and redirecting to 9/11 Truth Movement might be best. Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Content disputes are not valid grounds for nominating for deletion or merges. Are you disputing that the subject of the article is notable? Unomi (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote just above, "I question the notability of this organization independent of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general." I don't plan to nominate for deletion at this point. There is no such thing as a "Request for Merge" - merging is an editorial decision made by consensus. I think the material in this article that's about the organization belongs in 9/11 Truth movement. The material about the conspiracy theory belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it isn't already well represented there. Tom Harrison Talk 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is a WP:COATRACK for discussions of the controlled demolition conspiracy theories, and there are few if any sources discussing this organisation in any detail. I'd support a merge to 9/11 Truth movement. Fences and windows (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a WP:COATRACK. Only statements of the group, and of its representatives, insofar as they represent the group, are covered in the article, and statements about the group and about the theories advocated by the group from notable sources (U.S. government, academic experts). There is some background information, i.e. that NIST conducted an investigation of the collapse of the WTC, but this needs to be strictly limited to what is necessary for the reader to understand the context. If any statements are added to the article that are not related to the subject, these should be removed. Cs32en 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually standard practice on Wikipedia to cover the topics and organizations that advocate them separately. See Right to keep and bear arms and National Rifle Association, or Animal rights and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please point out specific parts of the article that may not follow WP:NPOV, so that they can be corrected. Cs32en 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this organization isn't notable like PETA is. Did you find any sources that are actually about this topic or are you still stuck at the one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:COATRACK says the following: "The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack—the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." I think that this article accurately reports on its subject. I have already documented why the subject of the article is notable, according to Wikipedia policy, in Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Cs32en  21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I have already documented why the subject of the article is notable", yes you did and since then several editors (Arthur Rubin, Dougweller, Tom Harrison, Fences and windows and me) have questioned the article's notability. The last I checked, you only had one English language WP:RS that even covered this topic and it was a pretty short article at that.  Since you're citing articles that are not about this organization, can you please tell us which articles you've found that actually cover this organization in detail?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability guideline says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Detailed articles on a subject are not necessary to establish notability, if there are multiple independent sources. See also Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Cs32en  00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was the third or fourth time that I've asked you if you've found any WP:RS that actually cover this organization in detail. Each time, you've failed to answer the question.  Why is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the sentence on the opinion of the scientific community to the Advocacy section. This is context for the article, not criticism. (It's not the scientific community on one side, and AE911Truth on the other.) Popular Mechanics and Prof. Stuart Vyse are criticizing controlled demolition theories in general, not AE911Truth in particular. I have moved that to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Notable criticism of AE911Truth can of course be included in the article. Cs32en 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merging
The reliable sources that mention the organization do so in passing, and as one of the Truther groups. Separating it out and presenting the group's views at length, and as an alternative to the mainstream view, is a distortion. I think we should merge and redirect to 9/11 Truth Movement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they do not mention the organization just "in passing". They include statements from the source as representative of the viewpoints of the critics of the government's and the mainstream's interpretation of the September 11 attacks. These are substantial parts of the respective articles in the reliable sources. In some cases (Reuters report, Telecinco, National Post), the group or Richard Gage (which redirects here) is the main topic of the respective media item. Remember that WP:N says that detailed coverage is not necessary if there are multiple reliable sources. Cs32en  16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Cs32en. There are a number of sources which deal exclusively with AE, notability is certainly met, independent of other 'truther' groups. While Gage might be mentioned in a number of the articles that is hardly surprising as he seems to be the spokesman and a frequent speaker at presentations. Here are a couple sources establishing notability:
 * Yes it is true that there are other truther organizations, there is also otherstuff, that does not mean they should all be merged. I also hope that you will take care to not remove sources, and be mindful of the sources you use when editing the article. Yes verbal, using an opinion piece regarding a bbc documentary that touches on AE is perhaps not suitable for the lede. Especially if you take a look at the other opinion pieces that particular author has written. I trust that you will remove it or find a better source to back it up. To some of the arguments below


 * Much of what is here is what they say about themselves, and what they're quoted as saying about themselves. False, there is plenty to write about their activities, publications and yes, views. There is no reason to merge.
 * Wikipedia does not have articles on all of the groups that support the official story, so this isn't needed. Not significant. Other stuff doesn't exist, so logical fallacy..
 * The sources do not cover this organisation in any level of detail, making it difficult to verify information about it and making notability very questionable. There are plenty of sources on their activities, views and at least one prominent member. Notability is established. Unomi (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this organization define or indentify itself as part of 'truth movement'? What is another 'truther group', does such construct exist outside of Wikipedia mindset? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger for the reasons given by Tom. This article is not supposed to be about Gage, irrespective of where his name redirects. Verbal  chat  16:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. This organization is not notable. Any content worth saving should be moved to the 9/11 Truth movement article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I retract my previous opinion. I'm still undecided, but after reading WP:NEO, I'm not so sure we should even have an article on 9/11 Truth Movement because it is a neologism.  I'm open to other editor's opinions, but at this point I'm leaning towards:
 * a) Deletion of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because it fails notability
 * b) Deletion of 9/11 Truth Movement because it violates neologism
 * c) Modify all prose that uses the terms "9/11 Truth movement" and "9/11 denial" for all articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are both neologisms that do not appear in major dictionaries such as Mirriam-Webster or Ofxord. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you write on your homepage that you are a professional software developer, I'll try to explain to you the neologism issue in these terms: The term neologism, insofar as it is relevant for Wikipedia policy, refers to classes, not objects. However, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a term that describes only this organization, i.e. an object, not a class. In these cases, the issue is notability, not whether it's a neologism. Cs32en  04:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should start with deleting all instances of 'AIDS Denialism', Holocaust Denialism and undoubtedly countless others. In fact 'denialism' is a neologism in and of itself. As you will also see in WP:NEO there are cases where neologisms are allowed when there are sources that describe what the term covers. Unomi (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I already stated above, the issue with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is notability which it fails and thus should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9 separate sources have been proviceded that establish notability, continuing to claim that it fails notability without addressing issues you may have with the sources borders on the tendentious and is getting clsoe to be a case of I didn't hear that.
 * That's completely ridiculous. I asked Cs32en at least 4 or 5 times whether he had found any sources and he kept ignoring the question.  Nice try, though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just scrolled up the talk page and he still hasn't answered the question. Since he hasn't bothered answering the question, AFAIK, he's still stuck on one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. The sources do not cover this organisation in any level of detail, making it difficult to verify information about it and making notability very questionable. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. Wikipedia does not have articles on all of the groups that support the official story, so this isn't needed. Not significant. --Tarage (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Every statement in the article actually is supported by an appropriate source, and other reliable sources are actually available. These have been removed with statements such as "English sources, please!" This is not how we can improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and it is not a valid justification for the proposed merge. The subject of the article is notable, whether or not we would include the few statements sourced to the organization itself. Cs32en 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 14 independent reliable sources have been removed from the article, including the following:
 * Spanish national TV company Telecinco: (Translation: "An architect from the United States presents his alternative version of September 11 in Madrid.")
 * German national TV station ZDF: (Translation: "Is World Trade Center 7 really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect, says?")
 * Press agency Reuters: (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")
 * National Post, a major Canadian newspaper:
 * La Stampa, a major Italian newspaper: (Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.")  Cs32en  17:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose The organization is highly significant, given statements made by Bazant and other similar sycophants, and it is gaining more and more press recognition by the day. I'll add more to the article itself later. AE911truth is now too large, specialized and important to be referenced as merely a part of the 9/11 Truth movement, which is rather difficult to define. Wowest (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I look at it from a practical point of view. People will be looking for a neutral and informative summary of what Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is about, and Wikipedia will be one of the most likely places where they would go to find such a summary. AE911Truth, being one of the most prominent groups of professionals who are calling for a new investigation, certainly qualifies as being notable and widely known. Removal of this article would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers and unhelpful to its reputation, which should be a reputation of providing reasonable, fair, and unbiased coverage for well-known topics such as this. Wildbear (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. Much of what is here is what they say about themselves, and what they're quoted as saying about themselves. The reliable part should be merged, probably into 9/11 Truth movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger, per my reply to Tom above. I also ask that we invite uninvolved admin to close this policy based discussion. Unomi (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose This group has established its notability. Even US MSM is reporting on them.Tony0937 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's an interview with Richard Gage. This page is just rehashing the 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments, and gives no evidence for the existence of an actual group outside Richard Gage's assertions and their own website. Fences and windows (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article reports about the group:

Strongly oppose – I've read article about 9/11 Truth movement, there is no doubt that anyone who end up there, end up with little or no credibility at all. I'd estimate that merge would be damaging to the reputation of this group (something that we shouldn't do, ever) and I'd weigh that said estimate is a prime mover behind the proposal. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support This is an obvious move, as there really isn't enough to say about this group that can't be said in the truth movement article. The subject receives only passing mention in articles about the truth movement, so independent notability is not really established. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided 9 sources above that all deal with AE, how exactly is notability not met? Unomi (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this can't be covered in the truth movement article. Most of this article details the beliefs held by members of the TM. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. We can't have every individual group getting an article. especially as this group seems like the very definition of a fringe group. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. The article superficially appears well sourced, but if you dig a little deeper, you realize that the almost all of the coverage doesn't actually mention this group, rather, generic 9/11 truth stuff. Gigs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless A Quest For Knowledge wants to nominate for deletion (and I think deletion could be justified on a couple of grounds ), I'm inclined to go with merging as easier. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, do I get to decide? Seriously, I would assume that if we merge the content into the 9/11 Truth Movement, then there would be no need for this article and it can be deleted, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, that's turns out not to be the case. In a merge the content is moved and replaced with a redirect. Since content is copied, it's important to leave the redirect to preserve the contribution history for the GFDL attribution requirement (or the new Creative Commons equivalent). If the page is nominated for deletion, votes to "merge" count as votes to "keep". People sometimes say "merge and delete," but that isn't really an option. And of course there's lots of subtlety and nuance. Don't ask me what happens if the redirect is then taken to Redirects for Deletion - I'm afraid to go there. But yeah, if you want to nominate it for deletion that's your call. I see grounds to justify it, but there's no telling what will happen. Tom Harrison Talk 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really know how I can state the obvious more clearly than I have.. the references below each deal exclusively with A&E for truth, there are more references that deal with A&E for truth AND other groups, but the ones below concern themselves with A&E to the exclusion of other groups. Regardless of how many !votes that fail to address these sources, merging is out of the question while staying within the behavioral norms required of WP editors. I suggest you engage in a more in-depth critique of these sources if you wish to merge. Unomi (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a closer look at them later, but all of them look problematic. At least 3 are blogs, the Atlantic Free Press is a joke, and having to resort to small-market, local newspapers and TV stations to establish notability is to me evidence against notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (for now). AE911T is somewhat unique among 9/11 Truth groups in that it has a modicum of professionalism and authority on the topic. But if their article doesn’t significantly improve over the next couple of weeks and it comes up for a vote again, I’m pretty sure I’ll support. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I really tried to go to bat for this one, but independent sources only justify a mention in 9/11 Truth Movement. As a side note, I think 9/11 conspiracy theorists is used more often than 9/11 deniers/denialists. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Personally, from my experience with Truthers online, I think the name best fitting their attitude is “9/11 deniers”, but my personal experience has no place in a WP article. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal notice removed
has declared that he's "no longer working on" articles in the 9/11 subject area. He has also withdrawn himself from the mediation case. I have contacted Tom, and he confirmed his intention not to work on 9/11-related articles. . As the merge proposal and his presence in the mediation case are linked, I am removing the merge proposal notice template. Cs32en 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should non-English reliable sources be included in this article or not?
Non-English reliable sources have been removed from the article. This is potentially affecting the judgment of editors about the notability of the article's subject and an ongoing Merge discussion about the article. Should the non-English sources be included in the article or not? Cs32en 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Eight years ago, I wouldn't have believed that it could be possible for the world's English language news sources to move together as though a single unit.  My perception was that there was far too much diversity in the news media for that to occur.  Now that I have seen this unbelievable situation happen with my own eyes, it has become difficult or impossible for me to deny.  I have been studying the issue, to try to understand how it could occur.  My hypothesis is that it largely has to do with conflict of interest, arising from the for-profit nature of the news media.  There are also other reasons, but considerations which conflict with money-making objectives may be the dominant reason.  I won't go into this hypothesis any further unless asked, as it would likely be considered outside of the scope of the topic under discussion.  I view information as global, and universal.  If it can't be found within the media of a particular language, I have no issues with acquiring the information from sources in a different language.  Gaining a full understanding of things is more important than the language in which the information is written.  For example, much of what Einstein wrote was likely in German.  That it was in the German language makes it no less relevant to the world of science.  I was looking through collections of Einstein's writings recently, and was surprised to find that some had only been translated into English relatively recently.  This was relevant to me, because the original writings have expired under copyright law, but the translations, being relatively new, are under copyright and are unavailable without making a purchase.  The work of AE911T also a scientific endeavor, as they examine physical evidence and advocate further investigation based on what they find.  Science is esoteric for the general population and is frequently neglected or discounted by the mainstream news media.  Science also often conflicts with political objectives; another basis for conflict of interest.  If non-English reliable sources are providing better coverage of AE911T than English reliable sources, I see no problem with including those sources.  There are plenty of other places in the English Wikipedia where non-English sources are used, in order to provide the best and most complete information.  Wildbear (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the notability of this article about 9/11 and American Gage is hinging on non-english sources, then that's a sure sign that it should go away. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I would agree with you, Gigs. However, 9/11 is a special case with the media, as I will attempt to illustrate here.  There are many issues which are contentious, and the media routinely covers both sides as they battle it out.  9/11 is one of few issues I've seen where the media itself immediately comes under attack if it attempts to provide balanced coverage of the story.  See here and here for some examples.  Note the quote from the first story: "asking whether Dunstable, where she lives, could withdraw some of its funding for the cable channel."  That's for broadcasting the documentary, "9/11: Blueprint for Truth", which comes from none other than Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  It's not unlikely that all of the other for-profit media companies are aware of this situation, and have probably experienced some of it themselves.  When you're in a for-profit business, you don't want to alienate your audience just to cover a news story.  It's bad for the corporate bottom line; and hence the conflict of interest (read: lost revenue).  Wikipedia is not a for-profit business, and so it does not need to let this conflict of interest stand in the way of providing full and balanced coverage on any topic.  For coverage of 9/11 issues, it may need to refer to sources which lack the aforementioned conflict of interest; and hence my suggestion that non-English reliable sources should be acceptable. Wildbear (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the 9/11 truth movement is not on trial here. We are merely discussing whether this particular group under this particular name merits its own separate article.  I do not believe that it does.  Even your example points to the documentary getting coverage, not the group that made it.  Notability is not inherited, and it is possible for a notable movement to have non-notable subgroups.   Gigs (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't found anything in the policy guidelines that would say that english sources are necessary to establish notability. However, there is WP:UNKNOWNHERE, which seems to indicate that all reliable sources should count with the same weight, irrespective of language or location. Cs32en  00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the notability of a US organization here which is not an ethnic or foreign organization. If you can't establish notability in English, then I'd say you have a problem with notability.  Just basic logic, which trumps literal policy (or lack thereof) any day. Gigs (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reliable secondary independent sources on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (a sufficient number of English sources, and some more non-English sources). The discussion about the notability issue would, however, probably be easier if the non-English sources would be included in the article. The section below list the secondary sources on AE911Truth that have been found so far. (Most are English.) Cs32en  04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability of AE911Truth is already well enough established. I don’t see any reason why foreign-language sources shouldn’t be used to support added material, so long as that’s what they’re actually doing. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree they can be added to support content. However, it is obvious that notability is not firmly established, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  I personally would not usually consider a foreign language source when attempting to assess the notability of a US organization, and my opinion remains in support of merging. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While each person is entitled to his own view, he is not entitled to substitute policy with opinion. It seems that notability policy, rather than averse to other language sources, view favorably a greater diversity of sources. Further, it is not reasonable to assume that organizations that raise serious questions (e.g. investigation fraud) about agencies its own government will be covered first in that nation or in the language of its self professed political allies (canada, uk, australia). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Replacing policy with opinion? I think you’re getting a overly self-righteous there. What I see is editors discussing interpretations of policy, and you’re doing it as much as anybody else. And I don’t see anything unreasonable in the expectation that news stories – however scandalous – should usually appear first in the countries where they occur. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is nothing wrong with using a non-English reliable source. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Independent secondary sources

 * How do you then translate "On aurait, selon 430 architectes et ingénieurs regroupés au sein de l'association AE911 Truth, retrouvé des résidus d'explosifs)". We seem to have a lot of sources that don't mention the website. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "According to 430 architects and engineers, who have formed [or: who have gathered in] the association AE911Truth, residues of explosives have been found." (The statement made by the representative of the group, i.e. Gage, is attributed to the members of the group. This is not unusual in journalistic texts; it is slightly inaccurate, but not really misleading.) Cs32en  16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the "website", all sources with "Yes" in the column for "AE911Truth" mention the name of the organization. (If it would not be an organization, but a website, most sources would probably call it a website, or give the name of the website.) Cs32en  16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the article is certainly talking about the signers of the petition, and since the petition simply calls for an independent investigation and mentions the possiblity of explosives, then I would say that the article is very misleading. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a lot of newspaper reports are inaccurate in many ways. Now, if Gage would say something that many of the petition signers would not want to be associated with, they would not want to have their names on the AE911Truth website, and would withdraw their signatures. That's why journalists are lumping all this together in this way. I have no problem with calling this inaccurate in a detailed discussion, but I see no reason to tag this specific article as "misleading". When I had included the information in our article here, I did attribute the claim to the group AE911Truth as a whole, not to every single architect or engineer that has signed the petition. Cs32en  17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope it is not being argued here that it is is ok to echo an obvious mis-statement or misleading statement of a news writer. If the misleading aspect is slight, it does not justify passing false information into an article by quoting it.  Are these matters the ones at hand here?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

NationalPost.com Opinion Piece
I removed a cite to the NationalPost because a) it was an opinion piece used as a statement of fact and b) according to our article, its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is in doubt. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. Jonathan Kay just wrote to me asking about some information.  I'll send him this link and let him know that his news organization is considered not reliable in fact checking according to wikipedia standards. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on the National Post makes an unsourced extrapolation from a single event and is tagged with a refimprove template. Cs32en  18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First reference / Membership
The very first reference only gives the name of the organisation, and doesn't discuss or describe the membership in anyway. It therefore doesn't support the statement to which it is attached. Verbal  chat  09:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with the quote, it still doesn't support the "organisation of/including architects and engineers". It only supports that it is so named, and that it has professionals as members. Verbal   chat  09:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The professional status of the members of the organization might be disputed by some people (though I haven't seen any reliable source that has disputed it), but there is no dispute that they are working in the field of architecture and engineering. The source supports the word "professional". There is no source given for the fact that 7 WTC had 47 (above ground) levels, either. Cs32en  11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you agree it doesn't support the sentence in the lead to which it is attached? I'm sure such a reference exists, but this one isn't it. References aren't just there for decoration. Verbal   chat  11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It supports the word to which it is attached. Cs32en  11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't how references work, so I have removed then the unsupported words. Please add back with a reference. Verbal   chat  12:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should clutter the text with references for information which is obvious. As an encyclopedia, we should be more explicit than newspapers, so "architectural and engineering professionals" is just a better choice of words, compared to "professionals". It's really not that important. Cs32en  12:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the misuse of references is important, and I think establishing what exactly the membership of this organisation consists of is important too. Although, since they describe themselves as experts acting outside their expertise, one wonders why they bothered. Verbal  chat  12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any members? What do we know about the membership? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's a question that has started to bother me. Verbal   chat  19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Training and experience
Well, the source is talking about architects and engineers in general, not the organization in particular. If we misrepresent the source, then the sentence actually tells more about the opinion of editors that have been involved in the writing of it than about the subject of the article. Well, as some readers wouldn't mind to get such information, I'll leave it as it is, for now. Cs32en 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is clear. Verbal   chat  13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Cs32en  15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it says that as architects and engineers they are acting outside of their expertise. Verbal   chat  15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which tells us that we should add "as architects and engineers" in the article, to reflect what the source actually says. Cs32en  15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about this group of architects and engineers. Verbal   chat  16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

That is the quote in full, using it the way you do is quote mining and misrepresenting their statements verbal. I suggest that you change the edit yourself. Unomi (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Whether the quote refers to all architects and engineers (your interpretation) or this group (mine) isn't really important, as it still states that they, as architects and engineers, are acting outside their expertise. Not quote mining or cherry picking, rather a bit of stupidity on their part (there are many examples on their site). I have misrepresented nothing, and would ask you to remain civil, assume good faith, and not make such accusations. Also please stop at least giving the possible impression of hounding my edits, thanks. Verbal   chat  17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not hounding your edits, the fact that your edits call for correction can hardly be blamed on me.I would hope that Tom Harrison would be a bit more active in helping you become a constructive editor. I apologize for making the impression of not assuming good faith, I was making the mistake of thinking that you were proficient with the English language. I realize that the quote in question might not be the most easy of constructs to parse, :::I will try to render it a bit more understandable for you.
 * Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces.
 * I trust that the above is clear to you. A&Es know how buildings should be constructed and how they behave.


 * However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.
 * The way these buildings behaved and the artifacts their collapse created did not correspond to what their training and experience had taught them.
 * I fully realize that you will consider this OR etc. If you wish we can take this quote to a wider audience, I think though that you will accept the quote to support a statement such as the group itself states they are acting "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience" is not only torturous English but also a misuse of sources. Unomi (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are acting outside the scope of their training and experience. The reference supports what the page says. If after discussion there's no consensus (that doesn't mean a vote) someone can start a request for comment if they want. Tom Harrison Talk 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And please drop the side comments, they are unnecessary in making whatever point you wish to get across - and people are more likely to agree with you if you're nice. I-no-u are capable of it! (poor pun, sorry!) Thanks. Verbal   chat  19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 deniers
Verbal, I have made a partial revert of one of your edits. Referring to the 911 truth movement as 9/11 deniers on the basis of 1 opinion piece is not becoming of an encyclopedia, I hope that you will refrain from adding it again. While one might argue that referring to it as a 'truth movement' could smack of NPOV, that happens to be what they call themselves and they are generally referred to by that moniker. Unomi (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference uses the term 9/11 denial, hence we should. Verbal   chat  17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A single opinion piece used as a reference uses the term, here is a hint, we don't refer to Islam as islamofascism, we dont refer to the Republican party as Repugnicant or Abortion as baby-killing. The reason we don't do that, verbal, is because this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of talking points or a blog. Please refrain from inserting POV text into articles in the future. Unomi (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stay civil, and I have not advocated any of those things. Find a different reference which uses your preferred term and bring it here for discussion if you like. Verbal   chat  17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly civil, I am also becoming somewhat annoyed at your tendentious editing style. There is no need to provide a separate source to refer to the movement by the name that they call themselves and as they are widely known. Unomi (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unomi: You were the one who first complained that we should use the wording of the source. Now we're using the source exactly as you wanted. Problem solved.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have invited a 3rd opinion on the matter. Unomi (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who first used this source (I don't think it was me) but I edited the article to say "supporters of the 9/11 conspiracy theories" which is probably as neutral as we can get. However, you complained saying that wasn't supported by the source.. But your edit wasn't supported by the source either.  So to address your concerns, I changed it to what the source actually said.  But now you seem to have reversed your position.  Is there any particular reason for this sudden change of heart? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFK: I am not sure what you are referring to, this source seems to be used exclusively to introduce the moniker of '911 deniers', I would strongly suggest that you take steps to undo the farce of encyclopedia writing that you are now engaged in. Unomi (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFK provided a 3rd opinion above. Just provide a good RS reference calling these events what you want and then we can use that, and I'd be happy with it. Verbal   chat  18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFK seemed not to be exhibiting independent thought, and as such falls short of a '3rd opinion'. I should not have to supply an rs for us to agree that using partisan and inflammatory language is unbecoming of an encyclopedia and that the addition of such language is an undesirable trait in a contributor. However, in the interest of congeniality I will humor you, here is one at random  feel free to use 'self-described truth movement'. Unomi (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. There's AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, etc. so there's nothing un-encyclopedic about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to know what they do or do not deny at this point, what I am saying is that the use of 9/11 truth movement seems to be more prevalent than 911 denier and that articles in wikipedia should reflect usage and self identification, as I understand it Tom Harrison, AQFK and verbal seem to disagree with my interpretation of policy and guidelines, correct? Unomi (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"9/11 truther" is more common, but this source isn't the only one to use "denier." It appears in The Sunday Times (London), September 10, 2006; the New York Times, April 28, 2008; The Weekly Standard, September 15, 2008 Monday; and in a number of less prominent publications. We should neither avoid it, or use it exclusively. That Truthers don't like it means nothing. We're already distorting mainstream coverage by separating this group from the other less presentable Truthers. Tom Harrison Talk 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is more common, and it seems to be what they self identify as. And your argument for supporting the introduction of the moniker '911 deniers' is what exactly? Your views on distorting mainstream coverage seems to be at odds with the sources I mentioned under the merge discussion. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "...your argument for supporting the introduction of the moniker '911 deniers' is what exactly?" That the source cited says '911 deniers'; that other sources use the term; that self-description is mostly irrelevant, especially for fringe groups. Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, you do understand that the only thing that source is there for is to introduce '911 deniers'? Are you wholly aware of the level of editorial bias this reflects? You are defending introducing blog talking points as 'fact' regarding the moniker by which they are referred. Unomi (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems not to be the case, per Verbal's diff below. I see three choices: 1) find another source; 2) take out the sentence it supports; 3) use the terminology the source uses. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference was introduced here by Cs32en. He added it to support the sentence it still supports. We should use the words of the reference in this case as there is dispute, and stop questioning the motives of editors, but this does seem to show that you are wrong in your assumptions. Verbal   chat  20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, a 3O was requested for this page. Since there are now more than two editors involved, a 3O doesn't really apply. If you want to drum up more consensus, try WP:RFC. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (I saw the third opinion request, but I doubt I could claim to be completely independent). We have articles on AIDS denialism, Holocaust denial, and the like even though pretty much nobody describes themselves in such terms. It is, however, how well-respected intellectually independent sources describe them, and the proper terminology for these kinds of articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your restraint. It is true that there is other stuff. Specifically it is true that people whom deny the extent or existence of the holocaust are often referred to as holocaust deniers, it is true that people whom deny that HIV causes AIDS are termed AIDS deniers. On wikipedia they are also referred to as such, I am not sure this is a great idea but the reasoning that I can accept is that this is due to the preponderance of the use in RS. This is hardly the case here, and the manner in which it is introduced cannot be termed NPOV. Regardless of ones views on their position I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that wikipedia policy supports its usage here. Unomi (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for RfC
Er, I am not sure that policies, guidelines, and proposals is a good category to invite wider participation for this discussion. It looks to be more focused on Wikipedia internal stuff rather than article content. Quality of sourcing matters here, of course, but this discussion aims to apply rather than form policy. maths, science, and technology and politics seem to me more relevant, but let us iron it out here before taking it live, yes? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We might also try Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I figured policy was regarding the application of policy not forming it. Apologies, I will defer to your better judgment of where it should be listed, I still believe that it is a simple matter of preponderance of sources vs POV terminology. Unfortunately I have to sign off for awhile. Enjoy, Unomi (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, "9/11 Truth Movement" is a neologism that we should avoid using. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 9/11 Truth Movement is a term loaded with strong libel and unfortunate label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFourFreedoms (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say "9/11 deniers" is commonly being used
None have been found yet.

9/11 Truth movement

 * 1) • the movement known as "9/11 Truth," [...] • The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement
 * 2) (See also: MSNBC) • The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" • Author unknown, but often quoted by the 9/11 truth movement • Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government
 * 3) • the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion
 * 4) • a new twist on the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 5) • a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 6) • the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia • those in the 9/11 Truth Movement • groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 7) • George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement
 * 8) • an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement • British MP Michael Meacher, became a touchstone in the 9/11 Truth movement • the 9/11 truth movement is fighting a kind of asymmetric war • the likes of the 9/11 Truth movement • Fenster thinks that the 9/11 Truth movement • Perhaps the 9/11 Truth movement is • by the 9/11 Truth movement
 * 9) • In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.
 * 10) • Juliette Binoche has allied herself with the 9/11 'truth movement'
 * 11) • Lance has actually done the 9/11 truth movement a distinct service
 * 12) • A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 13) • The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called
 * 14) • The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 15) • The film has made Avery, who was twice rejected from film school, the toast of the 9/11 Truth movement
 * 16) (See also: CBS News) • the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 17) • members of the 9/11 "truth" movement
 * 18) • experiences with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement • a convention for the 9/11 Truth Movement • equating Christians with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 19) • usually associated with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists
 * 20) • the "9/11 truth movement," as the conspiracy theorists call themselves, to date. • arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement
 * 21) • what adherents like to call the "9/11 Truth Movement"
 * 22) • I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. • What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
 * 23) • The 9/11 truth movement might believe
 * 24) • Jones is a physics professor involved in what's called the "9-11 Truth Movement."
 * 25) • Jones is closely linked to the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 26) • the so-called "9/11 truth movement" • Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement
 * 27) • Some of Gadsby's theories, and those of the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 28) • outright lies of the 9/11 truth movement

Both terms

 * 1) • Leftwing causes converge with the 9/11 denial movement. • the loosely affiliated conspiracy theorists that comprise the 9/11 Truth Movement • not everyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement was so crazy • these 9/11 deniers

9/11 deniers
Please provide links to sources where available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) • converts to the "9/11 truth movement," the loose affiliation of skeptics who doubt the official story
 * 2) • Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall? • The 9/11 deniers have another explanation.
 * 3) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 4) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 5) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 6) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 7) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 1) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 2) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 1) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.

Self identification and prevalent terms vs 911 deniers
What terminology should this article use when referring to persons and groups who oppose or promote alternatives to the prevailing understanding of the events surrounding the September 11 attacks? Involved discussion is explored in the preceding section; please reserve this section for outside comments. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read most of this discussion… I'm not sure how to characterize it. If we seek logical, prevalent, encyclopedic and neutral term to sum it all up it should be 'concerned citizens', or simply 'citizens'. It might not be the best term for this article though, especially if we're seeking impartiality. Since this is issue of terminology, we should seek something outside of this… this mindset is unfortunate, imho that is. I'd suggest we seek other terms, such as critique, critic or criticism. Of course the most natural way to settle this would be to call it as it is and it is a group of architects and engineers which questions/criticizes official narrative of events which transpired on 9/11. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above editor is a new account as of the 29th (but not a new editor) mainly posting at Talk:September 11 attacks. Leaving the question of who it is aside, we should be both following sources and prevailing terminology. There would be nothing 'neutral' about calling such a group simply 'concern citizens' - it is a fringe group and we should not be suggesting that it isn't. If of course it's a group at all, something I question. It appears to be simply Richard Gage and a website set up to garner publicity, and support, both in terms of finance and signatures. I've seen no convincing evidence that this is a group in the normal sense of the word, and I don't think we should lose track of this issue. Dougweller (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we take a broader scope, and I've examined the broader scope, then there is little way to overcome 'partisanship' with terminology we've adopted; which is obvious if one takes a step back and takes a look at this or similar discussions elsewhere. It should be clear to anyone willing to see that all of these groups are 'citizen groups', I'm afraid that 'truth movement' is a very divisive and extremely ill conceived construct whose only purpose is libel. It is a grave consequence of misconduct and 'poor tactics' some of editors choose to deploy. Such irresponsible conduct (libel) comes into Wikipedia via 'unprofessional and biased opinion makers' not to be scrutinized but amplified, this amplification then tends to reflect out of Wikipedia and we are without any doubt to be blamed for that. Utter lack of responsibility it is, instead of noting the libel spread by some of the sources out there, we are adopting it to become equally unprofessional 'opinion makers' as those sources are. It should be clear that such conduct breaks our guidelines (scientology case). Please hold no grudge for such remarks. If there is a better place where 'poor terminology' and the 'deliberate mistake' of adopting it instead of noting it are discussed, I'll be glad to engage in decent exchange. I'm not sure if it was said, but the terminology we use harms our chances to reach consensus even before we show will to build one. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing editors here of libel? Tell us about any lawsuits involving this issue? What we are not going to do is make up our own terminology. Basically all I see above is a personal attack against editors you disagree with and a desire to use terminology that is not used by sources and disguises the reality. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the addition of "9/11 deniers" makes this article look like a teenager wrote it -- it is transparently POV to the point of childishness. Readers who are not aware of what the term means, think it suggests that the group denies that 9/11 happened at all, so is highly misleading.76.102.212.231 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is clear, you are the one who uses word accusation, I'm not calling names, I'm saying that we are making mistake because we're not reporting about the libel, but adopting the libel. This obviously constitutes a failure with regards to our own guidelines. As for your remark about terminology, it is not made up; it is neutral in terms of defamation and libel we've adopted. Our article about failures of 9/11 Commission is not called, conspiracy theories about 9/11 Commission, it is called Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. If the group declares itself 9/11 CitizensWatch and describe themselves as 'group of concerned citizens', as most of these group describe themselves in the first place, then why would we seek another, libelous label to stick upon them? In my opinion, it's as close as you can get to the 'disguise of reality' you've mentioned above.


 * "The New York Times is for us what Pravda was for the Soviets....America is a country full of conspiracy, and yet when you mention the word on television the interviewer giggles, so that people will think only nuts who believe in abduction by aliens believe in conspiracies. But don't they know they are being had?  They are being lied to every day." -- Gore Vidal (Observer magazine 12 Aug 2001).


 * We can say that MSM is putting libel on these groups; we cannot/should not put or adopt the libel ourselves. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling someone who theorizes about conspiracies a “conspiracy theorist” is not libel. End of story. If you want to complain about the term carrying negative connotations, it’s the conspiracy theorists you need to talk to, not the people using the term. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is libel, provably and verifiably, as it will be demonstrated and referenced in next half an hour or so for all interested Wikipedians to read. In meanwhile, could someone check why is this not showing at RfC, this half of hour hourglass is stuck on half an hour and it seems it has no will to go anywhere. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Highly respected publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, The Guardian, etc. use the term "conspiracy theorists". If this is libel, 9/11 deniers should sue those publications. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In previous comments I've wrote that it is misfortunate mistake to adopt the libel instead of noting it as such. Let us now examine the mainstream media approach on the subject. Here are few examples of MSM spreading libel, these examples demonstrate that conspiracy theorist is libelous and derogatory term by the definition of these terms. This MSM source calls conspiracy theories 'impossibly exotic or even mad', while this one goes as far to call them virulent, with the ability to suck peoples 'brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots'. Here we have scholarly example of 'denouncement of (person's credibility) for (person) being JFK Conspiracy buff.' Another quick sample may be examined here. This is historically traceable and well established discourse of 'MSM' towards terms conspiracy or conspiracy theorist, not to speak about remarkably successful spinoff such as twoofer. On higher, more professional level, you have such sources as BBC, who tried and failed to establish something called 'Conspiracy movement'. Those of you who are close to topic and can recognize the names in that article will have little trouble discerning the remarkable defamatory weight behind it. This academic source offers the following definition: '"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue."' Now, as User:A Quest For Knowledge noted, these are highly respected publications. Again, there is historically traceable and well established discourse of 'MSM' towards terms conspiracy or conspiracy theorist, these publications are exporting the libel and Wikipedia is importing it without scrutiny. This adoption of the libel, instead of noting of the libel is violation of our guidelines. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, you say you are new, perhaps that explains why you don't understand our guidelines. It isn't up to editors to make legal decisions on sources. You can, of course, take this to the RS noticeboard or any other venue if you wish. In fact, I urge you to do so rather than just repeat yourself here. I guess we should be glad that you aren't saying this article constitutes treason against whole humanity as you did at Talk:September 11 attacks. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about 'cornerstone of WIkipedia' or WP:NPOV, you're talking about legal decisions? Why? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you keep saying libel which is a legal term and has no wikipedia meaning other than that here. Verbal   chat  21:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what would be more appropriate? Smear? How about character assassination? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth? Accurate representation? Once again you don't understand one of our policies (NPOV). Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should teach me, will you?
 * 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.' Just read it, read the parts about balance and impartiality too. Now, I'll reformulate it once again, I'm arguing we're not representing, I'm saying we're adopting. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People sometimes misunderstand what WP:NPOV really means. I don't know but perhaps reading this might help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting note, it basically says we should adopt 'the historical smear campaign of msm'. Well, I'm suggesting it's a mistake with regards to our policies and that we should report/represent the smear as we would report/represent any other historical occurrence. I don't think that we should write articles in line with viewpoints of 'reliable sources', as you've suggested there; we should represent and report such viewpoints as we do elsewhere on regular, daily and undisputed basis. I don't know, perhaps we need some hard boiled, well thought and experienced Wikipedians to help us with this one. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Show us some reliable sources mentioning and defining this “smear campaign” and maybe it has a place in the article. Until then…. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fyi, thefourfreedoms has been indef blocked for socking. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" is not useful, since the mainstream theory also involve a conspiracy orchestrated by al Qaeda. I'd suggest "proponents of unorthodox theories". – Quadell (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Page edits
I've made some changes because the current version is high POV and filled with errors. Please discuss before reverting. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have added unreferenced material, removed referenced material, and introduced POV. Please revert your edits. Also, have you had or currently have any other accounts that have edited in this area or have restrictions placed on them? Verbal   chat  17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really tell me what you mean, specifics are better than generalities for discussion. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think our IP friend here didn’t actually inject much if any POV. The material added doesn’t really speak all that well for AE911T… out of 24,000 convention attendees, they managed to get a whopping 50 signatures, and they weren’t even all from the sort of professionals they’re looking for. :D — NRen2k5 (TALK), 04:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, who's pushing a POV? 76.102.212.231 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you’re insinuating that I have an agenda to push a POV here, I wonder what you call your activities.… — NRen2k5 (TALK), 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Tom Harrisons recent reversion on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
As far as I can see, World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories is a more precise rendition of what they seem to support. Also the source of 'outside their experience' actually relates to the body of evidence, and specifically that it presents them something which lies outside their experience and training. I hope that Tom Harrison will self revert. Unomi (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No; the present wording is less redundant and better summarizes the sources. September 11 conspiracy theories is the most useful link for our readers. Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which sources are you referring to exactly? Most sources that I have seen repeatedly state that the group tries to distance itself from other 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They focus exclusively on the direct causes of the collapse. As such it is clear that World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories would be the correct link, rather than broader categories. The source that is currently used in the lede should probably removed, it has 1 line regarding a snippet of conversation with Gage in a documentary the source reviews. As for 'outside their experience' it is fairly clear that the current interpretation of what they state on their website does not reflect what they actually say. Unomi (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sutcliffe source does not mention AE except for saying Gage founded it and attributes no opinions to it. It does clearly suggest Gage is a conspiracist and I do not see a key distinction between demolition conspiracy theories (which are article says is "central to 9/11 conspiracy theorists" and 9/11 conspiracy theorists being made - the towers were subject to a controlled demolition, possibly by the government, is the message I get & that warrants inclusion as 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tom and Doug, and following this thread and the one about the source above I am reverting to Tom's edit. Verbal   chat  06:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

<- I don't have much time to spend on this at the moment, but I will ask you to reread the 'Sutcliffe' source and have you consider if this is indeed a useful source regarding the lede of the AE article. Please also reread the full quote Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience. and consider what the quote is used for in the article. Whatever our personal views are of the subject matter quote mining and using sources simply to push a POV simply will not do. Consider that the lede is meant to summarize the article proper, as the article only refers to controlled demolition theories, pointing to a broader, inexact article instead of World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories is plain wrong. Using the Sutcliffe source which mentions Gage on 1 line in order to link to a less precise article is quite improper. Consider if it would be proper to use Sutcliffes other opinions to argue that Rumsfeld supported the secret bombings of Cambodia or that J D Salinger is against artistic freedom. We really really should not have to have this discussion. It is unfortunate that we so far have been unable to agree on these points but I hope that you will take steps to argue why I am wrong. Unomi (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I would like for you to explain this edit summary Unomi (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation assistance
A case was filed to the mediation cabal, you can see the casepage here.

I need to make one point clear on the outset: Regardless of anyone's position on this issue, editors are expected to act like editors and nothing more.

From this point forward, I will consider any test as to which side someone is on as tantamount to ad hominem incivility. I have tried this before in similar mediations (including the 9/11 conspiracy theory) and it has never worked. It doesn't matter: on this project we are editors. There is no good abstraction above that.

We ought to be editing these articles as one, doing nothing more than improving the project. If anyone cannot agree with this, then building consensus is impossible. So I need it to be made clear that you are all on the same page; maybe not ideologically, but certainly editorially. This is the assumption I'll be making during this mediation.

Please sign your agreement and add any comments you'd like after your signature so I can get a clearer understanding of what's going on here.
 * Xavexgoem (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have filed this mediation request, because I felt that the article has not been edited according to Wikipedia policies, and that the involved editors, including me, were unable to resolve the situation on their own.
 * We have the unfortunate situation that, in addition to edits that are, in my view, not supported by policy, most editors include information that would make the article badly skewed if their edits were the only edits made to the article. Some of these edits are, one might say, cancelling out each other, but this does not really improve the article. Any stability of the article's content is also rather due to a certain kind of armistice, rather than based on consensus building.
 * In my view, the version of the article on May 27 actually does represent some kind of consensus among those views on the article that I consider supported by Wikipedia policies. (In my personal view, this version has too much context, but there is no rigid policy on the amount of context, so this is of course, subject to consensus of the involved editors.)  Cs32en  12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (I think I'm involved, although not named.) Agree with mediator's statement.  In reply to the stated reason for mediation (which may not be complete), the "reliable sources" question may not be the real issue.  However, foreign-language sources which are not confirmed by any English language source, reliable or not, might be due to translation problems, either on their part or by the interpreter.  (No offence intended, Cs32en.)  Furthermore, some of the US sources previously added to 9/11 articles have been advertisements from publications, rather than even editorial comment; certainly not news articles.  Even if the foreign-language article is as stated, it may be an editorial, which makes it only reliable toward notability, not toward any "facts" claimed in the article. I'm not sure what other issues may be involved, as I haven't been watching the article closely this past week.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The following information has been sourced to non-english news reports:
 * Telecinco (in Spanish): AE911Truth is collecting signatures for a petition that demands a new 9/11 investigation.
 * Reuters (in Spanish): more exact description of the claims of the group with regard to the causes of the collapse of the WTC towers
 * ZDF (in German): The documentary The Conspiracy Files, for which Gage has been interviewed, is a co-production of the BBC and the ZDF.
 * Le Vif (in French): AE911Truth claims that thermite has been found in the debris of the WTC.
 * La Stampa (in Italian): Gage claims that something has been hidden from the public.
 * All are news reports, not opinion pieces (the ZDF text is a report about the ZDF/BBC co-production, so maybe not technically a news report), and none of these sources contain any extraordinary claims about the statements or activities of the organization. Also, we are not dealing with any exotic languages here; there are a lot of editors on the English Wikipedia who can speak these languages, and it would not be difficult to ask uninvolved editors to check the translation. Cs32en  14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see I'm named for removing this link which, in the case notes, is described as a reliable source for the sentence that the newspaper "reports that the group consists of 640 architects and engineers."  The bit in the newspaper is simply a short announcement of a meeting. The A&E website itself doesn't make that claim. I don't understand what makes this little blurb a reliable source for anything but that a meeting was scheduled to take place. I'm amazed that the removal of this was singled out in this way. I'm clearly wrong about the source if 640 has never been used in the article, but that doesn't make this a RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cited your edit because (a) you did not remove the information sourced to a non-WP:RS blog which was in the same sentence (b) you said that the newspaper had probably taken the information from our article, which obviously cannot be true, as the number "640" never appeared in the article. I don't know why you have included the obviously unsubstantiated allegation in your edit summary, but it appeared tendentious to me. I have included you in the list of involved editors in the mediation request, which is, of course, different from naming an editor in an arbitration enforcement request. [Note: This comment and the previous comment have been modified after being posted, so that the sequence on the page does not exactly reflect the chronological order of the edits.]  Cs32en  14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I agree that the number never appeared in the article, it was just a guess and I should have been clearer as to why I removed it. Are you claiming that the source was an RS? I don't understand why you are concerned over what I didn't do as there are loads of references I didn't even look at, including the one you seem to be concerned about, although my understanding is that for fringe subjects like this one there is more leeway for sources for criticism. But that's another issue and so far as I know that site has not been raised as an issue, so it's not clear to me why you are using my failure to remove it against me now. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get too upset about it. I have not named you in an A/E request, and I would not have requested mediation because of this edit. As for the Parity of sources issue, this is related to the content of fringe theories. So if a fringe theory advocated by organization X says "Y is true," you do not necessarily need a peer-reviewed article to include a statement that says "Y is false." You need WP:RS sources about the organization X, however, as the existence of X is not a fringe theory, obviously. There is a difference between criticizing (in the sense of refuting) a theory and criticizing (or spreading doubtful information about) an organization. Cs32en  14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unomi (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) This argument predates my involvement in this article, however, I would say that per WP:NONENG it is clear that non-English sources are perfectly acceptable for establishing notability and otherwise.

Can I get a comparative diff between the version preferred and the current version? ([cur]) I don't want to jump the gun just yet. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this is over a single issue, but rather regarding the manner in which editing takes place. I think the first issue would be whether non-English language sources are allowed and if they count towards notability. Unomi (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the basic problem is that notability of this organization has never been established. When I last looked at the references (which admittedly was 2-3 weeks ago), there was only one short article about this organization. All the others only mentioned this group in passing or not at all. Although several editors have complained, Cs32en continued adding references that don't mention this organization.

One of the problems with non-English sources is that per WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), a group must be the subject of significant coverage and that trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Since these sources are not in English, it is difficult to ascertain whether the coverage is trivial or substantial. Given the fact that many of the English language sources Cs32en has used don't even mention this group or only mention it in passing, it is possible that the non-English sources suffer from the same problems.

Further, at one point, several blogs such as the Examiner were being used to establish notability. The Examiner has already come up on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and it was determined to not be a WP:RS. Other sources such as the Atlantic Free Press probably don't meet the requirements of WP:RS either.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received from a fellow editor was that finding sources should be relatively easy. If you're having trouble finding sources that say something, then that's usually a good indication of something that shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

One final note: Cs32en is a particularly prolific editor. Whether notability can finally be determined, I don't know. I've been working a lot of overtime the last couple weeks and don't really know the current state of the article, but the last I checked (2-3 weeks ago), it was very questionable. Several editors have discussed nominating the article for deletion but no one's wanted to be the one to do it. Personally, I am unfamiliar with the process, so I am uncomfortable nominating the article for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can nominate this for AfD, if anyone would like. There would at least be broader community input on its notability. On the other hand, I wouldn't blame anyone for being cynical about a more taboo article being voted for deletion. It's still the best way to get the community's overall consensus. I'd like permission from all editors, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if an editor actually wants the article to be deleted, this editor can nominate the article for AfD. We shouldn't nominate for AfD just to get community input. I also think that this would rather replicate the lengthy discussion that is already here at the talk page. What we need is advice from editors who are willing to look at the entire situation of the article and the editing process, while comments at an AfD are often made after only a brief look at the article. Cs32en  00:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me add that A Quest For Knowledge seems to have chosen his words quite carefully. However, when he says that "at one point, several blogs ... were used to establish notability", he should also say that this was being done by one editor at the talk page. Also, I do not see much discussion about nominating the article for deletion, except that A Quest For Knowledge considered nominating the article for deletion, while others argued that merging would be preferable. I would appreciate it if A Quest For Knowledge had a look at the list of sources in the section Independent secondary sources, and would comment on this list, rather than making misleading statements about sources he saw in the article, or on the talk page, 2 or 3 weeks ago. A Quest For Knowledge says that I have added sources that do not mention the organization; this is factually correct. I have included references to NIST and to papers from structural engineers to provide context for the reader, as is appropriate for an article that contains WP:FRINGE material. As an aside, A Quest For Knowledge also said that Wikipedia policies would mean that the article 9/11 Truth movement should be deleted.
 * The notability guideline clearly says: “If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.” So, from a policy perspective, we do not even need substantial coverage, if there are multiple independent sources. Much of the coverage, however, is substantial (although not detailed), in the sense that the reports would lose substance if the information related to AE911Truth would have been left out.
 * On the issue of whether sources should be considered trivial, the guideline says: “Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.” The large majority of the sources is not trivial in this sense (although some of the 28 sources are rather short and would not establish notability on their own).
 * The guideline is also very clear on how the existence of international sources should be interpreted: “Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.” Cs32en  01:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any misleading statements. I clearly stated that I haven't checked the cites in about 2 or 3 weeks because I've been busy working overtime and don't know know the current status of the article. Please, stop making false accusations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment is misleading, because you create the impression that people would have been looking for blogs to establish notability, for lack of reliable sources. Also, your statement about a "discussion about deletion" is misleading, as it implies that there would have been several editors considering deletion and discussing how to proceed. Cs32en  02:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you deny the fact that an editor used several blogs to establish notability? Do you deny the fact that at various times Arthur Rubin, Dougweller, Tom Harrison, Fences and windows, etc. questioned this article's notability? If you deny these facts, how do you account for the fact that they're currently on this article's talk page? Wikipedia keeps a history of this article's talk page, so I would love to hear your explanation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad 1.) No, I do not. As I said in my previous comment, one editor referred to several sources, including blogs, in a comment at the talk page.
 * Ad 2.) Arthur Rubin posted his first comment when the article was much shorter and contained only 7 references. He did not enter into a discussion at that point and supported a merge or move in a comment he posted a few days later on. Dougweller said that the article is rather about Gage than about AE911Truth (which would be a move to Gage, but he didn't comment explicitly on whether he supported a move, merge, or delete), Tom Harrison and Fences and windows argued for merge, and said that separate notability would not have been established.
 * I did never say that Arthur Rubin, Dougweller, Tom Harrison or Fences and windows would not have questioned the notability of the subject. What I have said is that they did not argue for deletion in the discussion about the article. Cs32en  05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that a stronger case can be made for Gage than for this group. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets take a step back. Non-English sources, valid on wikipedia: yes / no? Unomi (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're valid, so far as they're considered reliable in that language's press. English sources are always preferred, but in lieu of them foreign sources are valid. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have categorized the sources into “exclusive,” “substantial,” “incidental” etc. in the section above. If there are any specific questions about the sources, especially on the non-english language sources, I can provide more information about them. Cs32en 02:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation assistance - When are facts considered facts?
This is a matter currently being discussed on Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories but I believe it would be wise to use the opportunity of mediation assistance to resolve it. These 2 articles largely involve the same editors and the conversation would likely impact on an array of articles. I would ask our mediator to kindly read through the thread there. Unomi (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a tough one :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What needs to happen for that discussion to get anywhere is for people to defend their claim, and make it obvious that this isn't about reader perception than it is a consensus that needs developing. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing tough about it. If the September 11 attacks states quite clearly that Al Quaeda attacked the US, then this article should say the same thing. If there is sufficient doubt expressed in RS that this is correct, then it should also be stated the same way in September 11 attacks. We shouldn't 'play nicer' with the conspiracy theories on their own page than we do on the main article. Quantpole (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, then Xavexgoem commented on the mediation as a whole, rather than on a particular comment. The issue that has been raised in this section should be discussed at Talk:September 11 attacks. Both articles are, of course, subject to the same policies, excect where there are explicit distinctions being made in the policies with regard to articles of different type (e.g. WP:UNDUE has specific guidelines on articles containing WP:FRINGE material). Cs32en  13:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I agree that the most natural place to discuss this would be Talk:September 11 attacks, I just figured that since we had the benefit of mediation assistance here, and that the discussion seems pretty slow going on the points above, we might as well get as many of the issues raised looked over as possible. Unomi (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The case for attribution is borne by what is stated in policy, guidelines and other community text which is generally understood to reflect community consensus. While I believe that the arguments from wikipedia policy, guidelines and ideals as expressed by Jimbo is sufficient, I realize from personal experience that dry invocation of liturgy can readily be interpreted as wikilawyering. The following is not to be taken as formal arguments, just as an attempt at explaining my more personal rationale.
 * WP:CONTROVERSY states: When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source. It further makes it clear that this is not only for the fringe view by These should be from the mainstream media (CNN, BBC, etc.) or independent organizations such as the UN, taking into account that they have their bias as well. Remember the section is discussing facts.
 * WP:NPOV: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.
 * WP:NPOV: Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.
 * WP:DUE, Jimbo summarized: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * WP:VALID: Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; 

Primarily I believe that keeping an unattached narrative tone is appropriate for serious writing. I believe that especially in these articles that can be controversial, wikipedia should strive to maintain its neutral and even detached tone. I do not believe that we can, or should try to, advocate any particular view or allow giving the impression that we are taking a stance. I firmly believe that no matter what article we are presenting to the user it is beyond our remit and ability to convince anyone of anything apart from the relative professionalism of our editors. This is especially true of polarized domains such as this sphere of articles.

In this specific example attributing the statement to the White House, CIA, FBI or Washington Post cannot possibly detract from it. I think it is deeply unfortunate that 'official' seems to be seen as a pejorative, I would say that it is objective and correct.

I also think that attribution generally has many benefits no matter what context;
 * attribution is meritocratic in nature, it induces editors to find the best sources and to present the details that readers deserve.
 * attribution inherently assures NPOV, avoiding any contention, no matter how spurious, of an article displaying editorial POV.

While I generally hold that articles should not suffer from detrimental artifacts of compromise, attribution is the opposite, it enriches, gives depth and contributes to the overall credibility of an article. Unomi (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion that may be worth pursuing, but it is not related to the substance of the mediation request. In my view, mediation requests should be defined based on the substance of the dispute, not based on the editors involved, otherwise this might become a neverending story. If Xavexgoem agrees to expand the scope of the mediation, I would not object, but I think it is better to keep these two controversies separate. I don't know whether the controversy about the proper way to represent facts and opinions from reliable sources need mediation at this point, but if so, I would prefer that a separate mediation request would be filed on this issue. Cs32en  16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I have collapsed the conversation above so that it does not distract from the current mediation effort. I hope the affected editors take no offense. Unomi (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse my rather lackadaisical participation; I've had trouble focusing these past few days. Hopefully that will change :-)
 * I realize that many of the editors here come from different perspectives on the issue of 9/11. Regardless of how wp:fringe some of these views are should be of no concern to us insofar as they're closely-held views held by editors. It is immaterial in the formation of an article. So it's important that we're all on the same page on drafting this article within policy and guidelines.
 * I noticed a discussion about the use of "official". I agree that this should not carry a pejorative connotation, as whether or not "the official story is true", it does come from the officialdom. History is full of officials lying, telling the truth, and equivocating between them. Everyone knows that this happens (unless you're really optimistic :-p). That said, I think the use of presenting things as "official" is perfectly acceptable. It is up to the reader - not the editors - how to interpret "official". It is not our jobs to use words rhetorically as cudgels. Truth be told, whether or not the word official is used has no bearing on how the readership will interpret this article... or any other article for that matter. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Please tell me that made sense :-p
 * It made sense to me :-)  We appreciate having the help of someone with an outside and relatively neutral view to examine details like whether or not a word like "official" is pejorative.  Editors on the 9/11 articles pore over every word with intense scrutiny; some with intention to try to convey a particular viewpoint; others try to keep the articles free of bias in their meaning; and some just try to use the terms most commonly used by "reliable source" (which may not always be encyclopedic.)  The ideal would be free of bias, encyclopedic in its verbiage, informative for the reader, and reasonably represented in reliable sources. Wildbear (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with there being an "official" view/theory is that, even outside of fringe contexts, it implies that there is a plausible unofficial story. I still think that "mainstream" would be appropriate for what truthers call the Official Conspiracy Theory.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But its use makes sense in an article about that plausible unofficial story, no? But I realize this is a balancing act. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, I think the use of the word "official" is acceptable in contrast to unofficial. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't just an 'official' explanation. Even if the investigation was setup by officialdom, the conclusions have been supported by the vast majority of experts in the field. Conspiracy theories pretty much always have a basis of the government supposedly trying to hide something. Using official in this context I would contend is almost certainly intended in a perjorative fashion. Quantpole (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When presenting WP:FRINGE content, we should provide appropriate context, such as an indication about the level of support the respective content has in the relevant scientific community. Now if we talk about gravity denial, the concept of gravity is certainly not an official concept, but it is a concept that has gained acceptance within the scientific community (although the results of the Theory of relativity actually suggest that the force of gravity does not exist, but that's another matter). In the case of the September 11 attacks, the scientific community supports the official explanation, because the reference point for the support are the 10.000+ pages reports from government institutions. Some additional studies (Bazant, Purdue) are not the reference point for the support. The term "official explanation" should thus be accompanied by further context on the view of the scientific community (as it is in the articles that we are talking about), but the term "official" is appropriate, because it correctly characterizes the origin of the theory or conclusion. Cs32en  14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The context would have to be very carefully phrased then. 'Official' is almost always used in conspiracy theories to indicate cover ups and deception. Quantpole (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should, however, choose the vocabulary according to common usage, not according to how words are being used or are being understood by people who support conspiracy theories. People actually have various views about the implications of something being official, but they do agree that the factual information that the word provides is that the source of some information is a government-affiliated institution. Cs32en  16:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * History is an abstract concept. There is no official version of history (well, maybe in Communist China but that's a completely different topic). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

← I want to reiterate that the use of the word "official" should not be construed as pejorative, but it should be used with caution. If y'all get hung up on words, you won't be getting anywhere. Remember: the politics involved in editing - the connotations, the subtle inferences - is different from what is read. Most people who wander accidentally across this page will believe these people to be liars, opportunists, or whatever label makes them the most comfortable, since 9/11 conspiracy is in the fringe. That's a frank assessment; therefore, can we please avoid getting hung up on the small details that have no observable impact on how the article is read? --Xavexgoem (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Groton Resident Thinks AE film is Drivel
Hi Folks, I'm new to WP-editing. Please be patient as I get the hang.

In the article's subheading "Activities", we find the following reference to the AE film "Blueprint":

When the movie was played on cable-access Groton Channel, it sparked anger among its viewers such as Groton resident Alan Hoch who said "I think the piece was absolute drivel, and I would be embarrassed if I were the one who foisted this nonsense on the viewing community."[8]

This sentence strikes me as exceptionally un-encyclopedic. In an article that does a decent job citing expert architect/engineering opinions (on each side of debate), the opinion of one film-viewer from Groton stands out as highly irrelevant. Its inclusion gives impression that the editors are desperate to include any critique of the film they can find. One might expect to find that in a bad high school essay, but not in a world-class encyclopedia.

My proposal would be to strike entire sentence. The article is already abundantly clear that this topic is controversial.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Doctorhoneydew


 * There's no doubt the piece is absolute drivel, but we need a reliable source to that effect. Concur with removal.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Arther. There is little doubt that your personal opinion [about drivel] is off topic.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arthur that it is drivel, and I agree with him that we need a better source than this. Verbal   chat  19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it that Groton resident Alan Hoch's views are considered serious? Is this a joke? Why not add Alan's mailman's view? Why not add Joe the Plumber's? Is the page trying to appear stage managed? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Arthur, Verbal, Butt and I all find problems with quote from Alan Hoch. So I am cutting the quote but retaining the reference to local controversy in Groton. I'm not convinced that the local controversy is encyclopedia-worthy, but it does show that the film is controversial which helps give some balance. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

These people aren’t biased, and are notable. Someone affiliated with AE911T paid their local public access channel to broadcast their drivel. They didn’t pay to see it. Most of them would have never heard of it, much less wasted their money to watch it. That they reacted with such disgust to this previously unknown film being broadcast on their airwaves really tells you something. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, NRen. The info about Groton viewers strongly objecting to film has been kept in article. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard Data versus No Data
The lead of this article includes the quote, "The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings". This quote is taken from a paper written by Bazant and Verdure, entitled "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions". In making this statement, the authors provide no references, no studies or surveys, and no names to serve as examples in support of the statement. In short, they provide nothing at all to back the claim.

Contradictory examples are available in abundance. I can readily name at least 70 professionals in science and engineering who question the US government's version of events; and many, perhaps most of these regard controlled demolition as being in better conformance with the evidence than the government's version. Many of these professionals are distinguished in their fields, and some have been quite notable in the media. There are many places where the names of science and engineering professionals questioning the official story can be found. If you would like to see some, Patriots Question 9/11 is one place to start.

Multiple polls have been taken showing that a significant portion of the general population has doubts about the official story. These polls are conducted professionally by companies whose reputations depend on conducting polls in a proper scientific manner. Despite the fact that the polls constitute actual statistical data, some of Wikipedia's editors have rejected the poll data as being unreliable, even when it is quoted by "reliable sources". At the same time, the statement concerning the engineering and scientific community's views is presented as though it were unquestionable fact, without any qualification, attribution, or supporting data. In that unattributed opinion is being put forward as though solid fact, while hard data is being excluded, I view this as a severe case of POV pushing. In the interest of maintaining NPOV, the statement by Bazant and Verdure should not necessarily be excluded; they are notable enough that they should have this opportunity to state their opinion within this article. But it should be given attribution. And if quotes without supporting data are allowed prominence within the 9/11 articles, then professionally collected statistical data (e.g. polls) should be allowed a place withing the 9/11 articles as well. Discussion welcome. Wildbear (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You do have a point there. I can’t find reliable sources mentioning the scientific community overwhelmingly rejecting/dismissing controlled demolition claims. Rather, there are no reliable sources saying that anything more than a vocal minority accepts them.
 * Thus, I agree that the Bazant and Verdure’s statement should be attributed to them, and I think that it’s more accurate and appropriate for WP to state matter-of-factly that 9/11 CD is a minority view rather than that it’s widely rejected. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with what you have written. Saying that 9/11 CD is a minority view rather than that it’s widely rejected gives an impression which is more realistic and less POV.  In the absence of better references, giving attribution to the "widely rejected" phrase would make it more palatable for now. Wildbear (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is widely rejected, there is no academic or professional debate about what caused the collapse. 70 professionals in science and engineering make up a vanishing small percentage of the total active in those fields, it's not a significant number by any measure. So it's perfectly acceptable to say that's it's rejected. RxS (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're leaping from "there is no academic or professional debate about what caused the collapse" to "it is widely rejected". It would appear that you're implying that silence is equivalent to rejection.  Silence can also mean that they haven't studied the issue and thus have no basis on which to make an authoritative commentary, or that they don't want to get involved due to the sensitivity of the issue.  In Wikipedia terms, wouldn't making an assertion that something is rejected based on an absence of debate constitute "original research"?  In order to establish notability, shouldn't multiple reliable sources be easy to find indicating that the engineering and scientific community actually rejects CD, if the assertion is actually valid?  As it stands, the article only provides a single reference; and it's a weak reference as it provides no corroborating data to support the assertion. Wildbear (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if there aren't enough references, it probably because this organization is not notable and the article should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read above. The topic of this section is on the notability of the quote "The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings", not on the notability of AE911T, which would be a topic for a different section.  At this point, there hasn't been enough notability established for the rejection assertion to warrant presenting it without attribution.  More references (preferably with stronger evidence) are requested to lend validity to the assertion, if such can be found.  If such references can not be found, then the statement should only be presented with attribution, to avoid giving it undue weight. Wildbear (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Emphatically agree with Wildbear and NRen. The source does not support the claim. Bazant provides no evidence for his assertion of what the scientific community "generally" has concluded. No survey of the literature, no polls of scientists, etc. Given that, it qualifies as an opinion, and not as evidence of fact. My vote - characterize controlled demo argument as a "controversial position", or "highly controversial" or "minority position". Those phrasings are NPOV and more readily supported by evidence. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that 69.159.86.148 undid Wildbear's attempt at clarification of Bazant citation. First of all, since 69 has not participated in the discussion on this topic (unless I'm missing it) it's hard to thoroughly examine his/her rationale. Second, the reason 69 gives in edit summary strikes me as very weak. Essentially 69 takes it as a given that scientific community generally rejects CD argument. Maybe that is a correct assumption. But, without proper evidence, it is no more than an assumption. Wildbear and NRen point out (above) that Bazant is asserting an opinion, and it should not be cited as evidence of fact. Given these concerns, and absence of 69 in this discussion, I'm reverting to Wildbear's previous edit. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be completely clear: that paper was peer-reviewed and they would not let them publish that statement if it were not true. That's how peer review works.  Oreo Priest  talk 00:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be perfectly clear. Even in reputable peer-reviewed papers, mistakes may occur, and statements which are clearly opinion may be allowed even if the reviewing peers don't believe it to be supported.  However, although it's clear that the conspiracy theories are rejected by the engineering community, we can only say that it's Bazant's peer-reviewed opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My preceding statement was probably a bit too strong. Still, although it's clear that the authors did not do a formal survey before making the statement, the reviewer certainly would not have let it fly if it were not the case. It is because it's clear that the conspiracy theories are rejected by the engineering community that the authors need not be included in the prose. This is just one of several citations of that fact. If the authors are included at all, it should certainly not be in the lead. Further, with the absence of any peer-reviewed engineering papers arguing against the destruction by airplanes, the proof is in the pudding.  Oreo Priest  talk 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My response to Quantpole's comment, "Is there any reason to think this is unreliable". Yes indeed. Some at Wikipedia would like to define "reliability" in black and white, in which every source can be categorized as either totally reliable or totally unreliable; but in reality, there is no such thing as a perfectly reliable source. All human endeavors to provide information come in shades of gray, and no source is perfectly free from error. This includes (supposedly) peer-reviewed documents. If the validity of a statement is disputed, it should be possible to corroborate it across multiple sources to help validate its accuracy and notability. If an assertion in dispute can only be found from a single source, it shouldn't be presented as undisputed and reliable fact; it should be attributed to that single source (if it is included at all.) As an example, about a week ago I was looking for a reference to indicate how Benjamin Franklin came to name his cluster of Leyden jars a "battery". I found multiple references which indicated that Franklin was comparing his devices to a battery of cannons (or guns, in Franklin's words.) I traced it back far enough to find a document in which Franklin himself made the comparison; thus establishing a high degree of reliability for the assertion. While doing the search, I found where one author, writing in what many would accept as a reliable source, stated that "battery" referred to the way that this collection of capacitors was used to assault people by shocking them ("battery" as in "beat them up".) It's true that early experimenters with capacitors (including Franklin) initially couldn't think of much to do with the devices other than to shock people (and occasionally kill a chicken or two), but from checking the other references, that clearly wasn't the sense of "battery" that Franklin was thinking of when he chose to use the word. If a Wikipedia editor had referenced that single assertion, they would have it wrong. Corroboration across multiple sources is the key to reducing the occurrence of that kind of error; especially when the validity of an assertion is disputed. Wildbear (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources that dispute the point in question? Show me those and then you may have a justifiable reason to provide this attribution. We emphatically do not paraphrase everything with 'according to' just because a wikipedia editor does not like what is said. We look at what the reliable sources say - if there is a dispute according to those reliable sources about a fact then that is documented, then saying things like 'according to' is OK, otherwise there is no need to attribute. Quantpole (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any reliable sources disputing the assertion in the referenced paper; but the wording and context in the paper is different from that being used in the Wikipedia article; and probably much less likely to arouse an objection. The paper reads "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering".  The Wikipedia article reads: "The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings."  The Bažant paper doesn't specifically say that "the engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition"; it says that they generally accept the version defined by NIST.  "Accept" is a passive condition which can be taken by default; it can mean that there is a lack of objection.  "Rejects" is a more active term; it tends to imply that a stand has been taken to actively reject an assertion.  Since the wording, meaning, and context are not the same between the paper and Wikipedia, I question whether it is valid to require disputes among reliable sources to validate that there may be a problem with the way in which Wikipedia is using the statement.  The additional problems also remain that the assertion is uncorroborated and without data or reference.  Wikipedia is currently presenting the assertion in a manner which does not make the reader aware of these things.  Perhaps the lack of qualifications on statements like this is technically permitted by Wikipedia policy; but I don't think that it is good practice if the objective is to produce a reliable and informative document.  If an assertion really is valid and notable, it shouldn't be difficult to find multiple sources to back it up. Wildbear (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not need multiple sources for a statement, unless that statement is controversial. Any evidence that it is actually a controversial statement? We also do not need the sources that sources have used! If there are concerns that the article doesn't reflect what the source says then that is a separate issue. Quantpole (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quantpole, respectfully, I think you're incorrect on many points here. First, you defend "reverting" because there's not "consensus". Fair enough. But there is also not consensus that the citation is correct. And -- here's the key -- WP is clear that the burden of evidence is on those that want to include a claim (see "WP verifiability"). Second, you ask if there are reliable sources disputing the claim. Again, wrong standard. The WP guideline is that a source must "unambiguously support" the claim "as presented in the article". Wildbear correctly explains exactly how THAT standard is not met (it presents opinion as fact, and also misquotes source). Third, you say "if there are concerns that the article doesn't reflect what the source says then that is a separate issue." Huh? Why? If article misrepresents source, OR if source fails to support article it's the same essential problem - an unsupported claim in the article. And the burden of evidence is on those that want to include the claim. So we need to fix the claim or find new evidence. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin - Bazant's take on the "scientific community" is a peer-reviewed opinion. As an editor, it concerns me that WP is presenting Bazant's opinion as fact. It would be great if we had hard evidence of consensus in the scientific community. Does that evidence exist? If so, I have not yet seen it. (On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of division in the scientific community - NIST & Bazant on one side Versus 700+ AE911Truth, Jones & Co on the other side). Without hard evidence, the test we're currently using is "Everybody knows it's true" - similar tests were used to support Earth-centric universe, racial supremacy, etc. Not sure that's best for WP. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As an editor? I think you mean to say as a single-purpose account. At time of writing this you have literally no contributions at all outside this article. You seem to be more committed to pushing your opinion here than to the encyclopedia.
 * That being said, its their expert opinion as being part of the structural engineering community. AE911Truth only has a handful of structural or civil engineers on it if you'll take a look. More importantly we still have no reliable source that says the community is divided.  Oreo Priest  talk 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Thanks, OP. The first part of your comment is not relevant to this thread, but I'll try to be brief in response. No, actually, I mean "editor". Though you imply that "editor" and "SPA" are mutually exclusive, I did not find that in the link you provided. Nor any indication that single-interest is a violation of, or detrimental to, WP. But if I mistakenly make any contribution which is actually detrimental to WP, please let me know. Meantime, I've found "assume good faith" to be an excellent WP guideline). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic. I agree with Oreo and others that Bazant is a reliable source. But I disagree that Bazant's quote supports article as written. It may help here to refer to a couple WP rules on "verifiability". One is that the source must "unambiguously" support the claim "as it is presented" in the article. Does it? Well, in the source, Bazant asserts a peer reviewed opinion (no evidence) that specialists "generally accept" theory 1. But in WP article, it's presented as verifiable fact that scientific community generally "rejects" theory 2. That is not "unambiguous" support. It's an unsupported misquote. Fails WP rule. Another WP rule - the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds the claim (see "Verifiability"). If I understand correctly, that means to include a claim that "scientific community generally rejects CD", the burden of evidence is on the editor/s making that claim. Based on those WP rules, I'd propose two fixes: 1. Do not cite Bazant opinion as verifiable fact, since he, Bazant, did not. "According to" helps with this. 2. Quote Bazant correctly re: "accept" vs. "reject". E.g. we could say that the specialists generally accept the theory of progressive collapse initiated by fire. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center - Bad Citation
There's a bad citation in the section called 7 World Trade Center, pertaining to the following:

The community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.

For support, this line cites a Bazant paper. There's two problems with this:
 * 1. The Bazant paper pertains to Towers 1 and 2, not to 7 WTC. But our section clearly pertains to WTC 7. This is deceptive.
 * 2. Bazant's claim about specialists supporting the NIST report could not have pertained to the NIST report on WTC 7. Because Bazant's paper (2007) came out before the NIST report on WTC 7 (August 2008). (addendum: see Quantpole fix for this part, below)

In short, for a section called "7 World Trade Center", Bazant's paper on Towers 1&2 is not relevant. Inclusion seems deceptive. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also a paper by Bazant et al. in October 2008, |What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?, where the same claim is made. Specifically: "Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition." You are right that this is in the context of 1&2, but it is after the NIST report on 7. Quantpole (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Solid info, Quant. Okay, if the claim is supported by the 2008 Bazant paper, that would solve the chronology part of the problem. Still, as you say, it's a report on Towers 1 & 2. Is that "unambiguous support" for a claim in a section on WTC7? ("Unambiguous support" is the WP standard for citations). Isn't that still deceptive to readers? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

POV: "Gage is acting against his training" is cherry picking one phrase
The following selective quoting from the AE website violates WP:NPOV, a cornerstone of Wikipedia, quote: outside the scope of our training and experience. The article is not to selectively take an unclear phrase on one side out of context with the effect of injecting opinion. Gage and Media repeatedly invoke such professions as an asset, not as a weakness. see (KMPH Fox 26) Wikipedia is wp:not a poster board for lazy (strike that: lethargic) personal assumptions. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the article and checked the source. There’s no POV issue that I can see. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 07:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is some disagreement on how to properly interpret the quote on their page. I think we need to find out how we are going to resolve this and other issues. Edit warring is not a solution.
 * I personally believe that what is meant by the quote is that 'The body of evidence consists of artifacts which lie outside their training and experience', that is to say that steel reinforced buildings succumbing to fire is outside their training and experience, and that they surmise controlled demolitions is involved, hence the text in parenthesis. If we are not able to agree on what would be a neutral rewording of their statement I suggest that we include the quote in full. If we do not include the quote in full and we are not able to agree on what constitutes neutral wording then we should follow dispute resolution. Until dispute resolution or internal discussion sees us with a finding we can agree to adhere to we should remove the offending section from the article. Unomi (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? It's BRD, and as I explained in my edit summary putting it back, Ihaveabutt and NRen2k5 went through the BR process so we should now be discussing whether it should be removed. Edit warring starts when BR isn't followed by discussion but by another revert, and my edit was intended to stop the edit war at the appropriate place. I don't think I've misunderstood WP:BRD, have I? Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you have it backwards. Here is where the text was first added. It has since been reverted on numerous occasions and we are in the midst of an edit war to keep it in the text despite vociferous calls for discussion. Please stop and argue the case. I am removing the text and will consider further attempts to include it prior to gaining consensus as violations of editing policy. Unomi (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also this was already discussed above in the section "Training and experience" (which is a more neutral title) and the edit explained, hence BRD has been applied and we are well in the discussion phase. The quote seems clear to me, and doesn't need Unomi's extra reinterpretation. The conversation there stopped, in favour of the current version. Please don't wikilawyer against consensus. Verbal  chat  09:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you seem to be misunderstanding the quote it seems that it is not clear to you. Nor is there any consensus to keep your interpretation of the quote in the article. If you feel, as I do, that interpreting the quote could lead to misrepresenting the source I suggest that we use the quote in full. Please self-revert. Unomi (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is given in full in the reference, and you abandoned the discussion above. If you have any new points that weren't addressed by me or Tom there please add them here for discussion. Rather than wikilawyering, making accusations, and edit warring, why don't we discuss the material? I feel the text is is accurately representing the quote, even if you restrict it to them analysing evidence outside their training and experiance.  Verbal   chat  09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not 'abandon' the discussion above, I had stated my case and was waiting for a response to the argument, so far none have been forthcoming. It seems quite clear to me that a quote regarding the evidence falling outside their experience and training does not support the group itself states they are acting "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience".. I have explained this above and repeated it below. The edit warring was initiated by those that wished to keep the bold insertion, a clear violation of BRD. Please address the argument. Unomi (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have copied my post from above as requested. Having the full quote in the footnote is not a substitute for coming to agreement on how snippets of the quote are presented in the article nor what statements we can conscionable use it to support. Unomi (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.
 * I personally believe that what is meant by the quote is that 'The body of evidence consists of artifacts which lie outside their training and experience', that is to say that steel reinforced buildings succumbing to fire is outside their training and experience, and that they surmise controlled demolitions is involved, hence the text in parenthesis. If we are not able to agree on what would be a neutral rewording of their statement I suggest that we include the quote in full. If we do not include the quote in full and we are not able to agree on what constitutes neutral wording then we should follow dispute resolution. Until dispute resolution or internal discussion sees us with a finding we can agree to adhere to we should remove the offending section from the article. Unomi (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Including this particular interpretation of one of several thousand sentences on the internet site of AE911Truth is rather ridiculous, in my view. I am againt including this sentence, as the inclusion is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility. However, for the vast majority of readers, the inclusion of this sentence will provide pertinent information about the thinking of the Wikipedia editors who have included the sentence, rather than about the subject of the article. So at this point, I'm not getting terribly upset about this. Cs32en 09:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Unomi's claim of being bold and BRD was just, as he says, part of an edit war, then clearly he was wrong to call it Bold and I was wrong in interpreting as part of BRD. However, if he had wanted to stop edit warring, he would have stopped and not claimed to be part of the BRD process at this late stage. My edit was simply in response to his claim to be doing part of the BRD process. I will comment on the issue if and when I come to a conclusion. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what Dougweller is alluding to here, it is quite clear that Verbals initial bold insertion of his interpretation of the quote was contested, this is made clear by the section on this talk page that was started on the 28th of May. The BRD cycle was not respected, if this was not clear to you then, it should be clear to you now and you should see fit to remove the content while it is being contested. Failure to do so signals complicity in undermining BRD. It is odd that you reinsert the material, yet state that you do not have a 'conclusion' on the matter. Reinserting the material conveys on YOU responsibility to defend the material. Unomi (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Contested interpretations of a primary source quote. Unomi (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't what happened in that particular sequence, and you've been told that the appropriate thing would have been to leave the material in, right? That sequence was BRRD, not BRD. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I have stated regarding when the information was first added and that it was contested within 24 hrs seems to be the record in the edit history. If you wish to present an alternate sequence to mine, please back it up with diffs, as I have. The appropriate thing was to leave it in and try to resolve the dispute thru DR, this was not an endorsement of the 'wrong version' but merely to avoid being dragged (further) down into an edit war. Spend your time arguing your case rather than trying to get the last word. Unomi (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Verbal The problem does not seem to be differing perceptions of when the conversation stopped. Not all editors were in the room at the prior time. And please don't falsely characterize alleged consensus. The substantive problem on the table, that should have been recognized by responsible professional editors previously, is that the quote is selective and relies on entirely absurd assumptions. Those absurd assumptions contradict what Gage and the media say repeatedly. There may be other policy violations that need to be addressed soon. Did you see the other quotes, the additional content, given in the founding question? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on the referenced web page containing the quote in dispute appears to have been rewritten. Moot point now? Wildbear (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure that there are archives of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes it moot, the fact they changed it is interesting. We can have the original quote and say they previously claimed, and maybe give the updated quote. What isn't interesting is AEf9/11T. Verbal   chat  07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a wording like : the group itself has stated that the the building's collapse "presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience." as suggested on RSN here. Assuming that you can find an archive link that you can use to source it. Unomi (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Verbal   chat  11:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who would read such a sentence in the article would probably think: "There seem to be some people working on this article who go to really great lengths to tarnish the reputation of this group." The reader will thus not infer that the sentence conveys information about the group, but rather about Wikipedia, or about editors of Wikipedia (if the reader knows how Wikipedia works). Including the sentence thus damages Wikipedia's reputation, not the reputation of AE911Truth. Nobody without an agenda related to the content of the subject would bring up a deleted sentence from a self-published source that no other person has ever talked about and put it in an encyclopedia. Cs32en 11:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I’ll have to agree. It’s interesting to see them making Orwellian changes to their website (the entry is still dated 2007) based on the actions of a few Wikipedia editors though. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if "Orwellian" is the correct term here. They could just have taken down the old statement and put up a new statement, or they could have indicated "updated on xx.yy.2009", as is common with the online versions of newspaper articles that are being corrected. Cs32en  19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A key part of the top question remains. It pointed to ignored data, the link in which Gage and Media communicated the (mainstream) view that being an architect is perceived by them as an asset (not weakness, neutral). How do you reconcile the two pieces of data? Or, do several here take the stance that we should embrace one piece (the disputed quote) and censor the other (the media interview)? Neutrality is at risk and the discussion has, itself, sometimes a cherry picking aspect to it. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is our plan here to defile common sense? How do we assume AE could actually think their expertise could put them at some distinct disadvantage worth mentioning? Compared to whom? Some here might imagine that AE might view its own name (a=architect, e=engineer), signifying certain professions, as a regrettable accident? Hmmm. And it is assumed AE thinks its professions put it at some disadvantage compared to the whatever possible disadvantages (funding source, politics?) of government employees, contractors whose conclusions AE roundly criticizes? Silliness. The evident lack of seriousness in this talk page suggests likely problems with POV, among potentially others. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Common sense? Are you serious?  You do realize that they advocate insanely stupid conspiracy theories, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, stop being ridiculous. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Both answers are off topic: common sense about what certain professions do. Quest's comments about what invective label is favorite is not in the question.  NRen2k5, also not on the merits.  Lets instead focus on the question given.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that you're expecting their web site to make sense. This is an unrealistic expectation given that they support nutcase conspiracy theories.  Sorry if my point wasn't clear.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * “Ask a stupid question…” — NRen2k5 (TALK), 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is clear to me that AE have deliberately chosen their name to give some semblance of credibility. That they have made a mention that it is outside their expertise is surprising. That the vast majority of those signed up on the website have pretty much no expertise in the field of structural mechanics and failure is worthy of note. It is also worth pointing out that "Architects and engineers" do not design buildings to resist potentially destructive forces. Structural engineers design buildigs to withstand forces. Architects have pretty much no involvement with that. Mechanical and electrical engineers also have no involvement with building stability. However, we'd need reliable sources to mention all of this to avoid OR, but that is tricky because reliable sources generally try to avoid these groups as best they can. Quantpole (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AE911Truth is specifically trying to reach architects and engineers. That is why they staffed a booth at the AIA convention, for example. Also, they focus on the (smaller) number of A & E petition signers rather than the (larger) number of other petition signers in their public statements. They do not call themselves "Structural Engineers for 9/11 Truth", so I don't think the difference between an architect and a structural engineer needs to be pointed out here. And of course, architects do have to know something about structural engineering, because they need to know when it is necessary to consult a structural engineer. I'm not saying an architect has the same knowledge as an engineer, but clearly architects and engineers can much more easily familiarize themselves with the specifics of structural engineering than people who work in areas that are totally unrelated to math or physics. Cs32en  11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Architects are not experts in the field of structural mechanics. They may have some base knowledge in the general aspects of building design, but that gives them no insight into a subject as speciailist as to the causes of collapse of the 9/11 buildings. Most structural engineers wouldn't even have the in-depth knowledge required to make any sort of assessment on these buildings. This group (rather Gage, as it is unclear what involvement has come from others apart from messages of support on the website), similar to many conspiracy theorists, try to get publicity for their views. One of the methods this group is using is to trade on their supposed expertise. Many people wouldn't realise the differences between what architects and structural engineers do, so they may fool some into thinking they are speaking form some sort of authoritive position. Most structural engineers would look at this group and ignore them as speaking about a subject n which they do not have the necessary technical expertise. Quantpole (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that they are not experts in structural engineering. They do not claim to be experts either. I do not see the need to provide context here. Inserting such context about fairly obvious things will only result in the reader thinking that he is being pushed to some kind of conclusion about the subject, thus making the reader rather more suspicious about the pushing than about the subject. There is already a reference to the "community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" in the article. Cs32en  12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting putting my views into the article, it is just my opinion regarding the quote "outside their training and experience". I disagree when you say they do not claim to be experts when the whole set up of the site is trying to demonstrate that 'experts' disagree with the authorities in how the buildings collapsed. Why else does the website talk at length about Gage's experience in steel frames ? The front page has a number of "architectural and engineering professionals" who have signed the petition. A lot of people may be taken in by this to think they know what they're talking about. That is why I was a bit surprised by the quote, and can see why it has been removed. If there was a RS that talked about this it would be very relevent to the article. Quantpole (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As architects and engineers, they are certainly more qualified to evaluate the evidence than the average person. This doesn't make them experts. Everyone points to their respective qualifications in all kinds of circumstances. Why should AE911Truth be different? Cs32en  14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the average person doesn't subscribe to nutcase fringe theories, that makes them less qualified than the average person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An architect is no more qualified than the man on the street to technically evaluate these collapses. They can do what they want in terms of showing their qualifications, but it doesn't prove anything. As in all these matters, it's a PR exercise. Quantpole (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our opinions on this does not matter. Unomi (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an RFC about how to interpret the primary source. That is what I was (trying to) give my opinion on. Quantpole (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) As there are multiple ways to organize information as evidenced by reliable sources, and to decide which information is pertinent to the subject of the article, I think that our opinions (or our judgment, based on established policies) actually do matter. The concerns that Quantpole raises are not spurious, and are worth being discussed, although I do not think that they warrant the inclusion of further context into the article. It's not common to comment on the names of organizations in WP articles. For example, we do not write: "Bank of America, despite of its name, does not belong to any country located in America, nor to the continent as a whole, although this may change rapidly, given the bleak situation of the U.S. financial sector." (There is a distinguish template at Bank of China, however.) Cs32en  15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Nren: Did your reflections yet address this section's data, this (KMPH Fox 26)? I ask because, as I understood, such a media view, bolstered by the organization's founder's own view, would seem to directly contradict the claim that the organization has doubts about its own credentials.  My original concern was with WP:NPOV and that WP is WP:NOT a poster board to cherry pick evidence selectively. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Quest: Your comment was not persuasive. The AETruth911 website seems to have had a sentence that has been called into question here, that is, the use of the quote here required interpreting it in ways now highly controversial here, since the overall paragraph was not centrally discussing (not overall) the group's qualifications.  The organization itself (AETruth911) seems to have revised or corrected that quote, as you may know.  Some editors here have opinions about "why".  You take liberty to call the organization "nutcases" but you seem to want it both ways.  Are you regarding that one isolated quote (now gone) more "reliable" than the explicit media text (KMPH and Gage), in which both KMPH and Gage  define his background favorably? Is the host of that tv show, interviewing Gage, also a nut (not my word) for defining Gage's background favorably?  There are potentially sizable problems here of selectively shooting from the hip, and of WP:NOT and of WP:NPOV by selectively cherry picking data. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not defending the use of the quote (which I believe is currently out of the article (unless we're talking about two different things (I'm a software developer so please excuse my nested parens) )). I was commenting on the expectation that a fringe group's Web site would say things that are reasonable.  By definition, they say unreasonable things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Undent: Two observations things


 * The idea of self destructing buildings were out side the scope of anyones training experience prior to September 11 2001 not just these guys. To extend that to mean that architects engineers are not are qualified to examine the event is faulty logic.

Tony0937 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is historical and the "way back machine" does not recover it. If we really want to use it we need a different source.


 * Structural engineering assesses how buildings stands up, and its corollary, why some buildings fall down. The training and experience given to a structural engineer is totally different to that of architects or electrical engineers. Just because these collapses were on a scale never seen before does it mean that structural engineering principles are somehow mute and anyone is just as able to come up with a reasonable theory as to their collapse. When the Millenium Bridge started wobbling, they didn't say "Oh, this has never happened before, lets get a load of architects and electrical engineers to see if they can work it out". Instead what happened was they went back to first principles and lots of eminent engineers thought it over and eventually a cause and a solution was found. Similarly for the 9/11 towers. Are you seriously suggesting that an architect is just as qualified to determine the cause of collapse as a structural engineer? Quantpole (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me answer your question with a question: did any of the structural engineers who studied the collapse analyze the residue for evidence of explosives or incendiaries? Would a structural engineer know how to operate a scanning electron microscope, an X-ray energy dispersive spectroscope, or a differential scanning calorimeter?  Would a structural engineer know how to interpret the findings from these instruments?  It would appear that a very important part of the investigation depends upon chemists, nanotechnology physicists, and explosives experts, where a structural engineer would likely be as much out of his realm as an architect.  A full investigation depends upon an examination of the evidence by a variety of experts, among whom structural engineers are just one of many professions. Wildbear (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether the residues were studied for anything, and I don't particularly care. Yes, many specialists would have been consulted in the investigation. I doubt any of them were architects however (certainly not when discussing technical info). Quantpole (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, structural engineering is the appropriate specialty to analyze controlled demolition (with conventional demolition techniques; I agree that they may not be able to handle exotic materials). Still, the "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience" statement, the last time I saw it (archive.org is blocked from work), was quite ambiguous.  If we can't find a clear statement on the site describing the meaning, it probably should go except as a direct quote.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, restored, but "acknowledging" is wrong; controlled demolition is within the scope of a structural engineer's work. Change to "claiming"; "stating" does not seem appropriate.  Perhaps another synonym might be better.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Arther and Sir Quantpole: Not only has the quote in question become a highly controversial one partly because the paragraph in which it was embedded was not (not overall) about the organization's view of its qualifications, but in addition, few commenters here have recognized the evidence that AE has (in other places) viewed its competence and qualifications favorably. Even if any one of us might disagree on those qualifications, the question for us is whether use of the quote does honorably represent the groups own view.  If there is any lingering support for the quote, I don't see much sign that such support has faced the additional evidence in the original question: Gage and Media repeatedly invoke such Gage's profession(s) favorably.  This opposite evidence, (KMPH below) though inconvenient, presents a new angle at the whole and goes against the assumption that the group is worried with doubts about its qualifications.  In any event, this evidence reminds us to steer clear of cherry picking and POV.  See
 * (KMPH Fox 26) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I explained above, I have no doubt that Gage does think being an architect makes him somehow qualified to talke on this subject. The whole reason for the name is to try and give the group some semblance of credibility. The main problem we have with using any of these sources is that they are all primary. It's Gage's opinions on his own organisation - what we are lacking is reliable secondary sources discussing the group's technical knowledge. I think it is relevent that they have stated that it is outside their experience - yes it needs to be put in context and yes we also need to say that Gage believes his experience is an advantage (as in the KMPH source), but it is a notable statement about the group and should be included. Quantpole (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully to all above, let me attempt to focus this discussion. Here is the quote as I find it today:

The group has stated on February 13, 2008, that analyzing building demolitions are "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience."[29]

I propose striking for the following reasons. First, that sentence is incorrect. The source quote says nothing about "analyzing building demolitions". Second, the sentence takes the source quote out of context, which in this case distorts its meaning (as many editors have pointed out). Third, even if the source quote is taken in its entirety, there is strong division among editors as to how it should be interpreted. That suggests that the source quote is highly ambiguous. Fourth, the source quote seems to come from a non-published, or non-current, version of AE911truth's website. Seems like a weak, if not illegitimate, source to me.

Generally speaking, I think a great encyclopedia would minimize its use of incorrect sentences, about ambiguous source quotes, taken out of context, from weak sources. I propose deletion.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Doctorhoneydew


 * It seems to be the only thing reliable we have about their origins. It should be kept, if the entire article should be kept (which I doubt).  (I'm on a borrowed computer, so can't type elaborate text.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

→Apologies, AR, can't figure out indent :) Briefly, the first half of your comment seems false. The article already has many points about "their origins". Also, if the source quote in question is ambiguous, as many editors argue, then it doesn't really tell us anything about their origins. Next, I made what I thought were four reasonable arguments for deletion above, but I can't see where you address any of them. Finally, the question of keeping the article is not relevant to this thread. If okay with you, I'd like re-solicit feedback on my arguments for deletion:

''First, that the article's sentence in question, bolded above, is incorrect. The source quote says nothing about "analyzing building demolitions". Second, the sentence takes the source quote out of context, which in this case distorts its meaning (as many editors have pointed out). Third, the source quote is highly ambiguous, as demonstrated by the many conflicting interpretations in this thread. Fourth, the source quote seems to come from a non-published, or non-current, version of AE911truth's website. Seems like a weak, if not illegitimate, source to me. I propose deletion.''

Thoughts on those points, anyone? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. I agree that the phrase is used slightly incorrectly at present. However, it is relevent and should be included, whilst adequately explaining the context. Incidentally, this article in general is far too reliant on primary sources - most of those from newspapers and radio etc are merely interviews and a repeating of Gage's beliefs. There is very little critical commentary - whether positive or negative - and I am concerned that the use of these primary sources is in effect a soapbox for Gage's views. Quantpole (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've touched upon the subject's notability. There are few, if any reliable sources about this group.  Many editors have questioned its notability but no one's has nominated it for deletion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * QFN, totally valid question. But, I think, not relevant to this thread. Please discuss "Notability" in threads #1 and 4. Thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quant, I read all your comments in this thread, but I cannot find/grasp any arguments rooted in WP-editing. If you don't mind, please give editor-based reasons, not personal opinions on the larger topic. Why should an ambiguous quote, from a non-published website be included? How does it improve WP? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "rooted in WP-editing". The quote was published quite clearly on their website, whether it has subsequently been deleted or not, and it is directly related to the groups name and cause, so I think it is relevent. If you are expecting a secondary source to be arguing it is relevent, then you're not going to get that. But in that case we should delete everything in this article that is from self published sources. I've already agreed that the context needs to be better explained. What else do you want me to say? Quantpole (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks QP. I think I follow your argument now. Are you saying, to paraphrase, we should keep the quote because AE claims to be experts, but they admitted on their website that they are not experts? If so, I can see that interpretation of the quote. Problem is, as many editors have pointed out, the original quote can be interpreted in almost the exact opposite way. Like this, "we witnessed a strange phenomenon --collapse of steel structures by fire -- which was outside the normal patterns of our training and experience". Thus piquing their interest. If a quote can be interpreted in two, nearly opposite ways, I'd say that quote is ambiguous. To force the negative interpretation violates NPOV.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: quotes from websites. That's not my objection. My objection is using quotes from websites with full knowledge that the quote has subsequently been removed, corrected, or retracted. As is the case here. To me, that's akin to quoting a newspaper with full knowledge that the information was subsequently retracted or corrected in the "errata" section. If done in ignorance, that's just a mistake. But if done with knowledge of the retraction, as you are advocating, that seems like non-neutral-POV, misrepresentation to me.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Quantpole, is there any editor who can defend inclusion of the sentence on sound WP-editorial grounds? Those objecting to inclusion argue that the sentence/quote is ambiguous, cherry-picked, is an illogical interpretation of the original quote and comes from a non-published source. Please provide WP-editor-based reasons for its inclusion.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even better, how about provide some sound WP-editorial grounds why this group is notable enough for its own article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks QfK, but I'm pretty sure that's not relevant to this discussion topic. Notability has been taken up in discussion topics 1 and 4.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic. Okay, obviously we have two conflicting interpretations of the quote. Many editors interpret it as a self-admission of the group's lack of expertise. Many other editors interpret it in nearly the opposite way - as the group's description of how an event -- steel structure collapse by fires -- struck them as unusual, i.e. outside their training and experience. Two opposite interpretations of a quote tells me the quote is highly ambiguous. Forcing one interpretation into the article violates NPOV. Plus, the source website removed the quote, which is akin to a retraction or correction. Can any editors give better reason to keep than "they once said it, so it's relevant"? That doesn't solve the conflicting interpretations, ambiguity, non-NPOV problems.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your objections are contrary to Wikipedia policy. They had said it, and it's clearly relevant to their views, although the exact meaning may be uncertain.  We can note that it's no longer on their web site, without claiming it was withdrawn, because there's no specific statement that it was withdrawn.  As a question of fact, controlled demolition is within the scope of a structural engineer's job, so the statement (true or false) is relevant to either their views or the competence, even if it were withdrawn.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, AR, but I can't see how the quote is "clearly relevant to their views" if it generates contradictory interpretations across the board. Massive ambiguity is not "clearly relevant". Nor is it helpful to users of encyclopedias. But if my objections truly are contradictory to WP policy, please explain with specifics. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me for trying one last time. Can any editor here defend the quote on sound encyclopedic grounds? That is, can they show that the quote is NOT highly ambiguous? And can they explain how a confusing/ambiguous source quote improves the quality of the article? Case for deletion is very clear - the source quote is confusing/ambiguous (as demonstrated by opposing interpretations in this thread), it is cherry-picked out of context in a misleading way, and has been removed/retracted from source site. Before I delete it on those encyclopedic grounds, I want to make sure that the quote's defenders have a chance to articulate its encyclopedic merits, if there are any. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I've tried to address those points. That you don't find that explanation satisfactory is evident, but there's not much more we can say other than that we disagree. There is clearly not consensus for the quote to be removed at present. If you want to get further input then there are other avenues to go to - WP:RSN, WP:RFC. Quantpole (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Quantpole.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, clearly there's no consensus to either delete the quote OR keep the quote. Since that question's at an impasse, may I suggest that we take the quote in fuller context? In its current form, the quote is incorrect and violates NPOV. Here's what I mean. Current form:

The group has stated on February 13, 2008, that analyzing building demolitions are "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience."

However, the original quote says nothing about "analyzing building demolitions". Quantpole, who supports keeping the quote, has conceded that its current use is incorrect and needs fixing. I'd propose taking the full original quote. Like this:

The group has stated on February 13, 2008, that "the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

Full quote will fix the non-NPOV interpretation and will allow WP readers to interpret themselves. Any thoughts before I make that change? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, four weeks later and no objections. So I've added fuller context to quote. Also corrected the date given for the quote (Feb 13, 2008) to match the date as provided by source document (Jan 1, 2007). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)